4
$\begingroup$

I am currently reading papers discussing the Zeno Effect, which discuss how measuring a system at high frequencies can almost freeze the state of a system, or keep the system in a specific subspace of states. This can be easily seen using the projection postulate. Often the topic of decoherence comes up and how limiting the system to evolve in a specific subspace results in protection of information and prevents decoherence. I understand that if the system is limited to a certain subspace probability leakage is limited too, protecting information. What I do not understand is how the the subspace is kept decoherence free. How does limiting the system to a specific subspace prevent decoherence?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe you should give an example of one of these papers... $\endgroup$
    – Rococo
    Commented Mar 26, 2016 at 16:18
  • $\begingroup$ arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3297v1.pdf I understand how we can limit the system to a subspace, but I don't understand why this subspace is decoherence free $\endgroup$
    – e.dave
    Commented Mar 27, 2016 at 10:41
  • $\begingroup$ arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3297v1.pdf This paper discusses modelling a transition out of the wanted subspace as the onset of decoherence. I don't quite understand this model. Why does remaining in the subspace mean that coherence must be preserved? Surely environmental effects can decohere the system even if it stays in the subspace. I guess that's what I'm having trouble with, why decoherence is modeled as a transition out of the subspace. $\endgroup$
    – e.dave
    Commented Mar 27, 2016 at 12:39
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, it appears to me that in that particular example they are modeling the subspace $P_2 H P_2$ (which is just state $c$) as being a stand-in for coupling to the environment, while the other two states are the qubit. So in that particular example, the answer is simply that the model is of two qubit states coupled to an environmental state, so once you prevent evolution into the environmental state you are by definition preserving coherence. Certainly, it is a very simplistic and minimal model. $\endgroup$
    – Rococo
    Commented Mar 29, 2016 at 3:57
  • $\begingroup$ Decoherence-free subspaces are a concept that goes beyond this paper and has nothing inherently to do with the Zero effect, though. If what you really want to know is how a decoherence free subspace might work, I can give an example as an answer. From the way you wrote the question it isn't completely clear to me what you're looking for. $\endgroup$
    – Rococo
    Commented Mar 29, 2016 at 4:02

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

You can find straightforward definitions and descriptions for example in this Review of Decoherence Free Subspaces, Noiseless Subsystems, and Dynamical Decoupling.

Formally, an open system is decoherence free if its evolution is unitary, despite non-vanishing couplings to its environment. Information encoded in system states that evolve in such unitary fashion is immune to decoherent environmental effects, although the latter are by no means suppressed.

The typical example is provided by a system S interacting with an environment E according to a total Hamiltonian $$ H = H_S\otimes I_E + I_S\otimes H_E + \sum_k{S_k\otimes E_k} $$ Here the interaction operators $S_k$, $E_k$ act only on the system and on the environment degrees of freedom, respectively. If it so happens that there exist system states $|\psi_S\rangle$ that are simultaneous eigenstates of all $S_k$, $$ S_k |\psi_S\rangle= \sigma_k |\psi_S\rangle $$ then it holds that for any environment state $|\phi_E\rangle$, $$ H|\psi_S\otimes\phi_E\rangle = \left[ H_S\otimes I_E + I_S\otimes \left(H_E + \sum_k{\sigma_k E_k}\right)\right] |\psi_S\otimes\phi_E\rangle $$ and furthermore $$ e^{-iHt}|\psi_S\otimes\phi_E\rangle = e^{-i\left[ H_S\otimes I_E + I_S\otimes \left(H_E + \sum_k{\sigma_k E_k}\right)\right] t}|\psi_S\otimes\phi_E\rangle = \\ = \left[ e^{-i \;H_S\otimes I_E t}|\psi_S\rangle\right] \otimes\left[ e^{-i\; I_S\otimes \left(H_E + \sum_k{\sigma_k E_k}\right) t} |\phi_E\rangle \right] $$ In other words, after tracing out the environment we find that the system evolves unitarily, decoherence-free, as if all external interactions were absent: $$ \rho_S(t) = e^{-i H_S t}|\psi_S\rangle \langle \psi_S| e^{i H_S t} $$

We also note that in order for superpositions of distinct decoherence free (DF) system states to share the same unitary evolution, the DF states must belong to the same common eigen-subspace of the couplings $\{S_k\}_k$. Otherwise we obtain different generators $\left(H_E + \sum_k{\sigma_k E_k}\right)$ and tracing out the environment may no longer result in a unitary evolution. This is then a decoherence free subspace (DFS).

At a more general level, the irreps of the algebra generated by the couplings $\{S_k\}_k$ decomposes the system Hilbert space into a direct sum of formal tensor products of the form ${\mathbb C}^n \otimes {\mathbb C}^d$, corresponding to "noiseless subsystems" living in the ${\mathbb C}^n$ component and a "gauge" component ${\mathbb C}^d$. That is, information stored in each ${\mathbb C}^n$ is again naturally safe from environmental decoherence. The DFS case corresponds to the particular case of a "scalar gauge" with $d = 1$.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ So would I be correct in saying that certain subspaces themselves are decoherence free? Thus our problem of keeping a system coherent reduces to maintaining its evolution in one of these subspaces, meaning it is not the act of keeping in in the subspace itself that prevents decoherence but rather the outcome that it remains in the subspace that prevents decoherence? $\endgroup$
    – e.dave
    Commented Mar 28, 2016 at 13:17
  • $\begingroup$ It's a bit more complicated. I just took a look at your other question, and I think what you asked about here, "decoherence free subspaces", is not what you need, which is "Zeno subspaces". I should have checked the paper you linked to more thoroughly, my apologies. The DFS and the ZS are both defined as subspaces that shelter the effective system dynamics from decoherence, but the way the sheltering is achieved in the two cases is very different. The DFS are passive, in the sense that no external action is needed once the initial state of the system is selected in a DFS. $\endgroup$
    – udrv
    Commented Mar 28, 2016 at 14:04
  • $\begingroup$ In contrast, the ZS are dynamically defined in relation to a periodic perturbation on top of the interaction with the environment. The net effect of the perturbation is to compensate for environmental decoherence by forcing the system into an effective unitary evolution (recall the definition of a decoherence free evolution for an open system). $\endgroup$
    – udrv
    Commented Mar 28, 2016 at 14:05
  • $\begingroup$ This effective unitary evolution has its own invariant subspaces, eigen-subspaces of its self-adjoint generator or effective Hamiltonian, and if the state of the system is arranged into one of these subspaces, then it effectively remains a stationary state (like eigenstates of a Hamiltonian). I think Sec. II of arxiv.org:0303132v2 gives a neat explanation of why this happens. And it's a joint work of authors of your ref. and the author of my ref. ;) $\endgroup$
    – udrv
    Commented Mar 28, 2016 at 14:05
  • $\begingroup$ thank you very much for your responses. However, I still don't understand why in, ba.infn.it/~pascazio/publications/sudarshan_seven_quests.pdf (section 10), the onset of decoherence is modeled as a transition to a level outside of the initial subspace. $\endgroup$
    – e.dave
    Commented Mar 28, 2016 at 15:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.