Difference between different Quantum states with the same result - quantum-computing

What is the practical and theoretical difference is between these 3 states, which ultimately produce the same output result.
Could you tell me some examples of different results obtained starting from these 3 states and doing the same operations below.
The concept is unclear to me.
Thank you
|0> -> RY(pi/2) -> RX(pi) -> cnot q[0] q[1]
|0> -> RX(pi/2) -> cnot q[0] q[1]
|0> -> H -> cnot q[0] q[1]

Not all of these states are the same, assuming that you're talking about the single-qubit states obtained before application of the CNOT gate (otherwise please specify which single-qubit gates are applied to which qubit in the 2-qubit state).
The last state is H|0⟩ = 1/sqrt(2) (|0⟩ + |1⟩).
The first state ends up being the same state, up to a global phase, which means there is no way to observe a difference between these two states.
But the second state is 1/sqrt(2) (|0⟩ - i|1⟩), which behaves differently.
To observe the difference between the second and the last states, apply a Hadamard gate to both and measure them multiple times: you'll always get 0 result for the last state, but you'll get both 0 and 1 for the second state.
To quickly run this experiment, you can use Q#: running the following snippet will give you ~50 0 measurements for the state prepared using Rx and 100 0 measurements for the state prepared using H.
open Microsoft.Quantum.Diagnostics;
open Microsoft.Quantum.Math;
operation RunTests (prep : (Qubit => Unit)) : Unit {
mutable n0 = 0;
use q = Qubit();
for _ in 1 .. 100 {
// Prepare the qubit in the given state.
prep(q);
// Apply Hadamard gate and measure.
H(q);
if M(q) == Zero {
set n0 += 1;
}
Reset(q);
}
Message($"{n0} zeros measured");
}
operation QubitsDemo () : Unit {
RunTests(Rx(PI() / 2.0, _));
RunTests(H);
}

Related

Implement quantum teleportation in qiskit

I am trying to implement the quantum teleportation protocol from the qiskit textbook in qiskit:
I start with q_0 bit = 1 and I expect that q_3 = 1 at the end but it does not work.
from qiskit import *
qc = QuantumCircuit(3, 3)
qc.x(0) #q -> 1
qc.barrier()
qc.h(1)
qc.cx(1, 2)
qc.barrier()
# Next, apply the teleportation protocol.
qc.cx(0, 1)
qc.h(0)
qc.barrier()
# We measure these qubits and use the classical results to perform an operation
qc.measure(0, 0)
qc.measure(1, 1)
qc.cx(1, 2)
qc.cz(0, 2)
#qc.barrier()
backend = Aer.get_backend('qasm_simulator')
job = execute(qc, backend, shots=1, memory=True).result()
result = job.get_memory()[0]
qc.measure(2, 2)
print(job.get_memory()[0]) #q = 0
It looks like it is working as intended. In the textbook, it says towards the end of the code cell:
In principle, if the teleportation protocol worked, we have q[2] = secret_unitary|0>
As a result, we should be able to recover q[2] = |0> by applying the reverse of secret_unitary
since for a unitary u, u^dagger u = I.
You had your secret_unitary as 'x', which does in fact change Alice's first qubit to 1. But, at the end of the circuit, the dagger of the secret_unitary is applied, cancelling the original application of the secret_unitary. You should expect to see 0 for q[2], as that means that the state from q[0] (in this case, 1) was successfully teleported to q[2], and then brought back to 0 by the dagger of the secret_unitary.
From your code, I have got the circuit. I think the reason that can not get q_3 rightly. Is " Qubit measurement is followed by instructions".After the measurement, you can't do operations anymore.
But I'm not sure this is the reason or not.

Quantum V gate 1/sqrt(5) ( I + 2iZ)

By definition, the gate 1/sqrt(5) (I + 2iZ) should act on a qubit a|0> + b|1> to transform it into 1/sqrt(5) ((1+2i)a|0> + (1-2i)b|1>) but transformations of each RUS step does the following-
The ancillas are in |+> state at first
Starting form: 1/sqrt(2) (a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b)
CCNOT(ancillas, input): 1/sqrt(2) (a,b,a,b,a,b,b,a)
S(input): 1/sqrt(2) (a,ib,a,ib,a,ib,b,ia)
CCNOT(ancillas, input): 1/sqrt(2) (a,ib,a,ib,a,ib,ia,b)
Z(input) : 1/sqrt(2) (a,-ib,a,-ib,a,-ib,ia,-b)
Now measuring the ancillas in PauliX basis is equivalent to PauliZ measurement after applying H() to the state. Now I have 2 confusions, should I apply H x H x I or H x H x H to the combined state. Also neither of these transformations turn out to be equivalent to the V-gate defined in the first paragraph when both measurements are Zero. Where did I go wrong?
Reference: https://github.com/microsoft/Quantum/blob/master/samples/diagnostics/unit-testing/RepeatUntilSuccessCircuits.qs (1st sample code)
The transformation is correct, though it takes some time with pen and paper to verify it.
As a side note, we start with a state |+>|+>(a|0> + b|1>), which is 0.5 (a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b) in vector form (both |+> states contribute a 1/sqrt(2) to the coefficients). It will not affect our calculations of the state after the measurement, since it will have to be renormalized, but it's still worth noting.
After a sequence of CCNOT, S, CCNOT, Z we get 0.5 (a,-ib,a,-ib,a,-ib,ia,-b). Since we're measuring only the first two qubits in PauliX basis, we need to apply Hadamards only to the first two qubits, or H x H x I to the combined state.
I'll take the liberty to skip writing out the whole expression after applying Hadamards and fast-forward to the results of measurements, and here is why. We're only interested in the state of the input qubit if both measurements yielded 0, so it's sufficient to gather only the terms of the overall state which have |00> as the state of the first two qubits.
The state of the third qubit after measuring |00> on the first qubit will be: (3+i)a |0> - (3i+1)b |1>, multiplied by some normalization coefficient c.
c = 1/sqrt(|3+i|^2 + |3i+1|^2) = 1/sqrt(10)).
Now we need to check whether the state we got, |S_actual> = 1/sqrt(10) ((3+i)a |0> - (3i+1)b |1>)
is the same state as we'd expect to get from applying the V gate,
|S_expected> = 1/sqrt(5) ((1+2i)a |0> + (1-2i)b |1>). They do not look the same, but remember that in quantum computing the states are defined up to a global phase. Thus, if we can find a complex number p with an absolute value 1 for which |S_actual> = p * |S_expected>, the states will be effectively the same.
This translates into the following equations for p and amplitudes of |0> and |1>: (3+i)/sqrt(2) = p (1+2i) and -(3i+1)/sqrt(2) = p (1-2i). We solve both equations to get p = (1-i)/sqrt(2) which has indeed the absolute value 1.
Thus, we can conclude that indeed the state we got after all the transformations is indeed equivalent to the state we'd get by applying a V gate.

AI : evaluate mass of a spaceship via prod (exert force lightly) and sense change in its velocity

Problem
I have to code AI to find mass of a spaceship in a game.
My AI can exert a little force c to the spaceship, to measure the mass via change of velocity.
However, my AI can access only current position of spaceship ,x, in every time-step.
Mass is not constant, but it is safe to assume that it will not change too fast.
For simplicity :-
Let the space be 1D, and has no gravity.
Timestep is always 1 second.
Forces
There are many forces that exert on the spaceship currently, e.g. gravity, an automatic propulsion system controlled by an unknown AI, collision impulse, etc.
The summation of these forces is b, which depends on t (time).
Acceleration a for a certain timestep is calculated by a game-play formula which is out of my control:-
a = (b+c)/m ................. (1)
The velocity v is updated as:-
v = vOld + a ................. (2)
The position x is updated as:-
x = xOld + v ................. (3)
The order of execution (1)-(3) is also unknown, i.e. AI should not rely on such order.
My poor solution
I will exert c0=0.001 for a few second and compare result against when I exert c1=-0.001.
I would assume that b and m are constant for the time period.
I calculate acceleration via :-
t 0 1 2 3 (Exert force `c0` at `t1`, `c1` at `t2`)
x 0 1 2 3 (The number are points in timeline that I sampling x.)
v 0 1 2 (v0=x1-x0, v1=x2-x1, ... )
a 0 1 (a0=v1-v0, ... )
Now I know acceleration of 2 points of timeline, and I can cache c because I am the one who exert it.
With a = (b+c)/m, with unknown b and m and known a0,a1,c0 and c1:-
a0 = (b+c0)/m
a1 = (b+c1)/m
I can solve them to find b and m.
However, my assumption is wrong at the beginning.
b and m are actually not constants.
This problem might be viewed in a more casual way :-
Many persons are trying to lift a heavy rock.
I am one of them.
How can I measure the mass of the rock (with feeling from my hand) without interrupt them too much?

How does measurement gate work?

I have a state |Q> of n bits and want to measure the bit number i. Is there a matrix to apply on the state, so the state Q ends up to Q', like the Hadamard or X gates?
Or I should apply the measurement matrix |x><x| based on the outcome of the measurement, if 0 then x=0, and if 1 then x=1?
Although we often represent measurement as an operation that applies to a single qubit, it doesn't act like other single-qubit operations. There are some details omitted.
Equivalence w/ CNOT
Measuring a qubit is equivalent to using it as the control for a CNOT that toggles an otherwise unused ancilla qubit. Knowing this equivalence is useful, because it lets you translate what you know about two-qubit unitary operations into facts about measurement.
Here's a circuit showing that a qubit rotated around the Y axis ends up in the same mixed state when you measure as it does when you CNOT-onto-ancilla. The green circle things are Bloch sphere representations of each qubit's marginal state:
(If you want to use this CNOT trick to compute the mixed state result, instead of a pure state, just represent the state as a density matrix then trace over the ancilla qubit after performing the CNOT.)
Basically, measurement is observationally indistinguishable from making entangled copies. The difference, in practical terms, is that measurement is thermodynamically irreversible whereas a CNOT is easy to reverse.
Expected Outcomes
If you ignore the measurement result, then measurement acts like a projection of the density matrix. For example, in the animation above, notice that measurement causes the state to snap to (be projected onto) the Z axis of the Bloch sphere.
If you have access to the measurement result, then the measurement not only projects but also informs you of the new state of the system. In the single-qubit-in-the-computational-basis case, this forces the qubit to be all-ON or all-OFF due to the quantization of spin.
Representation
Measurements can be represented in various ways.
A very common representation is "projective measurements". Projective measurements are represented by a Hermitian matrix (called the "observable"). The eigenvalues of the matrix are the possible results. You get the probability of each result by projecting your state's density matrix into each eigenspace and tracing.
A more flexible and arguably better representation is positive-operator valued measures (POVM measurements). POVMs are represented by a set of squared Hermitian matrices, with the condition that the sum of the set's matrices must be the identity matrix. The probability of the result corresponding to the squared matrix F from the set is the trace of the state's density matrix times F.
Translating a projective measurement into a circuit that performs that measurement (using only computational basis measurements) is straightforward, because the necessary basis change operation is just a unitary matrix whose rows are the eigenvectors of the observable. Translating POVM measurements is trickier, and requires introducing ancilla bits.
For more information, see this answer on the physics stackexchange.
The measurement works as follows:
if you want to measure qubit number i (indexing from 1 to n), then based on the probability associated with all states, the outcome of measuring qubit i is 0 or 1 randomly with higher chance for the higher probability.
P_i(0) = <Q| M'0 M0 |Q>
P_i(1) = <Q| M'1 M1 |Q>
where P_i(0) is the probability of measuring qubit i to be 0, and P_i(1) is the probability of being 1. M0 is the measurment matrix of 0, and M1 is for 1. M'0 is M0 hermitian, and M'1 is M1 hermitian.
if you want to measure only the i-th qubit of the quantum system which is in state |Q> of n qubits. then the operation you would apply is:
I x I x I x I x ... x I x Mb x I x ... x I } n kronecker multiplication
1 2 3 4 ... i-1 i i+1 ... n } indices
where I is the identity matrix, Mb is the measurement matrix based on the measured value of the i-th either b=0, or b=1. x is the kronecker multiplication.
Summary:
pre measurement state |Q>
measurement of qubit i = b (b = 1 or 0 randomly selected based on the probability of each)
if b is 0: Mb = M0 = |0><0|
if b is 1: Mb = M1 = |1><1|
M = I x I x I x ... x I x Mb x I x ... x I
post state |Q'> = M|Q>

Is Wikipedia's Astar reference implementation incomplete? It seems to omit properly updating cheaper paths

I want to implement A* and I looked to Wikipedia for a reference.
It looks like it can fail in the following case. Consider three nodes, A, B, and C.
START -> A -> C -> GOAL
| ^
\-> B
The path costs are:
START -> A : 10
START -> B : 1
B -> A : 1
A -> C : 100
C -> GOAL : 100
Clearly the solution is START -> B -> A -> C -> GOAL but what happens if the heuristic lets us expand A before expanding B?
Our heuristic costs are as follows (note these are all underestimates)
A -> GOAL : 10
B -> GOAL : 50
When A is expanded, the true cost to C will turn out out to be higher than B's heuristic cost, and so B will be expanded before C.
Fine, right?
The problem I see is that when we expand B and replace the datum "A comes from START with cost 10" to "A comes from B with cost 2" we aren't also updating "C comes from A with cost 110" to "C comes from A with cost 102". There is nothing in Wikipedia's pseudocode that looks like it will forward-propagate the cheaper path. Now imagine another node D which can reach C with cost 105, it will erroneously override "C comes from A with cost 110".
Am I reading this wrong or does Wikipedia need to be fixed?
If you are using graph search, i.e. you remember which nodes you visit and you don't allow revisiting the nodes, then your heuristic is not consistent. It says in the article, that for a heuristic to be consistent, following needs to hold:
h(x) <= d(x, y) + h(y) for all adjacent nodes x, y
In your case the assumption h(B) = 50 is inconsistent as d(B -> A) + h(A) = 1 + 10 = 11. Hence your heuristic is inconsistent and A* wouldn't work in this case, as you rightly noticed and as is also mentioned in the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%2a_search_algorithm#Properties.
If you are using tree search, i.e. you allow the algorithm to revisit the nodes, the following will happen:
Add A and B to the queue, score(A) = 10 + 10 = 20, score(B) = 1 + 50 = 51.
Pick A from queue as it has smallest score. Add C to the queue with score(C) = 10 + 100 + h(C).
Pick B from the queue as it is now the smallest. Add A to the queue with score(A) = 2 + 10 = 12.
Pick A from the queue as it is now again smallest. Notice that we are using tree search algorithm, so we can revisit nodes. Add C to the queue with score(C) = 1 + 1 + 100 + h(C).
Now we have 2 elements in the queue, C via A with score 110 + h(C) and C via B and A with score 102 + h(C), so we pick the correct path to C via B and A.
The wikipedia pseudocode is the first case, i.e. graph search. And they indeed state right under the pseudocode that:
Remark: the above pseudocode assumes that the heuristic function is monotonic (or consistent, see below), which is a frequent case in many practical problems, such as the Shortest Distance Path in road networks. However, if the assumption is not true, nodes in the closed set may be rediscovered and their cost improved. In other words, the closed set can be omitted (yielding a tree search algorithm) if a solution is guaranteed to exist, or if the algorithm is adapted so that new nodes are added to the open set only if they have a lower f value than at any previous iteration.

Resources