Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Thomas F. Jordan

Publications and source records attributed to Thomas F. Jordan.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2016

Symmetries in open quantum dynamics

Simple examples are used to introduce and examine symmetries of open quantum dynamics that can be described by unitary operators. For the Hamiltonian dynamics of an entire closed system, the symmetry takes the expected form which, when the Hamiltonian has a lower bound, says that the unitary symmetry operator commutes with the Hamiltonian operator. There are many more symmetries that are only for the open dynamics of a subsystem. Examples show how these symmetries alone can reveal properties of the dynamics and reduce what needs to be done to work out the dynamics. A symmetry of the open dynamics of a subsystem can even imply properties of the dynamics for the entire system that are not implied by the symmetries of the dynamics of the entire system. The symmetries are generally not related to constants of the motion for the open dynamics of the subsystem. There are many symmetries that cannot be seen in the Schrodinger picture as symmetries of dynamical maps of density matrices for the subsystem. There are symmetries of the open dynamics of a subsystem that depend only on the dynamics. In the simplest examples, these are also symmetries of the dynamics of the entire system. There are many more symmetries, of a new kind, that also depend on correlations, or absence of correlations, between the subsystem and the rest of the entire system, or on the state of the rest of the entire system.

quant-ph↗
arXiv2016

Symmetry examples in open quantum dynamics

Dependent symmetries, symmetries that depend on the situation of the subsystem in a larger closed system, are explored by looking at simple examples. This is a new kind of symmetry in the open quantum dynamics of a subsystem Each symmetry implies a particular form for the results of the open dynamics. The forms exhibit the symmetries very simply. It is shown directly, without assuming anything about the symmetry, that the dynamics produces the form, but knowing the symmetry and the form it implies can reduce what needs to be done to work out the dynamics; pieces can be deduced from the symmetry rather that calculated from the dynamics. Symmetries can be related to constants of the motion in new ways. A quantity might be a dependent constant of the motion, constant only for particular situations of the subsystem in the larger system. In particular, a generator of dependent symmetries could represent a quantity that is a dependent constant of the motion for the same situations as for the symmetries. The examples present a variety of possibilities. Sometimes a generator of dependent symmetries does represent a dependent constant of the motion. Sometimes it does not. Sometimes no quantity is a dependent constant of the motion. Sometimes every quantity is.

quant-ph↗
arXiv2016

Bracket relations for relativity groups

Poisson bracket relations for generators of canonical transformations are derived directly from the Galilei and Poincaré groups of changes of space-time coordinates. The method is simple but rigorous. The meaning of each step is clear because it corresponds to an operation in the group of changes of space-time coordinates. Only products and inverses are used; differences are not used. It is made explicitly clear why constants occur in some bracket relations but not in others, and how some constants can be removed, so that in the end there is a constant in the bracket relations for the Galilei group but not for the Poincaré group. Each change of coordinates needs to be only to first order, so matrices are not needed for rotations or Lorentz transformations; simple three-vector descriptions are enough. Conversion to quantum mechanics is immediate. One result is a simpler derivation of the commutation relations for angular momentum directly from rotations. Problems are included.

physics.class-ph↗
arXiv2010

What is tested when experiments test that quantum dynamics is linear

Experiments that look for nonlinear quantum dynamics test the fundamental premise of physics that one of two separate systems can influence the physical behavior of the other only if there is a force between them, an interaction that involves momentum and energy. The premise is tested because it is the assumption of a proof that quantum dynamics must be linear. Here variations of a familiar example are used to show how results of nonlinear dynamics in one system can depend on correlations with the other. Effects of one system on the other, influence without interaction between separate systems, not previously considered possible, would be expected with nonlinear quantum dynamics. Whether it is possible or not is subject to experimental tests together with the linearity of quantum dynamics. Concluding comments and questions consider directions our thinking might take in response to this surprising unprecedented situation.

quant-ph↗
arXiv2009

Probability sum rules and consistent quantum histories

An example shows that weak decoherence is more restrictive than the minimal logical decoherence structure that allows probabilities to be used consistently for quantum histories. The probabilities in the sum rules that define minimal decoherence are all calculated by using a projection operator to describe each possibility for the state at each time. Weak decoherence requires more sum rules. They bring in additional variables, that require different measurements and a different way to calculate probabilities, and raise questions of operational meaning. The example shows that extending the linearly positive probability formula from weak to minimal decoherence gives probabilities that are different from those calculated in the usual way using the Born and von Neumann rules and a projection operator at each time.

quant-ph↗
arXiv2009

Repeatable procedures and maps in open quantum dynamics

Examples of repeatable procedures and maps are found in the open quantum dynamics of one qubit that interacts with another qubit. They show that a mathematical map that is repeatable can be made by a physical procedure that is not.

quant-ph↗
arXiv2008

Maps and inverse maps in open quantum dynamics

Two kinds of maps that describe evolution of states of a subsystem coming from dynamics described by a unitary operator for a larger system, maps defined for fixed mean values and maps defined for fixed correlations, are found to be quite different for the same unitary dynamics in the same situation in the larger system. An affine form is used for both kinds of maps to find necessary and sufficient conditions for inverse maps. All the different maps with the same homogeneous part in their affine forms have inverses if and only if the homogeneous part does. Some of these maps are completely positive; others are not, but the homogeneous part is always completely positive. The conditions for an inverse are the same for maps that are not completely positive as for maps that are. For maps defined for fixed mean values, the homogeneous part depends only on the unitary operator for the dynamics of the larger system, not on any state or mean values or correlations. Necessary and sufficient conditions for an inverse are stated several different ways: in terms of the maps of matrices, basis matrices, density matrices, or mean values. The inverse maps are generally not tied to the dynamics the way the maps forward are. A trace-preserving completely positive map that is unital can not have an inverse that is obtained from any dynamics described by any unitary operator for any states of a larger system.

quant-ph↗
arXiv2008

A hazard of open quantum dynamics: Markov approximations encounter map domains

A Markov approximation in open quantum dynamics can give unphysical results when a map acts on a state that is not in its domain. This is examined here in a simple example, an open quantum dynamics for one qubit in a system of two interacting qubits, for which the map domains have been described quite completely. A time interval is split into two parts and the map from the exact dynamics for the entire interval is replaced by the conjunction of that same map for both parts. If there is any correlation between the two qubits, unphysical results can appear as soon as the map conjunction is used, even for infinitesimal times. If the map is repeated an unlimited number of times, every state is at risk of being taken outside the bounds of physical meaning. Treatment by slippage of initial conditions is discussed.

quant-ph↗
arXiv2007

One qubit almost completely reveals the dynamics of two

From the time dependence of states of one of them, the dynamics of two interacting qubits is determined to be one of two possibilities that differ only by a change of signs of parameters in the Hamiltonian. The only exception is a simple particular case where several parameters in the Hamiltonian are zero and one of the remaining nonzero parameters has no effect on the time dependence of states of the one qubit. The mean values that describe the initial state of the other qubit and of the correlations between the two qubits also are generally determined to within a change of signs by the time dependence of states of the one qubit, but with many more exceptions. An example demonstrates all the results. Feedback in the equations of motion that allows time dependence in a subsystem to determine the dynamics of the larger system can occur in both classical and quantum mechanics. The role of quantum mechanics here is just to identify qubits as the simplest objects to consider and specify the form that equations of motion for two interacting qubits can take.

quant-ph↗
arXiv2007

Entanglement increase from local interactions with not-completely-positive maps

Simple examples are constructed that show the entanglement of two qubits being both increased and decreased by interactions on just one of them. One of the two qubits interacts with a third qubit, a control, that is never entangled or correlated with either of the two entangled qubits and is never entangled, but becomes correlated, with the system of those two qubits. The two entangled qubits do not interact, but their state can change from maximally entangled to separable or from separable to maximally entangled. Similar changes for the two qubits are made with a swap operation between one of the qubits and a control; then there are compensating changes of entanglement that involve the control. When the entanglement increases, the map that describes the change of the state of the two entangled qubits is not completely positive. Combination of two independent interactions that individually give exponential decay of the entanglement can cause the entanglement to not decay exponentially but, instead, go to zero at a finite time.

quant-ph↗
arXiv2007

Why quantum dynamics is linear

Quantum dynamics is linear. How do we know? From theory or experiment? The history of this question is reviewed. Nonlinear generalizations of quantum mechanics have been proposed. They predict small but clear nonlinear effects, which very accurate experiments have not seen. Is there a reason in principle why nonlinearity is not found? Is it impossible? Does quantum dynamics have to be linear? Attempts to prove this have not been decisive, because either their assumptions are not compelling or their arguments are not conclusive. The question has been left unsettled. There is a simple answer, based on a simple assumption. It was found in two steps separated by 44 years. They are steps back to simpler and more compelling assumptions. A proof of the assumptions of the Wigner-Bargmann proof has been known since 1962. It assumes that the maps of density matrices in time are linear. For this step, it is also assumed that density matrices are mapped one-to-one onto density matrices. An alternative is to assume that pure states are mapped one-to-one onto pure states and that entropy does not decrease. In a step taken in 2006, it is proved that the maps of density matrices in time are linear. It is assumed, as in the earlier step, that at each time the physical quantities and states are described by the usual linear structures of quantum mechanics, so the question is only about how things change in time. Beyond that, the proof assumes only that the dynamics does not depend on anything outside the system, but must allow the system to be described as part of a larger system.

quant-ph↗
arXiv2006

Lorentz transformations that entangle spins and entangle momenta

Simple examples are presented of Lorentz transformations that entangle the spins and momenta of two particles with positive mass and spin 1/2. They apply to indistinguishable particles, produce maximal entanglement from finite Lorentz transformations of states for finite momenta, and describe entanglement of spins produced together with entanglement of momenta. From the entanglements considered, no sum of entanglements is found to be unchanged.

quant-ph↗
arXiv2006

Assumptions that imply quantum dynamics is linear

A basic linearity of quantum dynamics, that density matrices are mapped linearly to density matrices, is proved very simply for a system that does not interact with anything else. It is assumed that at each time the physical quantities and states are described by the usual linear structures of quantum mechanics. Beyond that, the proof assumes only that the dynamics does not depend on anything outside the system but must allow the system to be described as part of a larger system. The basic linearity is linked with previously established results to complete a simple derivation of the linear Schrodinger equation. For this it is assumed that density matrices are mapped one-to-one onto density matrices. An alternative is to assume that pure states are mapped one-to-one onto pure states and that entropy does not decrease.

quant-ph↗
arXiv2005

Mapping the Schrodinger picture of open quantum dynamics

For systems described by finite matrices, an affine form is developed for the maps that describe evolution of density matrices for a quantum system that interacts with another. This is established directly from the Heisenberg picture. It separates elements that depend only on the dynamics from those that depend on the state of the two systems. While the equivalent linear map is generally not completely positive, the homogeneous part of the affine maps is, and is shown to be composed of multiplication operations that come simply from the Hamiltonian for the larger system. The inhomogeneous part is shown to be zero if and only if the map does not increase the trace of the square of any density matrix. Properties are worked out in detail for two-qubit examples.

quant-ph↗
arXiv2005

Maps for Lorentz transformations of spin

Lorentz transformations of spin density matrices for a particle with positive mass and spin 1/2 are described by maps of the kind used in open quantum dynamics. They show how the Lorentz transformations of the spin depend on the momentum. Since the spin and momentum generally are entangled, the maps generally are not completely positive and act in limited domains. States with two momentum values are considered, so the maps are for the spin qubit entangled with the qubit made from the two momentum values, and results from the open quantum dynamics of two coupled qubits can be applied. Inverse maps are used to show that every Lorentz transformation completely removes the spin polarization, and so completely removes the information, from a number of spin density matrices. The size of the spin polarization that is removed is calculated for particular cases.

quant-ph↗
arXiv2004

Cosmology calculations almost without general relativity

The Friedmann equation is derived for a Newtonian universe. Changing mass density to energy density gives exactly the Friedmann equation of general relativity. Accounting for work done by pressure then yields the two Einstein equations that govern the expansion of the universe. Descriptions and explanations of radiation pressure and vacuum pressure are added to complete a basic kit of cosmology tools. It provides a basis for teaching cosmology to undergraduates in a way that quickly equips them to do basic calculations. This is demonstrated with calculations involving: characteristics of the expansion for densities dominated by radiation, matter, or vacuum; the closeness of the density to the critical density; how much vacuum energy compared to matter energy is needed to make the expansion accelerate; and how little is needed to make it stop. Travel time and luninosity distance are calculated in terms of the redshift and the densities of matter and vacuum energy, using a scaled Friedmann equation with the constant in the curvature term determined by matching with the present values of the Hubble parameter and energy density. General relativity is needed only for the luminosity distance, to describe how the curvature of space, determined by the energy density, can change the intensity of light by changing the area of the sphere to which the light has spread. Thirty-one problems are included.

astro-ph↗
arXiv2004

Affine maps of density matrices

For quantum systems described by finite matrices, linear and affine maps of matrices are shown to provide equivalent descriptions of evolution of density matrices for a subsystem caused by unitary Hamiltonian evolution in a larger system; an affine map can be replaced by a linear map, and a linear map can be replaced by an affine map. There may be significant advantage in using an affine map. The linear map is generally not completely positive, but the linear part of an equivalent affine map can be chosen to be completely positive and related in the simplest possible way to the unitary Hamiltonian evolution in the larger system.

quant-ph↗