In this document we provide a novel treatment of the fundamentals of Quantum Mechanics and Qunatum Computing. No previous familiarity with any scientific or mathematical material is assumed other than familiarity with chapters Multivectors and Space Time . The notations used in those chapters are retained here.
    Qunatum Mechanics is a confusing subject, a matter not helped by grotesquely convoluted and obsfucational traditional presentations. The trick with Quantum Mechanics is to refrain, at first, from seeking to form a "mental picture" of what is "happening" because what is happening is wildly at variance with common sense. With QM one must look to the mathematics and think of physical laws as being the rules of an abstract game or process  we, as programmers, might seek to emulate or model.
    Rather than considering the history of the discipline and attempting to make sense of the documented behaviour of "elemetary particles", we will prologue Quantum Mechanics with the abstract programming construct known as Quantum Computing, speaking of postulated quregisters rather than systems of particles. Quregisters will of course turn out to be multivectors, as will the operations performed upon them. Multivectors provide both the regsiters and the opcodes of God's CPU,
    Having presented quantum registers as abstract curios we will cover the basics of relativistic quantum mechanics in an unorthodox but ultimately revealing manner. We will be interested almost exlusively in relativisitic quantum mechanics rather than "fictional" nonrelativistic approximations.

Notational issues
    We retain here the use of p to denote a typical spacetime "point", "position" or "event". One can also think of p as standing for the primary parameter of spacetime tensors. This differs from much of the QM literature, which uses p for momentum vectors and/or operators. We will here favour m for a typical 4D "momentum" 1-vector , or m when we wish to stress an operator nature.
    Similarly s, sometimes used in the literature to represent a "quantum spin" vector will here continue to be used to denote a typical null vector. We will typically use w to denote a 1-vectors with a "spin" interpretatios [  Think w ]  .
    We use e1,e2,e3,e4 to denote an orthonormal basis for Â3,1 Minkowski spacetime with e4 having negative ("timelike") signature.

    Since this work is aimed primarily at programmers, we will use the C/C++ notations for standard logical operations. However, since C/C++ usage of ^ and ! conflict with standard mathematical usage for these symbols we will use  this font  to distinquish logical operators, Viz:
C/C++name    Definition
 ! NOT !   0 = 1    ;      ! 1 = 0
 | OR(0  |   1) = (1  |  0)    =     (1  |  1) = 1    ;     (0  |  0) = 0
 & AND(0  &  0) = (0  &  1) = (1  &  0) = 0    ;     1  &  1 = 1
 ^ XOR(0  ^  0) = (1  ^  1) = 0      ;     (0  ^  1) = (1  ^  0) = 1

Sierpinski (<1K) Quantum Computers

    Under Construction.

Quantum Bits
    Programmers are used to thinking of a bit as being either '0' or '1' but as binary states they can be represented by { +1,-1 } or { ↑, ↓} or { True, False }   or { Black,White } .
    One can readily postulate "classical fractional boolean states". Rather than insisting that a goose be White or Black (represnted by 0 or 1) we allow reals in [0,1] to represent "shade" , 0.1 meaning 10% White and 90% Black, for example. Alternatively, we might adopt a "fuzzy logic" approach with .71 representing a 71% probability of the goose being White (in the absence of more definite information) . Such notions remain firmly classical, but they are no longer boolean.


    Let us step back and ask what exactly we mean when we say that an "outcome space" {↑,↓} is a "binary" state or property? We usually mean that one (and only one) of the properties must "hold" at any one "instant" in "time". That at any given time t we must have
    EITHER (↑  &  ( ! ↓))     OR     (↓  &  ( ! ↑)) which we can write as ( (↑  &  ( ! ↓))  ^  (↓  &  ( ! ↑)) ) = 1 .
    We cannot have both at once, and we cannot have neither. We must have one, but only one.   
    One "boolean variable" thus suffices to hold "both" ↑-ness and ↓-ness "properties"  because ↑ =  !  ↓ and the two theoretical outcomes (↑  &  ↓) and ( ! ↑  &   ! ↓) cannot occurr. It is by relaxing this last assumption that we enter the bizarre realm of quantum logic .
     A "binary" property now has four possible discrete "states" or "outcomes", two of which [ ↑  &  ( ! ↓) and ( ! ↑)  &  ↓ ] make sense classically and two "phantom" states [ ↑  &  ↓ and ( ! ↑)  &  ( ! ↓) ] which don't.
    It is important here to recognise that ↑ and ↓ have not suddenly become "independant" variables. We retain ↑ =  ! ↓ in the sense that if we observe the ↑ and ↓ properties we insist on a classical outcome. It is the values of these states in the "spooky twilight zone" between observations that we "allow" to be non-classical.

    Since  ! ↑ is now a distinct concept from ↓ we represent ↓ by e2 orthogonal to e1 rather than by -e1,  which we also consider to represent ↑. We can then form weighted linear combinations of the "two" classically opposed states and the "weights" conventionally used in QM are complex numbers x + i y where i is an "imaginary" Ö-1 that commutes with everything.

    A quantum bit or qubit is the superposition of the alternate states of a classical binary state { ↑,↓}
    y(t) = z1(t) ïñ + z2(t) ïñ = z1(t) e1 + z2(t) e2     where complex " probability amplitudes" z1,z2 are complex numbers (ie. Â0,1 = Â2 + multivectors) satisfying |z1|+2 + |z2|+2 = 1 . [  where |z|+ = (zz^)½ = (x2+y2)½ is the traditional complex modulus ] Mathematicians refer to such "numbers" as a 2D Hilbert space denoted H2.

    The Rules of the Quantum Bit Game are that when you "observe" the qubit you get ↑ with probability |z1|+2 and y(t) "resets" to ïñ. Otherwise you get ↓ and y(t) resets to ïñ.
    y(t) is normally considered to vary smoothly over time t between observations, "evolving" due to some physical law (or, from a programmers perspecetive, "recurrance relation" or "recursive definition") U(y(t),t) = 0 where U is a multi-dimensional-valued function of some kind, probably involving derivatives .
    The act of reading the bit at t=t0 introduces a discontinuity in y(t) at t=t0 , "collapsing" it either to ïñ or to ïñ.
    Note that a qubit contains massively more "information" or "ambiguity" than a classical bit. We superficially require two complex (four real) numbers rather than an integer from Z2 to specify their state . [ One of the four reals being fixed by normalisation but with arbitarity of sign] However, there is further redundancy here because any complex multiple of a qubit represents the same qubit. Essentially, it is the complex number ratio z=z2z1-1 that is fundamental, although an explicit proviso z=¥ for z1=0 is required. We can thus specify a general qubit with two reals, plus a special case.

Quantum Register
    A N-quantum register is a "combination" or entanglement of N qubits. With each of the 2N possible values of the classical N-register we associate a pure state (eg. ï[1][2][3]....↑[N]ñ ) and a complex probability amplitude.
    y(t) = z1(t)ï[1][2]....↑[N]ñ + z2(t)ï[1][2]....↑[N]ñ + z3(t)ï[1][2]....↑[N]ñ +...+ z2N(t)ï[1][2]....↓[N]ñ . We will henceforth frequently ommitt the (t) from our zj for brevity.
    We say an N-register is normalised if |z1|+2 + ...+ |z2N|+2 = r12 + ...+ r2N2 = 1 . We will denote a normalised quantum register by y~(t) .
    We can represent a normalised N-quantum register at a given time t by a 2N-dimensional complex 1-vector, the jth "coordinate" of which we write as zj = rjefji . Real magnitude rj2 ³ 0 corresponds to the classical probability of the jth classical bit combination; real phase fj Î [0,2p] is a "hidden variable" .
    A quantum register is in pure state j if rj is nonzero for one and only one j Î { 1,2,...,2N }.
    A 1-quantum register is thus a qubit. We will refer here to an 8-quantum register as a qubyte.

    We assume that we can initialise or reset a quantum register into the "first" (j=1)  pure state ï[1][2]...↑[N]ñ at t=0 corresponding to all classical bits being zero. We further assume zero phases in the initial state so that z1(0)=1, zk(0)=0 " 1<k£2N .

    We can observe the value of a particular qubit, say the first in our suffix sequence, and this will have the effect of "collapsing" y~(t) into
    y~(t+) = (z1ï[1][2]....↑[N]ñ + z3ï[1][2]....↑[N]ñ +...+ z2N-1ï[1][2]....↓[N]ñ)~     with probability |z1|+2+ |z3|+2 +...+ |z2N-1|+2        or to
    y~(t+) = (z2ï[1][2]....↑[N]ñ + z4ï[1][2]....↑[N]ñ +...+ z2Nï[1][2]....↓[N]ñ)~     with probability |z2|+2+ |z4|+2 +...+ |z2N|+2  ; there being 2N-1 contributors to each summation.
    The result of observing succesive qubits may thus depend on the order in which they are observed.

    We can evolve a quantum register by transforming the complex amplitudes 1-vector y in a specific way. We can multiply it by any unitary complex 2N×2N matrix H, by which we mean a matrix satisfying H(HT^) = 1 .   Note that such a multiplication preserves normalisation and corresponds to a reversible or nonsingular transformation.
    Evolution preserves the "information" or "ambiguity" or "entropy" of a quantum-register. Observation, on the other hand, does not. Observation irreversibly "resolves" some of the ambiguity. Having observed a qunatum resgister, we can not restore the state y(t-) from y(t+) alone.

Multivector Representation of a Quantum Register

    We shall see later that qubits have a natural geometric interpretation as multivectors in Â3,1+ , associating the mth normalised qubit with a multivector (1+r[m]2)(1+r[m]ef[m]i[m]e14[m]) ½(1+e34[m]) fully specified by just two real scalar Riemanian parameters r[m]³0 and f[m] for each qubit provided we also explicitly allow r[m]=¥.
    ï[i]ñ   =   ½(1+e34[i]) with r[i]=0 and f[i] irrelevant ; whereas ï[i]ñ   =   ½e14[i](1+e34[i])   =   ½e13[i](1+e34[i])  requires r[i]=¥ .
    We will also see that qubits are naturally measurable with regard to three alternate spacial "axis" traditionally denoted ïñ/ïñ associated with direction e3; ïñ/ïñ associated with e1; and ï´ñ/ï·ñ associated with e2. The "definite" state ïñ must then also be regarded as a maximally ambiguous superposition of ïñ and ïñ , and also as one of ï´ñ and ï·ñ.

    On the face of it, this appears a complication of the simpler complex vector representation but we have just two parameters r and f rather than three for the normalised qubit.

    For N=2, the product of two 4-D multivector spaces exists in the 16-D geometric algebra generated by the six bivectors si[1]=ei4[1] , sj[2]=ej4[2] . This is twice the dimension of the complex 4D 1-vector space traditionally used and we halve the effective dimension by forcing an equivalence between i[1]=e1234[1] and i[2]=e1234[2] by means of a further idempotent " correlator" geometric multiplier  
    ½(1-i[1]i[2])=½(1-e1234[1]e1234[2])     so that our 2-quregister is represented by
    y~ = (1+r[1]2)) (1+r[2]2)) (1+r[1]ef[1]i[1] s1[1] ) (1+r[2]ef[2]i[2] s1[2] ) ½(1+ s3[1]) ½(1+ s3[2]) ½(1-i[1]i[2])
     = (1+r[1]2)) (1+r[2]2)) (1+r[1]ef[1]i[1]e14[1] ) (1+r[2]ef[2]i[2]e14[2] ) b     where idempotent
    b º ½(1+ s3[1])½(1+ s3[2])½(1-i[1]i[2])
      =   ½(1+e34[1])½(1+e34[2])½(1-e1234[1]e1234[2])   =   1/8(1+e34[1])(1+e34[2])(1-e12[1]e12[2])
has b2 = b = b# = b ;  bb§=0 and can be regarded as a source of e34[1] and e34[2], as a converter of e1234[2] s into e1234[1] s (or e12[1] s),  and also as "condensing" the two e12[i] into an equivalent multiplier.
    We thus regard
    ï[1][2]ñ = b    ;     ï[1][2]ñ = e14[1]b = e13[1]b    ;     ï[1][2]ñ = e14[2]b = e13[2]b    ;     ï[1][2]ñ = e14[1]e14[2]b = e13[1]e13[2]b .
    The entangled "fermionic singlet" state ï[1][2]ñ -ï[1][2]ñ is represented by (e14[2]-e14[1])b

General N
    Consider the geometric space generated by the 3N 2-vectors si[m] . Because any two si[m] associated with the same qubit multiply to give either a i[m] sj[m] for the same qubit or a scalar, and commute with every si[m] associated with a different qubit this space has has dimension 23N . However, the N 4-vectors e1234[m] all commute with everything and square to -1 and we can "condense" them into a single i using correlator
    b º ( Pi=1k ½(1+e34[i])) ( Pj=1N ½(1-e1234[1]e1234[j]))   =   ( Pi=1N ½(1+e34[i])) ( Pj=1N ½(1-e12[1]e12[j]))
      =   ( Pi=1N ½e3[i](e3[i]+e4[i])) ( Pj=1N ½(1-e12[1]e12[j]))
which represents the base state ï[1]....↑[k]ñ and geometrically acts as a source of e34[i] for any i and converts any e1234[i] into e1234[1] (or to e12[1] if preferrable, although this is less commutative ).

    The multivector representation for the N-quregsiter having qubits i1,i2,..,ij set to ↓ and all the remainder set to ↑ is thus represented by the product e13[i1]e13[i2]...e13[ij] b .
    More generally, we have the representation Pm=1N (1+r[m]2)(1+r[m]ef[m]e1234[m]e14[m]) b     where r[m] and f[m] are the Riemanian paremtrs for the mth qubit, but things will be simplified when we move from "ket" representations like  ïñ to pensity representation traditionally denoted ïñáï .

Quantum Cryptograhy
    In Quantum Cryptograhy we allow Alice and Bob to receive a large number (comfortably in excess of 6N say) of "partnered" qubits. If either Alice or Bob observe a qubit, the waveforms of that qubit and that of its distant partner qubit simultanmeously collapse to related states. We will have more to say on such bizarre instantaneous-distant-effects later but for now the reader should merely accept it as a given. If Alice and Bob observe their qubits randomly with regard to three pre arranged quaxies , then they will get related Yes/No answers on those qubits which they observed using the same quaxis, approximatedly 2N of the original 6N. Alice and Bob can establish which measurements had a common quaxis by open discussion on an insecure channnel. By agreeing a random sample, say half, of these 2N readings and explicitly comparing the measured values, again on an insecure channel, Alice and Bob can confirm that the recieved qubits are related as expected, establishing that the qubits are unlikely to have been compromised by prior observation by Eve. The remaining N readings then provide a random N-bit boolean key that can be exclusive ored with an N-bit payload message prior to its transmission  over an insecure channel.

Welsh-Hadamard Operator
    Consider the real symmetric 2N×2N matrix having ± 2N in the jth entry of the ith row, the specific sign being + only if the parity of the bitwise and (i-1) & (j-1) is even. It can be shown that W2=1 so W is unitary. Note that the -1 arise because we are here numbering our 2N pure states from 1 rather than from 0.
W = ¼ æ +1+1+1+1 ö
ç +1-1+1-1 ÷
ç +1+1-1-1 ÷
è +1-1-1+1 ø

    We are interested primarily in the result of applying W to normalised pure state j. We then have
    (W y)[k] = ål=12N  W[k,l] zl = W[k,j] zj = ± 2N eqji so the resultant state has all possible pure states classically equiprobable, with the phases of the lth coordinate being either the original qj or p+qj according as to the parity of j-1  &  l-1 .
    In the particular case j=1 corresponding to state ↑[1][2]...↑[N], then (j-1) & (l-1) = 0 " l so every coordinate is 2N eqji and we have an equal entanglement of all states.
    When qj=0, every coordinate is thus 2N. We refer to this as the standard state and denote it l-1.

Grover's Algorithm
    Let us take a particular integer j between 1 and 2N inclusive. Consider the real symmetric matrix A having 21-N-1 throughout the lead diagonal and 21-N everywhere else. We can express this as A = 2P-1  where matrix P has 2-N in every position. Since P2=P, A2 = 1 so A is unitary. Now, P is irreversible, setting every coordinate of y to the "averaged" coordinate 2-Nåk=12N zk. Thus reversible A has the effect of subtracting each coordinate from twice the averaged coordinate.

    Consider the unitary 2N×2N complex matrix Sj(q) having eqi as the  element of the jth element of the jth row ; 1 elsewhere on the lead diagonal ; and 0 everywhere else. Multiplication by Sj(q) has the effect of adding q to the phase of the jth coordinate of y while preserving all the other coordinates.

    Suppose normalised y~ 's jth coordinate has real value z+a for some real 0£a£z(2N-1) and every other coordinate has common positive real value (z - a(2N-1)-1), where z is the averaged coordinate 2-Nåk=12N zk .
    The normalisation condition implies (2N-1)(z - a(2N-1)-1)2 + (z + a)2 = 1 Þ 2Nz2 + a2(1+(2N-1)-1) = 1 Þ z = 2N(1-a2(1+(2N-1)-1))½ . Sj(q) prserves all but the jth coordinate which becomes -(2-N + a)½ Suppose 2N-D complex 1-vector y(t) = 2-N (1,1,..,1)T

    Multiplication of a 2N-D complex 1-vector by a general 2N×2N complex matrix requires 23N+2 real multiplies. For N=8 this is 226 which would take a 1 GigaHz Pentium Pro roughly 1/3 second for the multiplications alone. Obvious optimisations exist for particular unitary matrices, in particular we could multiply by A Sj(q) with just ? multiplies but some readers might consider ? multiplies merely to initialise a byte to a given nonzero value, and with a ?% failure rate at that, somewhat outrageous. The idea is of course that such "matrix multiplies" are done for us effectively instantaneously and "for free" by the "quantum hardware". However the fact remains that anybody considering emulating a quantum register on a traditional computer faces serious computational overheads increasingly exponentially with N.

    The idea is to "embed" classical functions "into" the "matrix" operators of quantum states in such a way that the quantum evolution y(t) ® y(t+dt) allows potentially infinite number of classical function evaluations to be deduced from a single quantum register observation.

    Consider a 2-quantum register (aka. biqubit) and let us replace clumsy-but-traditional labels ↑,↓ with dull-but-saner 0,1. We represent superposition z1ï00ñ+z2ï10ñ+z3ï10ñ+z4ï11ñ by the complex column vector (z1,z2,z3,z4)T .

    Let   ¦ be one of the two possible invertible functions mapping {0,1}®{0,1} and let U¦ be the unitary matrix
W = ¼ æ +1+1+1+1 ö
ç +1-1+1-1 ÷
ç +1+1-1-1 ÷
è +1-1-1+1 ø
U¦ = æ ¦001-¦00 ö
ç 01-¦10¦1 ÷
ç 1-¦00¦00 ÷
è 0¦101-¦1 ø
sending ï00ñ,ï10ñ,ï01ñ and ï11ñ to ï0¦0)ñ, ï1¦1ñ, ï0(1-¦(0))ñ and ï1(1-¦1)ñ respectively
    The combined operator
WU¦ = ¼ æ +1+1+1+1 ö
ç +1-11-1 ÷
ç +1+11-2¦02¦1-1 ÷
è +1-12¦1-11-2¦1 ø
has the effect of .... [under construction] .

    We have presented quantum bits and regsiters as abstract mathematical entities; the programmers' model rather than the engineers'. Experiments strongly suggest, however that quantum registers exist in nature. Welcome to the bizzare realm of quantum mechanics.

Next : Multivector Quantum Mechanics

Glossary   Contents   Author
Copyright (c) Ian C G Bell 2003
Web Source: or
Latest Edit: 01 Apr 2007. Counter