Why is the state of multiple qubits given by their tensor product?












6














How did we derive that the state we get by $n$ qubits is their tensor product? You can use $n=2$ in the explanation for simplicity.










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    Related: Should it be obvious that independent quantum states are composed by taking the tensor product?
    – Blue
    Nov 18 at 12:43












  • Also related: Simple proof that $(U otimes V)(|xrangle otimes |yrangle) = U|xrangle otimes V|yrangle$?
    – ahelwer
    Nov 18 at 23:47
















6














How did we derive that the state we get by $n$ qubits is their tensor product? You can use $n=2$ in the explanation for simplicity.










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    Related: Should it be obvious that independent quantum states are composed by taking the tensor product?
    – Blue
    Nov 18 at 12:43












  • Also related: Simple proof that $(U otimes V)(|xrangle otimes |yrangle) = U|xrangle otimes V|yrangle$?
    – ahelwer
    Nov 18 at 23:47














6












6








6


2





How did we derive that the state we get by $n$ qubits is their tensor product? You can use $n=2$ in the explanation for simplicity.










share|improve this question















How did we derive that the state we get by $n$ qubits is their tensor product? You can use $n=2$ in the explanation for simplicity.







quantum-state tensor-product






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 23 at 12:48









Blue

5,67021354




5,67021354










asked Nov 18 at 12:13









Archil Zhvania

841215




841215








  • 1




    Related: Should it be obvious that independent quantum states are composed by taking the tensor product?
    – Blue
    Nov 18 at 12:43












  • Also related: Simple proof that $(U otimes V)(|xrangle otimes |yrangle) = U|xrangle otimes V|yrangle$?
    – ahelwer
    Nov 18 at 23:47














  • 1




    Related: Should it be obvious that independent quantum states are composed by taking the tensor product?
    – Blue
    Nov 18 at 12:43












  • Also related: Simple proof that $(U otimes V)(|xrangle otimes |yrangle) = U|xrangle otimes V|yrangle$?
    – ahelwer
    Nov 18 at 23:47








1




1




Related: Should it be obvious that independent quantum states are composed by taking the tensor product?
– Blue
Nov 18 at 12:43






Related: Should it be obvious that independent quantum states are composed by taking the tensor product?
– Blue
Nov 18 at 12:43














Also related: Simple proof that $(U otimes V)(|xrangle otimes |yrangle) = U|xrangle otimes V|yrangle$?
– ahelwer
Nov 18 at 23:47




Also related: Simple proof that $(U otimes V)(|xrangle otimes |yrangle) = U|xrangle otimes V|yrangle$?
– ahelwer
Nov 18 at 23:47










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















4














Perhaps it helps to take a step back and start with something simpler:




why do we tabulate probability amplitudes for state vectors and unitaries?




For a single quantum system with $d$ distinct states, labelled 0 to $d-1$, we associate a complex number $a_i$ with the probability amplitude for being in state $i$. For a unitary, we associate a probability amplitude $U_{ij}$ with transforming an input $j$ into an output $i$. We choose to tabulate these as
$$
U=left(begin{array}{cccc}
U_{00} & U_{21} & ldots & U_{0,d-1} \
U_{10} & U_{11} & ldots \
vdots & vdots & ddots \
U_{d-1,0} & U_{d-1,1} & ldots & U_{d-1,d-1}
end{array}right)qquad |psirangle=left(begin{array}{c} a_0 \ a_1 \ vdots \ a_{d-1} end{array}right)
$$

for the simple reason that calculating $U|psirangle$ takes are of the two axioms of quantum theory that tell us how to calculate the output probability amplitudes:




  • for independent events, the probability amplitude for both events happening is the product of the individual probability amplitudes.

  • for mutually exclusive events, the probability amplitude for either of the two events to happen is the sum of their probability amplitudes.


This puts is in a position to answer




Why is the state of multiple qubits given by their tensor product?




If two quantum systems have distinguishable states $i$ and $j$, then we can choose to label the states of the composition system by $i,j$, meaning that the first system is in state $i$ and the second system is in state $j$. Then, if the two systems start in states
$$
|psirangle=left(begin{array}{c} a_0 \ a_1 \ vdots \ a_{d-1} end{array}right) qquad |phirangle=left(begin{array}{c} b_0 \ b_1 \ vdots \ b_{d-1} end{array}right),
$$

then what's the probability amplitude for the overall system to be in $1,0$, for example? By the independence axiom, it must be $a_1b_0$. Hence, if we tabulate the probability amplitudes using the ordering $00,01,02,03,ldots (0,d-1),10,11,ldots,(1,d-1),20,21,ldots,(d-1,d-1)$, the column vector turns out to be exactly $|psirangleotimes|phirangle$, basically by definition of what the tensor product is. If you do similar things with unitaries $U$ and $V$, you find the composite action is $Uotimes V$, and everything is internally consistent, meaning that the outcome of the combined unitary evolution would be
$$
(Uotimes V)(|psirangleotimes|phirangle)=(U|psirangle)otimes(V|phirangle),
$$

as was explicitly checked here.






share|improve this answer





























    3














    This assertion is an axiom of quantum mechanics. It appears, for example, as Postulate 4 on page 94 of Nielsen and Chuang.



    It is considered to be one of the Dirac-von Neuman axioms of quantum mechanics.



    However, when the quantum system's Hilbert space is defined as the space of $l^2$ functions on some set, then when the set is a Cartesian product, the corresponding Hilbert space becomes a tensor product. For example, when you put spins on a lattice $Lambda$ as in Kitaev's surface code, then the Systems Hilbert space is:
    $$l^2(underline{2}^{Lambda}) = bigotimes_{Lambda} mathbb{C}^2$$
    Or, when you quantize a system of two particles moving on the line $mathbb{R}$, the individual particle Hilbert space is $ L^2(mathbb{R})$ and the composite system Hilbert space is $L^2(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R}) $. It is known that
    $$L^2(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R}) = L^2(mathbb{R}) bigotimes L^2(mathbb{R}),$$
    Even though a specific basis of the tensor product $L^2(mathbb{R}) bigotimes L^2(mathbb{R})$ does not include the entangled states in $L^2(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R})$, these states can be constructed from combinations of this basis.



    However, the above explanation doesn't prove the assertions; it only transfers the problem to the classical spaces before quantization. Then why should they be taken as Cartesian products?



    Many authors analyzed this problem from the quantum logic point of view, see for example
    Aerts and Daubechies. These attempts intend to find a logical equivalent to the above axiom and not to prove it.






    share|improve this answer































      1














      I'll attempt here to provide a physical justification for why tensor products are the natural way to describe systems comprised of a number of different subsystems (e.g. a number of qubits).
      The takeaway message is that tensor products, while not strictly necessary, are a natural choice when dealing with local operations.



      First of all, it is important to notice that it is not strictly necessary to use tensor products at all to describe any kind of quantum mechanical system.
      It just so happens that not using them makes things much more complicated and inelegant that they could be.



      By this, I mean that we can describe, say, the state of an $N$-qubit system, as a $2^N$-dimensional complex vector (a $2^N$-dimensional qudit if you prefer) with no tensor product structure. If you choose to describe things this way, unitary operations, as well as any other operator acting on states, become $2^Ntimes 2^N$ matrices.



      However, if we are talking of "$N$ qubits", instead of simply a single system with many degrees of freedom, we are implicitly assuming that we will deal with local operations. Local operations are operations that act only on some subset of the degrees of freedom of the system, leaving the rest untouched.



      More generally, if you have a system which is composed of two subsystems, each of which can be in one of a number of different states, it is only natural to describe the whole system in terms of the states of the single subsystems. Therefore, if the first system can be in one of the states $i=1,2,...,N$ and the second system in one of $j=1,2,...,M$, then a natural choice for the basis states of the whole system is the set of $NM$ pairs $(i,j)$.



      Consider as a toy example a system with $N=6$ degrees of freedom (a $6$-dimensional qudit), which is obtained by combining a $3$-dimensional system with a $2$-dimensional one. Without tensor products, it is awkward to describe a local operation acting only on the first subsystem: states would be described as single-index vectors $psi_iinmathbb C$, $i=1,...,6$ and operations as matrices $mathcal U_{ij}$ with $i,j=1,...,6$, and a local operation would be some $mathcal U$ such that $mathcal U_{ij}$ is always zero when $i$ and $j$ are indices corresponding to two different states of the second subsystem, assuming some conventional way to arrange the indices.
      On the other hand, if you describe the state as an object $psi_{ij}inmathbb C$ with $i=1,2,3$ describing the states of the first subsystem and $j=1,2$ describing the state of the second subsystem, an operation $mathcal U$ acting locally on the first subsystem is naturally written as one satisfying $mathcal U_{ij,kl}=U_{ij}delta_{kl}$ for some unitary $U$.



      One can then proceed with building the mathematical infrastructure to reason formally about tensor product spaces etc., but from a physical perspective, this is all there is to it. It is a convenient way to describe systems which are comprised of subsystems in such a way that it is natural to describe the state of the whole system via the tuples of states of the subsystems.






      share|improve this answer





















        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        });
        });
        }, "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "694"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquantumcomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f4754%2fwhy-is-the-state-of-multiple-qubits-given-by-their-tensor-product%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes








        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        4














        Perhaps it helps to take a step back and start with something simpler:




        why do we tabulate probability amplitudes for state vectors and unitaries?




        For a single quantum system with $d$ distinct states, labelled 0 to $d-1$, we associate a complex number $a_i$ with the probability amplitude for being in state $i$. For a unitary, we associate a probability amplitude $U_{ij}$ with transforming an input $j$ into an output $i$. We choose to tabulate these as
        $$
        U=left(begin{array}{cccc}
        U_{00} & U_{21} & ldots & U_{0,d-1} \
        U_{10} & U_{11} & ldots \
        vdots & vdots & ddots \
        U_{d-1,0} & U_{d-1,1} & ldots & U_{d-1,d-1}
        end{array}right)qquad |psirangle=left(begin{array}{c} a_0 \ a_1 \ vdots \ a_{d-1} end{array}right)
        $$

        for the simple reason that calculating $U|psirangle$ takes are of the two axioms of quantum theory that tell us how to calculate the output probability amplitudes:




        • for independent events, the probability amplitude for both events happening is the product of the individual probability amplitudes.

        • for mutually exclusive events, the probability amplitude for either of the two events to happen is the sum of their probability amplitudes.


        This puts is in a position to answer




        Why is the state of multiple qubits given by their tensor product?




        If two quantum systems have distinguishable states $i$ and $j$, then we can choose to label the states of the composition system by $i,j$, meaning that the first system is in state $i$ and the second system is in state $j$. Then, if the two systems start in states
        $$
        |psirangle=left(begin{array}{c} a_0 \ a_1 \ vdots \ a_{d-1} end{array}right) qquad |phirangle=left(begin{array}{c} b_0 \ b_1 \ vdots \ b_{d-1} end{array}right),
        $$

        then what's the probability amplitude for the overall system to be in $1,0$, for example? By the independence axiom, it must be $a_1b_0$. Hence, if we tabulate the probability amplitudes using the ordering $00,01,02,03,ldots (0,d-1),10,11,ldots,(1,d-1),20,21,ldots,(d-1,d-1)$, the column vector turns out to be exactly $|psirangleotimes|phirangle$, basically by definition of what the tensor product is. If you do similar things with unitaries $U$ and $V$, you find the composite action is $Uotimes V$, and everything is internally consistent, meaning that the outcome of the combined unitary evolution would be
        $$
        (Uotimes V)(|psirangleotimes|phirangle)=(U|psirangle)otimes(V|phirangle),
        $$

        as was explicitly checked here.






        share|improve this answer


























          4














          Perhaps it helps to take a step back and start with something simpler:




          why do we tabulate probability amplitudes for state vectors and unitaries?




          For a single quantum system with $d$ distinct states, labelled 0 to $d-1$, we associate a complex number $a_i$ with the probability amplitude for being in state $i$. For a unitary, we associate a probability amplitude $U_{ij}$ with transforming an input $j$ into an output $i$. We choose to tabulate these as
          $$
          U=left(begin{array}{cccc}
          U_{00} & U_{21} & ldots & U_{0,d-1} \
          U_{10} & U_{11} & ldots \
          vdots & vdots & ddots \
          U_{d-1,0} & U_{d-1,1} & ldots & U_{d-1,d-1}
          end{array}right)qquad |psirangle=left(begin{array}{c} a_0 \ a_1 \ vdots \ a_{d-1} end{array}right)
          $$

          for the simple reason that calculating $U|psirangle$ takes are of the two axioms of quantum theory that tell us how to calculate the output probability amplitudes:




          • for independent events, the probability amplitude for both events happening is the product of the individual probability amplitudes.

          • for mutually exclusive events, the probability amplitude for either of the two events to happen is the sum of their probability amplitudes.


          This puts is in a position to answer




          Why is the state of multiple qubits given by their tensor product?




          If two quantum systems have distinguishable states $i$ and $j$, then we can choose to label the states of the composition system by $i,j$, meaning that the first system is in state $i$ and the second system is in state $j$. Then, if the two systems start in states
          $$
          |psirangle=left(begin{array}{c} a_0 \ a_1 \ vdots \ a_{d-1} end{array}right) qquad |phirangle=left(begin{array}{c} b_0 \ b_1 \ vdots \ b_{d-1} end{array}right),
          $$

          then what's the probability amplitude for the overall system to be in $1,0$, for example? By the independence axiom, it must be $a_1b_0$. Hence, if we tabulate the probability amplitudes using the ordering $00,01,02,03,ldots (0,d-1),10,11,ldots,(1,d-1),20,21,ldots,(d-1,d-1)$, the column vector turns out to be exactly $|psirangleotimes|phirangle$, basically by definition of what the tensor product is. If you do similar things with unitaries $U$ and $V$, you find the composite action is $Uotimes V$, and everything is internally consistent, meaning that the outcome of the combined unitary evolution would be
          $$
          (Uotimes V)(|psirangleotimes|phirangle)=(U|psirangle)otimes(V|phirangle),
          $$

          as was explicitly checked here.






          share|improve this answer
























            4












            4








            4






            Perhaps it helps to take a step back and start with something simpler:




            why do we tabulate probability amplitudes for state vectors and unitaries?




            For a single quantum system with $d$ distinct states, labelled 0 to $d-1$, we associate a complex number $a_i$ with the probability amplitude for being in state $i$. For a unitary, we associate a probability amplitude $U_{ij}$ with transforming an input $j$ into an output $i$. We choose to tabulate these as
            $$
            U=left(begin{array}{cccc}
            U_{00} & U_{21} & ldots & U_{0,d-1} \
            U_{10} & U_{11} & ldots \
            vdots & vdots & ddots \
            U_{d-1,0} & U_{d-1,1} & ldots & U_{d-1,d-1}
            end{array}right)qquad |psirangle=left(begin{array}{c} a_0 \ a_1 \ vdots \ a_{d-1} end{array}right)
            $$

            for the simple reason that calculating $U|psirangle$ takes are of the two axioms of quantum theory that tell us how to calculate the output probability amplitudes:




            • for independent events, the probability amplitude for both events happening is the product of the individual probability amplitudes.

            • for mutually exclusive events, the probability amplitude for either of the two events to happen is the sum of their probability amplitudes.


            This puts is in a position to answer




            Why is the state of multiple qubits given by their tensor product?




            If two quantum systems have distinguishable states $i$ and $j$, then we can choose to label the states of the composition system by $i,j$, meaning that the first system is in state $i$ and the second system is in state $j$. Then, if the two systems start in states
            $$
            |psirangle=left(begin{array}{c} a_0 \ a_1 \ vdots \ a_{d-1} end{array}right) qquad |phirangle=left(begin{array}{c} b_0 \ b_1 \ vdots \ b_{d-1} end{array}right),
            $$

            then what's the probability amplitude for the overall system to be in $1,0$, for example? By the independence axiom, it must be $a_1b_0$. Hence, if we tabulate the probability amplitudes using the ordering $00,01,02,03,ldots (0,d-1),10,11,ldots,(1,d-1),20,21,ldots,(d-1,d-1)$, the column vector turns out to be exactly $|psirangleotimes|phirangle$, basically by definition of what the tensor product is. If you do similar things with unitaries $U$ and $V$, you find the composite action is $Uotimes V$, and everything is internally consistent, meaning that the outcome of the combined unitary evolution would be
            $$
            (Uotimes V)(|psirangleotimes|phirangle)=(U|psirangle)otimes(V|phirangle),
            $$

            as was explicitly checked here.






            share|improve this answer












            Perhaps it helps to take a step back and start with something simpler:




            why do we tabulate probability amplitudes for state vectors and unitaries?




            For a single quantum system with $d$ distinct states, labelled 0 to $d-1$, we associate a complex number $a_i$ with the probability amplitude for being in state $i$. For a unitary, we associate a probability amplitude $U_{ij}$ with transforming an input $j$ into an output $i$. We choose to tabulate these as
            $$
            U=left(begin{array}{cccc}
            U_{00} & U_{21} & ldots & U_{0,d-1} \
            U_{10} & U_{11} & ldots \
            vdots & vdots & ddots \
            U_{d-1,0} & U_{d-1,1} & ldots & U_{d-1,d-1}
            end{array}right)qquad |psirangle=left(begin{array}{c} a_0 \ a_1 \ vdots \ a_{d-1} end{array}right)
            $$

            for the simple reason that calculating $U|psirangle$ takes are of the two axioms of quantum theory that tell us how to calculate the output probability amplitudes:




            • for independent events, the probability amplitude for both events happening is the product of the individual probability amplitudes.

            • for mutually exclusive events, the probability amplitude for either of the two events to happen is the sum of their probability amplitudes.


            This puts is in a position to answer




            Why is the state of multiple qubits given by their tensor product?




            If two quantum systems have distinguishable states $i$ and $j$, then we can choose to label the states of the composition system by $i,j$, meaning that the first system is in state $i$ and the second system is in state $j$. Then, if the two systems start in states
            $$
            |psirangle=left(begin{array}{c} a_0 \ a_1 \ vdots \ a_{d-1} end{array}right) qquad |phirangle=left(begin{array}{c} b_0 \ b_1 \ vdots \ b_{d-1} end{array}right),
            $$

            then what's the probability amplitude for the overall system to be in $1,0$, for example? By the independence axiom, it must be $a_1b_0$. Hence, if we tabulate the probability amplitudes using the ordering $00,01,02,03,ldots (0,d-1),10,11,ldots,(1,d-1),20,21,ldots,(d-1,d-1)$, the column vector turns out to be exactly $|psirangleotimes|phirangle$, basically by definition of what the tensor product is. If you do similar things with unitaries $U$ and $V$, you find the composite action is $Uotimes V$, and everything is internally consistent, meaning that the outcome of the combined unitary evolution would be
            $$
            (Uotimes V)(|psirangleotimes|phirangle)=(U|psirangle)otimes(V|phirangle),
            $$

            as was explicitly checked here.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Nov 19 at 8:12









            DaftWullie

            12k1537




            12k1537

























                3














                This assertion is an axiom of quantum mechanics. It appears, for example, as Postulate 4 on page 94 of Nielsen and Chuang.



                It is considered to be one of the Dirac-von Neuman axioms of quantum mechanics.



                However, when the quantum system's Hilbert space is defined as the space of $l^2$ functions on some set, then when the set is a Cartesian product, the corresponding Hilbert space becomes a tensor product. For example, when you put spins on a lattice $Lambda$ as in Kitaev's surface code, then the Systems Hilbert space is:
                $$l^2(underline{2}^{Lambda}) = bigotimes_{Lambda} mathbb{C}^2$$
                Or, when you quantize a system of two particles moving on the line $mathbb{R}$, the individual particle Hilbert space is $ L^2(mathbb{R})$ and the composite system Hilbert space is $L^2(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R}) $. It is known that
                $$L^2(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R}) = L^2(mathbb{R}) bigotimes L^2(mathbb{R}),$$
                Even though a specific basis of the tensor product $L^2(mathbb{R}) bigotimes L^2(mathbb{R})$ does not include the entangled states in $L^2(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R})$, these states can be constructed from combinations of this basis.



                However, the above explanation doesn't prove the assertions; it only transfers the problem to the classical spaces before quantization. Then why should they be taken as Cartesian products?



                Many authors analyzed this problem from the quantum logic point of view, see for example
                Aerts and Daubechies. These attempts intend to find a logical equivalent to the above axiom and not to prove it.






                share|improve this answer




























                  3














                  This assertion is an axiom of quantum mechanics. It appears, for example, as Postulate 4 on page 94 of Nielsen and Chuang.



                  It is considered to be one of the Dirac-von Neuman axioms of quantum mechanics.



                  However, when the quantum system's Hilbert space is defined as the space of $l^2$ functions on some set, then when the set is a Cartesian product, the corresponding Hilbert space becomes a tensor product. For example, when you put spins on a lattice $Lambda$ as in Kitaev's surface code, then the Systems Hilbert space is:
                  $$l^2(underline{2}^{Lambda}) = bigotimes_{Lambda} mathbb{C}^2$$
                  Or, when you quantize a system of two particles moving on the line $mathbb{R}$, the individual particle Hilbert space is $ L^2(mathbb{R})$ and the composite system Hilbert space is $L^2(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R}) $. It is known that
                  $$L^2(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R}) = L^2(mathbb{R}) bigotimes L^2(mathbb{R}),$$
                  Even though a specific basis of the tensor product $L^2(mathbb{R}) bigotimes L^2(mathbb{R})$ does not include the entangled states in $L^2(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R})$, these states can be constructed from combinations of this basis.



                  However, the above explanation doesn't prove the assertions; it only transfers the problem to the classical spaces before quantization. Then why should they be taken as Cartesian products?



                  Many authors analyzed this problem from the quantum logic point of view, see for example
                  Aerts and Daubechies. These attempts intend to find a logical equivalent to the above axiom and not to prove it.






                  share|improve this answer


























                    3












                    3








                    3






                    This assertion is an axiom of quantum mechanics. It appears, for example, as Postulate 4 on page 94 of Nielsen and Chuang.



                    It is considered to be one of the Dirac-von Neuman axioms of quantum mechanics.



                    However, when the quantum system's Hilbert space is defined as the space of $l^2$ functions on some set, then when the set is a Cartesian product, the corresponding Hilbert space becomes a tensor product. For example, when you put spins on a lattice $Lambda$ as in Kitaev's surface code, then the Systems Hilbert space is:
                    $$l^2(underline{2}^{Lambda}) = bigotimes_{Lambda} mathbb{C}^2$$
                    Or, when you quantize a system of two particles moving on the line $mathbb{R}$, the individual particle Hilbert space is $ L^2(mathbb{R})$ and the composite system Hilbert space is $L^2(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R}) $. It is known that
                    $$L^2(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R}) = L^2(mathbb{R}) bigotimes L^2(mathbb{R}),$$
                    Even though a specific basis of the tensor product $L^2(mathbb{R}) bigotimes L^2(mathbb{R})$ does not include the entangled states in $L^2(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R})$, these states can be constructed from combinations of this basis.



                    However, the above explanation doesn't prove the assertions; it only transfers the problem to the classical spaces before quantization. Then why should they be taken as Cartesian products?



                    Many authors analyzed this problem from the quantum logic point of view, see for example
                    Aerts and Daubechies. These attempts intend to find a logical equivalent to the above axiom and not to prove it.






                    share|improve this answer














                    This assertion is an axiom of quantum mechanics. It appears, for example, as Postulate 4 on page 94 of Nielsen and Chuang.



                    It is considered to be one of the Dirac-von Neuman axioms of quantum mechanics.



                    However, when the quantum system's Hilbert space is defined as the space of $l^2$ functions on some set, then when the set is a Cartesian product, the corresponding Hilbert space becomes a tensor product. For example, when you put spins on a lattice $Lambda$ as in Kitaev's surface code, then the Systems Hilbert space is:
                    $$l^2(underline{2}^{Lambda}) = bigotimes_{Lambda} mathbb{C}^2$$
                    Or, when you quantize a system of two particles moving on the line $mathbb{R}$, the individual particle Hilbert space is $ L^2(mathbb{R})$ and the composite system Hilbert space is $L^2(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R}) $. It is known that
                    $$L^2(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R}) = L^2(mathbb{R}) bigotimes L^2(mathbb{R}),$$
                    Even though a specific basis of the tensor product $L^2(mathbb{R}) bigotimes L^2(mathbb{R})$ does not include the entangled states in $L^2(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R})$, these states can be constructed from combinations of this basis.



                    However, the above explanation doesn't prove the assertions; it only transfers the problem to the classical spaces before quantization. Then why should they be taken as Cartesian products?



                    Many authors analyzed this problem from the quantum logic point of view, see for example
                    Aerts and Daubechies. These attempts intend to find a logical equivalent to the above axiom and not to prove it.







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited Nov 18 at 18:36

























                    answered Nov 18 at 15:45









                    David Bar Moshe

                    1,0647




                    1,0647























                        1














                        I'll attempt here to provide a physical justification for why tensor products are the natural way to describe systems comprised of a number of different subsystems (e.g. a number of qubits).
                        The takeaway message is that tensor products, while not strictly necessary, are a natural choice when dealing with local operations.



                        First of all, it is important to notice that it is not strictly necessary to use tensor products at all to describe any kind of quantum mechanical system.
                        It just so happens that not using them makes things much more complicated and inelegant that they could be.



                        By this, I mean that we can describe, say, the state of an $N$-qubit system, as a $2^N$-dimensional complex vector (a $2^N$-dimensional qudit if you prefer) with no tensor product structure. If you choose to describe things this way, unitary operations, as well as any other operator acting on states, become $2^Ntimes 2^N$ matrices.



                        However, if we are talking of "$N$ qubits", instead of simply a single system with many degrees of freedom, we are implicitly assuming that we will deal with local operations. Local operations are operations that act only on some subset of the degrees of freedom of the system, leaving the rest untouched.



                        More generally, if you have a system which is composed of two subsystems, each of which can be in one of a number of different states, it is only natural to describe the whole system in terms of the states of the single subsystems. Therefore, if the first system can be in one of the states $i=1,2,...,N$ and the second system in one of $j=1,2,...,M$, then a natural choice for the basis states of the whole system is the set of $NM$ pairs $(i,j)$.



                        Consider as a toy example a system with $N=6$ degrees of freedom (a $6$-dimensional qudit), which is obtained by combining a $3$-dimensional system with a $2$-dimensional one. Without tensor products, it is awkward to describe a local operation acting only on the first subsystem: states would be described as single-index vectors $psi_iinmathbb C$, $i=1,...,6$ and operations as matrices $mathcal U_{ij}$ with $i,j=1,...,6$, and a local operation would be some $mathcal U$ such that $mathcal U_{ij}$ is always zero when $i$ and $j$ are indices corresponding to two different states of the second subsystem, assuming some conventional way to arrange the indices.
                        On the other hand, if you describe the state as an object $psi_{ij}inmathbb C$ with $i=1,2,3$ describing the states of the first subsystem and $j=1,2$ describing the state of the second subsystem, an operation $mathcal U$ acting locally on the first subsystem is naturally written as one satisfying $mathcal U_{ij,kl}=U_{ij}delta_{kl}$ for some unitary $U$.



                        One can then proceed with building the mathematical infrastructure to reason formally about tensor product spaces etc., but from a physical perspective, this is all there is to it. It is a convenient way to describe systems which are comprised of subsystems in such a way that it is natural to describe the state of the whole system via the tuples of states of the subsystems.






                        share|improve this answer


























                          1














                          I'll attempt here to provide a physical justification for why tensor products are the natural way to describe systems comprised of a number of different subsystems (e.g. a number of qubits).
                          The takeaway message is that tensor products, while not strictly necessary, are a natural choice when dealing with local operations.



                          First of all, it is important to notice that it is not strictly necessary to use tensor products at all to describe any kind of quantum mechanical system.
                          It just so happens that not using them makes things much more complicated and inelegant that they could be.



                          By this, I mean that we can describe, say, the state of an $N$-qubit system, as a $2^N$-dimensional complex vector (a $2^N$-dimensional qudit if you prefer) with no tensor product structure. If you choose to describe things this way, unitary operations, as well as any other operator acting on states, become $2^Ntimes 2^N$ matrices.



                          However, if we are talking of "$N$ qubits", instead of simply a single system with many degrees of freedom, we are implicitly assuming that we will deal with local operations. Local operations are operations that act only on some subset of the degrees of freedom of the system, leaving the rest untouched.



                          More generally, if you have a system which is composed of two subsystems, each of which can be in one of a number of different states, it is only natural to describe the whole system in terms of the states of the single subsystems. Therefore, if the first system can be in one of the states $i=1,2,...,N$ and the second system in one of $j=1,2,...,M$, then a natural choice for the basis states of the whole system is the set of $NM$ pairs $(i,j)$.



                          Consider as a toy example a system with $N=6$ degrees of freedom (a $6$-dimensional qudit), which is obtained by combining a $3$-dimensional system with a $2$-dimensional one. Without tensor products, it is awkward to describe a local operation acting only on the first subsystem: states would be described as single-index vectors $psi_iinmathbb C$, $i=1,...,6$ and operations as matrices $mathcal U_{ij}$ with $i,j=1,...,6$, and a local operation would be some $mathcal U$ such that $mathcal U_{ij}$ is always zero when $i$ and $j$ are indices corresponding to two different states of the second subsystem, assuming some conventional way to arrange the indices.
                          On the other hand, if you describe the state as an object $psi_{ij}inmathbb C$ with $i=1,2,3$ describing the states of the first subsystem and $j=1,2$ describing the state of the second subsystem, an operation $mathcal U$ acting locally on the first subsystem is naturally written as one satisfying $mathcal U_{ij,kl}=U_{ij}delta_{kl}$ for some unitary $U$.



                          One can then proceed with building the mathematical infrastructure to reason formally about tensor product spaces etc., but from a physical perspective, this is all there is to it. It is a convenient way to describe systems which are comprised of subsystems in such a way that it is natural to describe the state of the whole system via the tuples of states of the subsystems.






                          share|improve this answer
























                            1












                            1








                            1






                            I'll attempt here to provide a physical justification for why tensor products are the natural way to describe systems comprised of a number of different subsystems (e.g. a number of qubits).
                            The takeaway message is that tensor products, while not strictly necessary, are a natural choice when dealing with local operations.



                            First of all, it is important to notice that it is not strictly necessary to use tensor products at all to describe any kind of quantum mechanical system.
                            It just so happens that not using them makes things much more complicated and inelegant that they could be.



                            By this, I mean that we can describe, say, the state of an $N$-qubit system, as a $2^N$-dimensional complex vector (a $2^N$-dimensional qudit if you prefer) with no tensor product structure. If you choose to describe things this way, unitary operations, as well as any other operator acting on states, become $2^Ntimes 2^N$ matrices.



                            However, if we are talking of "$N$ qubits", instead of simply a single system with many degrees of freedom, we are implicitly assuming that we will deal with local operations. Local operations are operations that act only on some subset of the degrees of freedom of the system, leaving the rest untouched.



                            More generally, if you have a system which is composed of two subsystems, each of which can be in one of a number of different states, it is only natural to describe the whole system in terms of the states of the single subsystems. Therefore, if the first system can be in one of the states $i=1,2,...,N$ and the second system in one of $j=1,2,...,M$, then a natural choice for the basis states of the whole system is the set of $NM$ pairs $(i,j)$.



                            Consider as a toy example a system with $N=6$ degrees of freedom (a $6$-dimensional qudit), which is obtained by combining a $3$-dimensional system with a $2$-dimensional one. Without tensor products, it is awkward to describe a local operation acting only on the first subsystem: states would be described as single-index vectors $psi_iinmathbb C$, $i=1,...,6$ and operations as matrices $mathcal U_{ij}$ with $i,j=1,...,6$, and a local operation would be some $mathcal U$ such that $mathcal U_{ij}$ is always zero when $i$ and $j$ are indices corresponding to two different states of the second subsystem, assuming some conventional way to arrange the indices.
                            On the other hand, if you describe the state as an object $psi_{ij}inmathbb C$ with $i=1,2,3$ describing the states of the first subsystem and $j=1,2$ describing the state of the second subsystem, an operation $mathcal U$ acting locally on the first subsystem is naturally written as one satisfying $mathcal U_{ij,kl}=U_{ij}delta_{kl}$ for some unitary $U$.



                            One can then proceed with building the mathematical infrastructure to reason formally about tensor product spaces etc., but from a physical perspective, this is all there is to it. It is a convenient way to describe systems which are comprised of subsystems in such a way that it is natural to describe the state of the whole system via the tuples of states of the subsystems.






                            share|improve this answer












                            I'll attempt here to provide a physical justification for why tensor products are the natural way to describe systems comprised of a number of different subsystems (e.g. a number of qubits).
                            The takeaway message is that tensor products, while not strictly necessary, are a natural choice when dealing with local operations.



                            First of all, it is important to notice that it is not strictly necessary to use tensor products at all to describe any kind of quantum mechanical system.
                            It just so happens that not using them makes things much more complicated and inelegant that they could be.



                            By this, I mean that we can describe, say, the state of an $N$-qubit system, as a $2^N$-dimensional complex vector (a $2^N$-dimensional qudit if you prefer) with no tensor product structure. If you choose to describe things this way, unitary operations, as well as any other operator acting on states, become $2^Ntimes 2^N$ matrices.



                            However, if we are talking of "$N$ qubits", instead of simply a single system with many degrees of freedom, we are implicitly assuming that we will deal with local operations. Local operations are operations that act only on some subset of the degrees of freedom of the system, leaving the rest untouched.



                            More generally, if you have a system which is composed of two subsystems, each of which can be in one of a number of different states, it is only natural to describe the whole system in terms of the states of the single subsystems. Therefore, if the first system can be in one of the states $i=1,2,...,N$ and the second system in one of $j=1,2,...,M$, then a natural choice for the basis states of the whole system is the set of $NM$ pairs $(i,j)$.



                            Consider as a toy example a system with $N=6$ degrees of freedom (a $6$-dimensional qudit), which is obtained by combining a $3$-dimensional system with a $2$-dimensional one. Without tensor products, it is awkward to describe a local operation acting only on the first subsystem: states would be described as single-index vectors $psi_iinmathbb C$, $i=1,...,6$ and operations as matrices $mathcal U_{ij}$ with $i,j=1,...,6$, and a local operation would be some $mathcal U$ such that $mathcal U_{ij}$ is always zero when $i$ and $j$ are indices corresponding to two different states of the second subsystem, assuming some conventional way to arrange the indices.
                            On the other hand, if you describe the state as an object $psi_{ij}inmathbb C$ with $i=1,2,3$ describing the states of the first subsystem and $j=1,2$ describing the state of the second subsystem, an operation $mathcal U$ acting locally on the first subsystem is naturally written as one satisfying $mathcal U_{ij,kl}=U_{ij}delta_{kl}$ for some unitary $U$.



                            One can then proceed with building the mathematical infrastructure to reason formally about tensor product spaces etc., but from a physical perspective, this is all there is to it. It is a convenient way to describe systems which are comprised of subsystems in such a way that it is natural to describe the state of the whole system via the tuples of states of the subsystems.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered Nov 19 at 16:47









                            glS

                            3,566437




                            3,566437






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Quantum Computing Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquantumcomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f4754%2fwhy-is-the-state-of-multiple-qubits-given-by-their-tensor-product%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

                                How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

                                QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater