Suppose $\rho_{AB}$ denotes the density matrix of a bipartite system. Reduced density matrix of A ($\rho_A$) is obtained by tracing out B $$\rho_A\equiv\sum_{i}\langle i_B |\rho_{AB}|i_B\rangle$$ where $\{|i_B\rangle \}$ is the basis of the subsystem B. It is said that $\rho_A$ is the physical state of the subsystem A. What justifies this claim?

| cite | improve this question | | | | |

The partial trace over $B$ of the quantum state of a bipartite system $AB$ corresponds to discarding $B$: that is, the reduced density matrix $\rho_A=\mathrm{Tr}_B(\rho_{AB})$ is the complete description of the state of the system for any and all measurements that are completely local to $A$.

This can be made precise by considering an arbitrary hermitian measurement operator $\mathcal O_A$ (which includes, among other things, eigenprojectors corresponding to the measurement of some other observable), whose expectation value is $$ \langle \mathcal O_A\rangle = \mathrm{Tr}\mathopen{}\left( \hat{\rho}_{AB} \ \hat{\mathcal O}_A\otimes \mathbb I\right)\mathclose{}. $$ Here the trace can be decomposed as $$ \langle \mathcal O_A\rangle = \mathrm{Tr}_A\mathopen{}\left( \mathrm{Tr}_B\mathopen{}\left( \hat{\rho}_{AB} \ \hat{\mathcal O}_A\otimes \mathbb I\right)\mathclose{}\right)\mathclose{}, $$ and since $\hat{\mathcal O}_A$ does not act on the $B$ sector, it can be factored out of the $B$ trace, giving $$ \langle \mathcal O_A\rangle = \mathrm{Tr}_A\mathopen{}\left( \mathrm{Tr}_B\mathopen{}\left( \hat{\rho}_{AB}\right)\mathclose{} \hat{\mathcal O}_A\right)\mathclose{}, $$ or in other words, $$ \langle \mathcal O_A\rangle = \mathrm{Tr}_A\mathopen{}\left( \hat{\rho}_{A} \hat{\mathcal O}_A\right)\mathclose{}. $$ Thus, if you want to predict the results of any possible experiment that only involves $A$, then you need no more, and no less, than $\hat{\rho}_{AB}$.

| cite | improve this answer | | | | |
  • $\begingroup$ It might help to distinguish $\hat{\mathcal O}_A$ and $\hat{\mathcal O}_A\otimes I$. $\endgroup$ – Norbert Schuch Sep 18 '17 at 9:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Norbert Yeah, I wondered whether to do that or not. It's probably a good idea. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Sep 18 '17 at 9:33
  • $\begingroup$ Well, IMO the essential point in the whole story is to define what it means to measure part of a system. This can e.g. be explained by demanding that for a product state, the result on A is independent of the state of B. $\endgroup$ – Norbert Schuch Sep 18 '17 at 9:50
  • $\begingroup$ @NorbertSchuch I suspect you can write this in a much more clear and concise way than I could. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Sep 18 '17 at 9:52
  • $\begingroup$ I wouldn't know why :-) $\endgroup$ – Norbert Schuch Sep 18 '17 at 11:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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