Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Stronger Quantum Speed Limit For Mixed Quantum States

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Submitted:

22 May 2023

Posted:

23 May 2023

You are already at the latest version

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Abstract
We derive a quantum speed limit for unitary evolution for the case of mixed quantum states using the stronger uncertainty relation for mixed quantum states. This bound can be optimized over different choices of Hermitian operators for a better bound. We illustrate this with some examples and show its better performance with respect to three existing bounds for mixed quantum states.
Keywords: 
Quantum Speed Limit
;  
Mixed Quantum States
;  
Time-Energy Uncertainty Relation
Subject: 
Physical Sciences  -   Quantum Science and Technology

1. Introduction

The uncertainty relations are of fundamental importance in quantum mechanics since the birth of quantum mechanics in the early nineties. The uncertainty principle was first proposed by Werner Heisenberg heuristically [1]. He provided a lower bound to the product of standard deviations of the position and the momentum [1] of a quantum particle. Not only this, the uncertainty relations are also capable of capturing the intrinsic restrictions in preparation of quantum systems, which are termed as the preparation uncertainty relations [2]. In this direction, Robertson formulated the so called preparation uncertainty relation for two arbitrary quantum-mechanical observables which are generally non-commuting [2]. However, the Robertson uncertainty relation do not completely express the incompatibility nature of two non-commuting observables in terms of uncertainty quantification and is not the most optimal nor the most tight one. It also suffers from the triviality problem of uncertainty relations. To improve on these deficiencies, the stronger variations of the uncertainty relations have been proved which capture the notion of incompatibility more efficiently and also provide an improved lower bound on the sum and product of variances of the generally incompatible observables [3,4]. On another note, and along the same lines of formulatio of uncertainty relations, the energy-time uncertainty relation [5,6] proved to be quite different from the preparation uncertainty relations of other observables such as the position and momentum or that of the angular momentum because time is not treated as an operator in quantum mechanics [7]. Thus, time not being a quantum observable, time-energy uncertainty relation lacked a good interpretation like for those of the other quantum mechanical observables such as position and momentum. Mandelstam and Tamm derived an uncertainty relation [8] which is now called an energy-time uncertainty relation. It follows from the Robertson uncertainty relation when we consider the initial quantum state and the Hamiltonian as the corresponding quantum mechanical operators [8] and Δ t as the time interval between the initial and final state after the evolution. An interpretation of this time energy uncertainty relation was given in terms of the so called quantum speed limit [5,6]. In the current literature, there are several other approaches to obtain quantum speed limits for closed quantum system dynamics [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48] as well as for open quantum system dynamics [49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59]. Quantum speed limits have also been generalised to the cases of arbitrary evolution of quantum systems [60], unitary operator flows [61], change of bases [62], and for the cases of arbitrary phase spaces [63].
The notion of quantum speed limit is not only of fundamental importance, but also has many practical applications in quantum information, computation and communication technology. The quantum speed limit bounds have proven to be very useful in quantifying the maximal rate of quantum entropy production [64,65], the maximal rate of quantum information processing [57,66], quantum computation [67,68,69] in optimal control theory [70,71], quantum thermometry [72] and quantum thermodynamics [73]. These explorations motivate us to find better quantum speed limit bounds that can go beyond the existing bounds in the literature. In this paper, we use the stronger uncertainty relation developed in [3], then generalised to the case of mixed quantum states to derive a stronger form of quantum speed limit for mixed quantum states undergoing unitary evolution. We show that the new bound provides a stronger expression of quantum speed limit compared to the MT like bound for mixed quantum states. This bound can also be optimized over many operators. We then find various examples for mixed states and some example Hamiltonians that shows the better performance of our bound over the MT like bound for mixed quantum states and the bounds for mixed states in Ref. [41].
The present article is organised as follows. In Section 2.1 and Section 2.2, we give the background that includes the various forms of quantum speed limit for mixed quantum states Section 2.1, followed by the stronger uncertainty relations for mixed quantum states in Section 2.2. In Section 3, we derive the stronger quantum speed limit for mixed quantum states respectively and show methods to calculate the set of operators obeying a necessary condition for the bound to hold true. In Section 4, we show its better performance with examples of random Hamiltonians, specific examples of Hamiltonians that are useful in quantum computation, random quantum states respectively over three different previous bounds of quantum speed limit for mixed quantum states . Finally, in Section 5 we conclude and point out to future directions.

2. Background

2.1. Quantum Speed Limits

Quantum speed limit is one of the interpretations of the time energy uncertainty relation in quantum mechanics. In particular Mandelstam and Tamm derived the first expression of the quantum speed limit time as τ Q S L = π 2 Δ H , where Δ H is the variance of the Hamiltonian driving the quantum system H[8]. As an interpretation of their bound, they also argued that τ Q S L quantifies the life time of quantum states. Their interpretation was further solidified by Margolus and Levitin [74], who derived an alternative expression for τ Q S L in terms of the expectation value of the Hamiltonian as τ Q S L = π 2 〈 H 〉 . Eventually, it was also shown that the combined bound,
τ Q S L = max { π ℏ 2 Δ H , π ℏ 2 〈 H 〉 }
is tight. Many more versions of quantum speed limits have been proposed since then, with an intent to improve the previous bounds in terms of tightness and performance. In this direction, recently a stronger quantum speed limit for the pure quantum states has been proposed as follows.
τ ≥ ℏ s 0 2 Δ H + ∫ 0 τ R ( t ) d t ,
where we have
R ( t ) = 1 2 | 〈 Ψ ⊥ ( t ) | A Δ A ± i H Δ H | Ψ ( t ) 〉 | 2 .
The stronger quantum speed limit bound generally performs better than the MT bound for pure quantum states since it can be shown that for pure quantum states R ( t ) ≥ 0 in general. On the other hand, quantum speed limits for the mixed quantum states have also been proposed in various forms [41]. Quantum speed limit can be extended to the case of mixed quantum states by defining the distance between the initial state ρ 0 and the final state ρ t as their Bures angle L ( ρ 0 , ρ t ) = arccos ( F ( ρ 0 , ρ t ) ) , with F ( ρ 0 , ρ t ) = tr [ ρ 0 ρ t ρ 0 ] being the Uhlmann root fidelity,
τ L = L ( ρ 0 , ρ t ) m i n { H , Δ H } ,
where, ℏ = 1 has been set for convenience. It bounds the evolution time required to evolve the mixed state ρ 0 to the final state ρ t by means of a unitary operator U t , i.e., ρ t = U t ρ 0 U t † , where the quantum system is governed by a time-dependent Hamiltonian H t . There are many other forms of speed limits for mixed quantum states, which we leave for later investigation in future research. In [41] another bound tighter than the MT bound was derived for the speed of unitary evolution. According to this bound, the minimum time required to evolve from state ρ to state σ by means of a unitary operation generated by the Hamiltonian H t is bounded from below by
T Θ ( ρ , σ ) = τ 2 = Θ ( ρ , σ ) Q Θ where
Q Θ = 1 T ∫ 0 T d t 2 Tr ( ρ t 2 H t 2 − ( ρ t H t ) 2 ) Tr ( ρ t 2 − 1 N 2 ) and
Θ ( ρ , σ ) = arccos ( Tr ( ρ σ ) − 1 N ) ( Tr ( ρ 2 ) − 1 N )
where N is the dimension of the quantum system undergoing unitary evolution due to the time independent Hamiltonian H. We mention this bound since this bound does not reduce to the MT bound in general. However, there is another bound proposed in the same paper that reduces to the MT bound for the case of pure states. It is given as follows
T Φ ( ρ , σ ) = τ 2 = Φ ( ρ , σ ) Q Φ where
Q Φ = 1 T ∫ 0 T d t Tr ( ρ t 2 H t 2 − ( ρ t H t ) 2 ) Tr ( ρ t 2 ) and
Φ ( ρ , σ ) = arccos Tr ( ρ σ ) Tr ( ρ 2 )
We work with these different quantum speed limits for mixed quantum states and point out some examples where the newly derived quantum speed limit bound for mixed quantum states here performs better than the above bounds.

2.2. Stronger Uncertainty Relations for general mixed quantum states

Robertson gave a rigorous and quantitative formulation of the heuristic Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which are called the preparation uncertainty relations [2]. This is stated as the following. For any two noncommuting operators A and B, the Robertson-Schroedinger uncertainty relation for the state of the system | Ψ 〉 is given by the following inequality:
Δ A 2 Δ B 2 ≥ | 1 2 〈 [ A , B ] 〉 | 2 + | 1 2 〈 { A , B } 〉 − 〈 A 〉 〈 B 〉 | 2 ,
where the averages and the variances are defined over the state of the quantum system ρ . However, this uncertainty bound is not optimal. There have been several attempts to improve the bound. Here, we state a stronger bound obtained from an alternative uncertainty relation also called the Maccone-Pati uncertainty relation [3] and is also state dependent.
Δ A Δ B ≥ i 2 Tr ( ρ [ A , H ] ) ( 1 − 1 2 | Tr ( ρ 1 2 ( A Δ A ± i B Δ B ) σ ) | 2 ) ,
where Tr ( ρ 1 2 σ ) = 0 and | | σ | | 2 = 1 . This uncertainty relation has been proved to be stronger than Robertson-Schrodinger uncertainty relation. It is optimized to an equality when maximized over all possible σ possible, such that we have the optimized bound as
Δ A Δ B ≥ max σ i 2 Tr ( ρ [ A , H ] ) ( 1 − 1 2 | Tr ( ρ 1 2 ( A Δ A ± i B Δ B ) σ ) | 2 ) .
We can take the absolute values on both sides, so that we get the following uncertainty relations
Δ A Δ B ≥ 1 2 | Tr ( ρ [ A , H ] ) | | ( 1 − 1 2 | Tr ( ρ 1 2 ( A Δ A ± i B Δ B ) σ ) | 2 ) | ,
Δ A Δ B ≥ max σ 1 2 | Tr ( ρ [ A , H ] ) | | ( 1 − 1 2 | Tr ( ρ 1 2 ( A Δ A ± i B Δ B ) σ ) | 2 ) | .
We will use the above stronger uncertainty relations for mixed quantum states to derive a stronger version of quantum speed limits for mixed quantum states. See for the proof of the stronger uncertainty relations for mixed quantum states.

3. Result: Stronger Quantum Speed Limit for unitary evolution

In this section, we prove a stronger version of quantum speed limits for mixed quantum states suing the stronger uncertainty relations for mixed quantum states. The theorem on stronger quantum speed limit for mixed quantum states is stated in the following paragraph.
Theorem 1. 
The time evolution of a general mixed quantum state governed by a unitary operation generated by a Hamiltonian is given by the following equation
τ ≥ τ S Q S L M = Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) 2 Δ H × ∫ s 0 ( 0 ) s 0 ( τ ) sin s 0 ( t ) ( 1 − R ( t ) ) cos s 0 ( t ) 2 ( 1 − Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) cos 2 s 0 ( t ) 2 ) d s 0 ,
where τ S Q S L M stands as a short form for the stronger quantum speed limit for mixed quantum states and we have the following definitions of the quantities expressed in the above equation
s 0 ( t ) = 2 cos − 1 | Tr ( ρ ( 0 ) ρ ( t ) ) Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) | , Δ H = Tr ( H 2 ρ ) − ( Tr ( H ρ ) ) 2 R ( t ) = 1 2 | Tr ( ρ 1 2 ( A Δ A ± i B Δ B ) σ ) | 2 , where Tr ( ρ 1 2 σ ) = 0 and | | σ | | 2 = 1 ,
where we have | | σ | | 2 = ( ∑ n ∈ I 〈 e n | σ σ † | e n 〉 ) 1 2 , { | e n 〉 } forming a complete orthonormal basis in Hilbert space H, σ ∈ L 2 ( H ) , i.e., σ belongs to the set of all Hilbert Schmidt linear operators.
Proof. 
Proof of Theorem 1The proof of the above theorem goes as follows. We start by writing out the stronger uncertainty relation for mixed quantum states as is given by the following
Δ A Δ B ≥ 1 2 | Tr ( ρ [ A , H ] ) | | ( 1 − 1 2 | Tr ( ρ 1 2 ( A Δ A ± i B Δ B ) σ ) | 2 ) | ,
See appendix for the derivation of the above inequality. From the stronger uncertainty relation for mixed quantum states, we get the following
Δ A Δ H ( 1 − R ( t ) ) ≥ 1 2 | Tr ( ρ [ A , H ] ) | ,
where we have defined R ( t ) as the following
R ( t ) = 1 2 | Tr ( ρ 1 2 ( A Δ A ± i B Δ B ) σ ) | 2 .
Also for mixed quantum states, from Eahrenfest’s theorem we get the following
i ℏ d Tr ( ρ A ) d t = Tr ( ρ [ A , H ] )
Therefore from the above equations, we get the following
Δ A Δ H ( 1 − R ( t ) ) ≥ ℏ 2 | d 〈 A 〉 d t |
The variance of the operator A is then given by
Δ A 2 = Tr ( ρ ( 0 ) 2 ρ ( t ) ) − ( Tr ( ρ ( 0 ) ρ ( t ) ) ) 2 = Tr ( ρ 0 2 ρ t ) − ( Tr ( ρ 0 ρ t ) ) 2 ,
where we have used the notation ρ ( 0 ) = ρ 0 and ρ ( t ) = ρ t . We can now take the following parametrization
〈 A 〉 = Tr ( ρ ( 0 ) ρ ( t ) ) = Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) cos 2 s 0 ( t ) 2 .
Now, using the equation of motion for the average of A
| ℏ d d t 〈 A 〉 | = | 〈 [ A , H ] 〉 | ,
where the averages are all with respect to the mixed quantum state ρ and the quantum mechanical hermitian operator A has no explicit time dependence. Thus, using Equation (22), we get
| d 〈 A 〉 d t | = Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) sin s 0 ( t ) 2 d s 0 d t
Now let us analyze the structure of Δ A 2 as follows
Δ A 2 = Tr ( ρ 0 2 ρ t ) − ( Tr ( ρ 0 ρ t ) ) 2 .
Let { | k 〉 } be the eigenbasis from the singular value decomposition of the density matrix ρ 0 . Then we have the following expression
ρ 0 = ∑ k λ k | k 〉 〈 k | and ρ 0 2 = ∑ k λ k 2 | k 〉 〈 k | .
Using the above equation we obtain the following quantities
Tr ( ρ 0 ρ t ) = ∑ k λ k 〈 k | ρ t | k 〉 and Tr ( ρ 0 2 ρ t ) = ∑ k λ k 2 〈 k | ρ t | k 〉 .
Since, we know that 0 ≤ λ k 2 ≤ λ k ≤ 1 ∀ k and also 〈 k | ρ t | k 〉 ≥ 0 ∀ k because ρ t is a positive operator. Therefore, we get the following inequality
Tr ( ρ 0 ρ t ) ≥ Tr ( ρ 0 2 ρ t ) .
Adding − ( Tr ( ρ 0 ρ t ) ) 2 on both side of the above equation we get
Tr ( ρ 0 ρ t ) − ( Tr ( ρ 0 ρ t ) ) 2 ≥ Tr ( ρ 0 2 ρ t ) − ( Tr ( ρ 0 ρ t ) ) 2 = Δ A 2 .
Now, using Equation (22) we get
Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) cos 2 s 0 ( t ) 2 ( 1 − Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) cos 2 s 0 ( t ) 2 ) ≥ Δ A 2
Taking square root on both sides and multiplying by Δ H we get
Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) cos s 0 ( t ) 2 ( 1 − Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) cos 2 s 0 ( t ) 2 ) Δ H ≥ Δ A Δ H .
From here, we get the following
Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) cos s 0 ( t ) 2 ( 1 − Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) cos 2 s 0 ( t ) 2 ) Δ H ( 1 − R ( t ) ) ≥ Δ A Δ H ( 1 − R ( t ) ) ,
since ( 1 − R ( t ) ) is a positive quantity here. From the previous equations we get the following
Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) cos s 0 ( t ) 2 ( 1 − Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) cos 2 s 0 ( t ) 2 ) Δ H ( 1 − R ( t ) ) ≥ Δ A Δ H ( 1 − R ( t ) ) ≥ ℏ 2 | d 〈 A 〉 d t | = Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) sin s 0 ( t ) 2 d s 0 d t ,
Therefore, from the above equations we get the following
cos s 0 ( t ) 2 ( 1 − Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) cos 2 s 0 ( t ) 2 ) Δ H ≥ Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) ( 1 − R ( t ) ) sin s 0 ( t ) 2 d s 0 d t ,
Integrating the above equation with respect to t and s over their corresponding regions on both sides, we get for the case of time independent Hamiltonian the following expression for quantum speed limit
τ ≥ Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) 2 Δ H × ∫ s 0 ( 0 ) s 0 ( τ ) sin s 0 ( t ) ( 1 − R ( t ) ) cos s 0 ( t ) 2 ( 1 − Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) cos 2 s 0 ( t ) 2 ) d s 0 ,
where the definitions of the parametrizations have been stated in the statement of the theorem. One can also derive the quantum speed limit bound for mixed quantum states in a different way. Writing out the previous equations and rearranging terms on the right hand side and the left hand side in a different way, it can be shown that the quantum speed limit bound for the mixed quantum states can also be written following the procedure as stated below step by step. We start from the following inequality after rearranging the terms
cos s 0 ( t ) 2 ( 1 − Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) cos 2 s 0 ( t ) 2 ) Δ H ( 1 − R ( t ) ) ≥ Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) sin s 0 ( t ) 2 d s 0 d t ,
Integrating the above equation we get the following quantum speed limit bound for mixed quantum states
τ ≥ ∫ s ( 0 ) s ( τ ) Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) sin s 0 ( t ) 2 Δ H cos s 0 ( t ) 2 ( 1 − Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) cos 2 s 0 ( t ) 2 ) d s 0 + ∫ 0 τ R ( t ) d t ,
From the above equations, we get the following
τ ≥ 2 cos − 1 ( Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) cos s 0 2 ) Δ H s ( 0 ) s ( τ ) + ∫ 0 τ R ( t ) d t
Putting the values, we get the following equation for time independent Hamiltonians
τ ≥ 2 ( cos − 1 ( Tr ( ρ 0 ρ t ) ) − cos − 1 ( Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) ) ) Δ H + ∫ 0 τ R ( t ) d t
It is easy to see that the above bound reduces to that of the stronger quantum speed limit bound for pure states when we take Tr ( ρ 0 2 ) = 1 , which performs better than the MT bound for pure quantum states. □

3.1. Method to find σ , such that Tr ( ρ 1 2 σ ) = 0

For the purpose of calculating our bound, we need to find ways to derive the structure of σ or identify the set of σ such that the condition Tr ( ρ 1 2 σ ) = 0 is satisfied. In the preceding paragraphs, we find out two different ways to do so and apply them to examples thereafter.

3.1.1. Method I: ρ and σ ∈ orthogonal subspaces

In this section we derive the method that can be useful to find σ such that the condition Tr ( ρ 1 2 σ ) = 0 holds. First let us state the properties of σ that should be satisfied in that case. It should satisfy | | σ | | 2 = 1 , where | | σ | | 2 = ( ∑ n ∈ I 〈 e n | σ † σ | e n 〉 ) 1 2 and σ ∈ L 2 ( H ) . Let us take the following definitions
ρ = ∑ k λ k | k 〉 〈 k | , | ′ ρ 1 2 = ∑ k λ k 1 2 | k 〉 〈 k | ,
where we have ∑ k λ k = 1 fixed by the normalization constraint of ρ and we have taken the positive square root of λ k . Note that we have written ρ in its eigenbasis and can be reverted back to any other basis by unitary transformation and the same holds for ρ 1 2 in a corresponding way. In this way ρ 1 2 is also a positive semidefinite Hermitian operator as ρ . Let us denote λ k 1 2 = η k for convenience. Therefore, following this notation, we have
ρ 1 2 = ∑ k η k | k 〉 〈 k | .
Therefore from the condition Tr ( ρ 1 2 σ ) = 0 , we get
Tr ( ∑ k η k | k 〉 〈 k | σ ) = 0 .
This translates to the following condition
∑ k η k 〈 k | σ | k 〉 = 0 .
We know that η k ≥ 0 ∀ k from our own constraint which we have specifically chosen that we only take the positive square root of λ k ∀ k as η k . Also when we impose the condition that σ is also a positive operator, then we get the condition that 〈 k | σ | k 〉 ≥ 0 ∀ k . One of the ways this condition can be obtained is that if ρ and σ are chosen from orthogonal subspaces. Let us note here that ρ is fixed here and we do not have a choice to fix ρ and we only have the freedom to choose any σ from the orthogonal subspace to that of ρ . As a result we can optimize our bound for the stronger quantum speed limit over all possible choices of such σ chosen from the orthogonal subspaces to that of ρ . For mixed quantum states, this choice of σ becomes relevant only in higher dimensional Hilbert spaces than the qubit space.

3.1.2. Method II: A form of σ written directly in terms of ρ and Hermitian operators.

There is another method that allows one to derive an operator that satisfies the condition Tr ( ρ 1 2 σ ) = 0 in a more easier way. This set of σ can be written down in the following form
σ = O − 〈 O 〉 Δ O ρ 1 2 ,
where, O is any Hermitian operator. This way the conditions Tr ( ρ 1 2 σ ) = 0 and Tr ( σ σ † ) = 1 are satisfied automatically. The proof of this claim in given in the following paragraph.
Proof. 
The proof of the first condition Tr ( ρ 1 2 σ ) = 0 goes as follows.
Tr ( ρ 1 2 σ ) = Tr ( ρ 1 2 O − 〈 O 〉 Δ O ρ 1 2 ) = 1 Δ O Tr ( ρ ( O − 〈 O 〉 ) ) = 0
Now we show that the σ defined in this way also satisfies the condition Tr ( σ σ † ) = 1 . This is as follows.
Tr ( σ σ † ) = Tr ( O − 〈 O 〉 Δ O ρ 1 2 ( O − 〈 O 〉 Δ O ρ 1 2 ) † ) = Tr ( ( O − 〈 O 〉 Δ O ) ρ 1 2 ρ 1 2 ( O − 〈 O 〉 Δ O ) ) = Tr ( ( O − 〈 O 〉 Δ O ) ρ ( O − 〈 O 〉 Δ O ) ) = Tr ( ρ ( O − 〈 O 〉 Δ O ) 2 ) = 1
As a result, we have derived another set of operators σ that satisfies the required conditions essential for deriving the stronger quantum speed limit bound for mixed quantum states. Also we see that since O can be any Hermitian operator, therefore we can have a large set of σ as stated above that satisfies our required criterion based on the different Hermitian operators that we can choose. Using this way of finding σ , the stronger quantum speed limit bound is simplified further as follows. We start with the expression of R ( t ) which is as follows
R ( t ) = 1 2 | Tr ( ρ 1 2 ( A Δ A ± i B Δ B ) σ ) | 2 .
We put the expression of σ as described in this section and find the following expression for R ( t )
R ( t ) = 1 2 | Tr ( ρ 1 2 ( A Δ A ± i B Δ B ) ( O − 〈 O 〉 Δ O ρ 1 2 ) ) | 2 .
Using the cyclic property of the trace function, therefore we arrive at the following simplified version of R ( t )
R ( t ) = 1 2 | Tr ( ρ ( A Δ A ± i B Δ B ) ( O − 〈 O 〉 Δ O ) ) | 2 .
The above expression is clearly computationally much more efficient and less time consuming, where for the calculation of the stronger speed limit bound for mixed quantum states, one does not have to compute the square root of ρ , making the calculation of the bound more efficient, fast and simple. We will apply this technique for the examples in the next section.

4. Examples

4.1. Random Hamiltonians

In this section, we calculate and compare the bound given by the tighter quantum speed limit bound with that of the MT like bound of mixed state generalization using random Hamiltonians from the Gaussian Unitary Ensemble or GUE in short. Random Hamiltonians from GUE have found use in many different areas. But our reason for choosing Hamiltonians randomly from GUE is that they give vaild Hamiltonians that are also diverse such that we can show the performance of our stronger quantum speed limit bound for mixed quantum states and unitary evolutions for diverse cases.
Mathematically, a random Hamiltonian is a D × D Hermitian operator H in D × D dimensional Hilbert space, drawn from a Gaussian unitary ensemble (GUE). The GUE is described by the following probability distribution function
P ( H ) = C e − D 2 Tr ( H 2 )
where C is the normalization constant and the elements of H are drawn from the Gaussian probability distribution. In this way H is also Hermitian. A random Hamiltonian dynamics is an unitary time- evolution generated by a fixed time-independent GUE Hamiltonian.
We take the Hilbert space of dimension 3 for our numerical example. The initial state is taken as the following
ρ 0 = 0.2 | 0 〉 〈 0 | + 0.5 | 1 〉 〈 1 | + 0.3 | 2 〉 〈 2 |
Following the second method of generating appropriate σ using a set of Hermitian operators O, we obtain the quantum speed limit bound for the mixed quantum states. We compare the performance of our optimized bound with the previous bounds and non optimized version of our bound as given in the figures. From the figures, we clearly see that our theory is correct and we have Δ = τ S Q S L − τ M T as always positive, showing that the stronger quantum speed limit bound always outperforms the MT like bound for mixed quantum states and unitary evolution. At t = 0 , all the values of Δ are zero because all the random Hamiltonians start with being identity at t = 0 . All the Hamiltonians taken here are time independent. We perform an optimization over different sets of σ so as to get a better bound. Since we cannot tell a priori which optimized version will give the best bound and in which region, as a result we keep this as an open question for future investigation. Preprints 74375 i001Preprints 74375 i002

4.2. Anisotropic multiqubit Heisenberg spin chain

Much attention has been devoted to the studies of graph states, which play a role of a central resource in quantum error correction, quantum cryptography and practical quantum metrology in the presence of noise. We write here the entangling Hamiltonian of the graph state generation for the multiqubit case as follows.
H = ∑ i = 1 N λ i z σ i z + ∑ i = 1 N λ z z σ i z σ i + 1 z − ∑ i = 1 N λ x x σ i x σ i + 1 x − ∑ i = 1 N λ y y σ i y σ i + 1 y
The Hamiltonian is used in the physical implementation of optical lattice of ultracold bosonic atoms. This is also the anisotropic Heisenberg spin model in the optical lattice model which can be written down in appropriate correspondence with the creation and the annihilation operators. The Hamiltonian is has the local terms as well as the interaction terms and in general for N spins which can be mapped to N qubits. In general, the coefficients { λ } are time dependent. However for simplicity we take this to be time independent in our case and calculate the quantum speed limit bound for evolution under this Hamiltonian for initially mixed quantum states.
We take the Hilbert space of dimension 4 for numerical example, i.e., for the case of two qubits. The initial state is taken as the following
ρ 0 = 0.7 | 0 〉 〈 0 | + 0.1 | 1 〉 〈 1 | + 0.1 | 2 〉 〈 2 | + 0.1 | 3 〉 〈 3 |
Following the second method of generating appropriate σ , we obtaining the quantum speed limit bound for the mixed quantum states. We also check our bound for initial mixed quantum state as above under the action of the anisotropic Heisenberg spin chain Hamiltonian and compare the performance of our optimized bound with the previous bound. From the figures, we clearly see that our theory is correct and we have Δ = τ S Q S L − τ M T L as always positive, showing that the tighter quantum speed limit bound always outperforms the MT like bound for mixed quantum states. Since we cannot tell a priori which optimized version will give the best bound and in which region, as a result we keep this as an open question for future investigation. Preprints 74375 i003Preprints 74375 i004

4.3. Perfect state transfer Hamiltonian

Here, we take the example of a Hamiltonian which is useful for the case of perfect quantum state transfer. The Hamiltonian describing for a case of perfect state transfer is given by the following
H = ∑ n = 1 N − 1 J n σ n z σ n + 1 z + ∑ n = 1 N B n σ n x ,
where N is the number of qubits. For our example, we take the Hilbert space of dimension 4 for numerical example, i.e., for the case of two qubits. In this case, we take J k = 1 2 , B k = 1 2 and then the Hamiltonian reads as the following for the case of two qubits as
H = J 1 ( σ z ⊗ σ z ) + B 1 ( σ x ⊗ I ) + B 2 ( I ⊗ σ x ) .
The initial state is taken as the following
ρ 0 = 0.7 | 0 〉 〈 0 | + 0.1 | 1 〉 〈 1 | + 0.1 | 2 〉 〈 2 | + 0.1 | 3 〉 〈 3 | .
We obtain the quantum speed limit bound for the mixed quantum states in the similar procedure as the example before. We check our bound for initial mixed quantum state as stated above under the action of the quantum walker Hamiltonian as stated before and compare the performance of our optimized bound with the previous MT like bound for mixed quantum states. From the figure, we clearly see that our theory is correct and we have Δ = τ S Q S L − τ M T L as always positive, showing that the tighter quantum speed limit bound always outperforms the MT like (MTL) bound for mixed quantum states.

4.4. Two qubit CNOT Hamiltonian

Two qubit CNOT gate is an important case of a Hamiltonian as this is a part of the universal gates that can be used for performing all sorts of quantum computation.Ttherefore we choose a Hamiltonian that will represent a two qubit CNOT gate. The example of such a Hamiltonian is given in [75]. The form of one such Hamiltonian also called the principal Hamiltonian is as follows.
H = π σ z − ⊗ σ x − ,
where we have used the following notation
σ z ± = I ± σ z 2 σ x ± = I ± σ x 2 .
We calculate the quantum speed limit bound for evolution under this Hamiltonian for initially mixed quantum states.
We take the Hilbert space of dimension 4 for our numerical example, i.e., for the case of two qubits. The initial state is taken as the following
ρ 0 = 0.7 | 0 〉 〈 0 | + 0.1 | 1 〉 〈 1 | + 0.1 | 2 〉 〈 2 | + 0.1 | 3 〉 〈 3 |
As with all the examples before, we calculate the stronger quantum speed limit bound using the same methods. We check our bound for the above choices of initial mixed quantum state and the Hamiltonian and compare the performance of our optimized bound with the previous bound. The optimization is over 10 such operators σ as in all the above cases. From the figure, we clearly see that we always have Δ = τ S Q S L − τ M T L as positive, showing that the stronger quantum speed limit bound derived in this article outperforms the MT like (MTL) bound for mixed quantum states. Also it is natural to expect that our stronger speed limit bound will outperform the MT like bound for mixed quantum states even better when the optimization will be performed over a larger set of σ .

5. Discussion

In this work, we have derived a stronger quantum speed limit for mixed quantum states using the mixed state generalization of stronger preparation uncertainty relations. We have shown that this bound reduces to that of the pure states under appropriate conditions. Thereafter, we have discussed methods to derive the suitable operators that allows us to calculate our bound. Hereafter we have shown numerically using random Hamiltonians obtained from Gaussian Unitary ensemble that our bound performs better than the mixed state version of the MT bound. The reason for taking random Hamiltonians is nothing but that the technqiue provide valid Hamiltonians that are unlike each other. Also, we have then shown using many suitable analytical examples of Hamiltonians useful in quantum information and computation tasks that the stronger quantum speed limit bound derived here for mixed quantum states also perform better than the MT like bound and also two more existing quantum speed limit bounds for mixed quantum states existing in the current literature. Future directions remain open for comparing our bound to those of other bounds in the literature for mixed quantum states.

Author Contributions

S.B. conceived the main idea, performed the main analytical calculations and performed all the numerical calculations. All authors contributed to the supportive intermediate ideas, interpretation of the results, preparation, and writing of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work has been supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (2020M3E4A1079939, 2022M3K4A1094774), KIST institutional program (2E31531), INFOSYS scholarship, Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad, Homi Bhaba National institute, the QUEST Grant Q-117 and J C Bose grant from the Department of Science and Technology, India.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

S.B. acknowledges discussions with Abhay Srivastav of Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad, India on an earlier version of the draft of this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Heisenberg, W. Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik 1927, 43, 172–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Robertson, H.P. The Uncertainty Principle. Physical Review 1929, 34, 163–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Maccone, L.; Pati, A.K. Stronger Uncertainty Relations for All Incompatible Observables. Physical Review Letters 2014, 113, 260401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Mondal, D.; Bagchi, S.; Pati, A.K. Tighter uncertainty and reverse uncertainty relations. Physical Review A 2017, 95, 052117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aharonov, Y.; Bohm, D. Time in the Quantum Theory and the Uncertainty Relation for Time and Energy. Physical Review 1961, 122, 1649–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aharonov, Y.; Massar, S.; Popescu, S. Measuring energy, estimating Hamiltonians, and the time-energy uncertainty relation. Physical Review A 2002, 66, 052107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Busch, P. , J.; Mayato, R.S.; Egusquiza, Í., Eds.; Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008; pp. 73–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73473-4_3.Relation. In Time in Quantum Mechanics; Muga, J., Mayato, R.S., Egusquiza, Í., Eds.; Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008; Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008; pp. 73–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mandelstam, L.; Tamm, I. The Uncertainty Relation Between Energy and Time in Non-relativistic Quantum Mechanics. J. Phys. (USSR) 1945, 9, 249. [Google Scholar]
  9. Anandan, J.; Aharonov, Y. Geometry of quantum evolution. Physical Review Letters 1990, 65, 1697–1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Levitin, L.B.; Toffoli, T. Fundamental Limit on the Rate of Quantum Dynamics: The Unified Bound Is Tight. Physical Review Letters 2009, 103, 160502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gislason, E.A.; Sabelli, N.H.; Wood, J.W. New form of the time-energy uncertainty relation. Physical Review A 1985, 31, 2078–2081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Eberly, J.H.; Singh, L.P.S. Time Operators, Partial Stationarity, and the Energy-Time Uncertainty Relation. Physical Review D 1973, 7, 359–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bauer, M.; Mello, P. The time-energy uncertainty relation. Annals of Physics 1978, 111, 38–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bhattacharyya, K. Quantum decay and the Mandelstam-Tamm-energy inequality. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 1983, 16, 2993–2996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Leubner, C.; Kiener, C. Improvement of the Eberly-Singh time-energy inequality by combination with the Mandelstam-Tamm approach. Physical Review A 1985, 31, 483–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Vaidman, L. Minimum time for the evolution to an orthogonal quantum state. American journal of physics 1992, 60, 182–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Uhlmann, A. An energy dispersion estimate. Physics Letters A 1992, 161, 329–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Uffink, J.B. The rate of evolution of a quantum state. American Journal of Physics 1993, 61, 935–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pfeifer, P.; Fröhlich, J. Generalized time-energy uncertainty relations and bounds on lifetimes of resonances. Reviews of Modern Physics 1995, 67, 759–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Horesh, N.; Mann, A. Intelligent states for the Anandan - Aharonov parameter-based uncertainty relation. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 1998, 31, L609–L611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pati, A.K. Uncertainty relation of Anandan–Aharonov and intelligent states. Physics Letters A 1999, 262, 296–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Söderholm, J.; Björk, G.; Tsegaye, T.; Trifonov, A. States that minimize the evolution time to become an orthogonal state. Physical Review A 1999, 59, 1788–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Andrecut, M.; Ali, M.K. The adiabatic analogue of the Margolus–Levitin theorem. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 2004, 37, L157–L160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gray, J.E.; Vogt, A. Mathematical analysis of the Mandelstam–Tamm time-energy uncertainty principle. Journal of mathematical physics 2005, 46, 052108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Luo, S.; Zhang, Z. On Decaying Rate of Quantum States. Letters in Mathematical Physics 2005, 71, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zieliński, B.; Zych, M. Generalization of the Margolus-Levitin bound. Physical Review A 2006, 74, 034301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Andrews, M. Bounds to unitary evolution. Physical Review A 2007, 75, 062112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yurtsever, U. Fundamental limits on the speed of evolution of quantum states. Physica Scripta 2010, 82, 035008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Shuang-Shuang, F.; Nan, L.; Shun-Long, L. A Note on Fundamental Limit of Quantum Dynamics Rate. Communications in Theoretical Physics 2010, 54, 661–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zwierz, M. Comment on “Geometric derivation of the quantum speed limit”. Physical Review A 2012, 86, 016101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Poggi, P.M.; Lombardo, F.C.; Wisniacki, D.A. Quantum speed limit and optimal evolution time in a two-level system. Europhysics Letters (EPL) 2013, 104, 40005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kupferman, J.; Reznik, B. Entanglement and the speed of evolution in mixed states. Physical Review A 2008, 78, 042305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jones, P.J.; Kok, P. Geometric derivation of the quantum speed limit. Physical Review A 2010, 82, 022107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chau, H.F. Tight upper bound of the maximum speed of evolution of a quantum state. Physical Review A 2010, 81, 062133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Deffner, S.; Lutz, E. Energy–time uncertainty relation for driven quantum systems. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 2013, 46, 335302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fung, C.H.F.; Chau, H. Relation between physical time-energy cost of a quantum process and its information fidelity. Physical Review A 2014, 90, 022333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Andersson, O.; Heydari, H. Quantum speed limits and optimal Hamiltonians for driven systems in mixed states. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 2014, 47, 215301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mondal, D.; Datta, C.; Sazim, S. Quantum coherence sets the quantum speed limit for mixed states. Physics Letters A 2016, 380, 689–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mondal, D.; Pati, A.K. Quantum speed limit for mixed states using an experimentally realizable metric. Physics Letters A 2016, 380, 1395–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Deffner, S.; Campbell, S. Quantum speed limits: from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 2017, 50, 453001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Campaioli, F.; Pollock, F.A.; Binder, F.C.; Modi, K. Tightening Quantum Speed Limits for Almost All States. Physical Review Letters 2018, 120, 060409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Giovannetti, V.; Lloyd, S.; Maccone, L. The speed limit of quantum unitary evolution. Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics 2004, 6, S807–S810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Batle, J.; Casas, M.; Plastino, A.; Plastino, A.R. Connection between entanglement and the speed of quantum evolution. Physical Review A 2005, 72, 032337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Borrás, A.; Casas, M.; Plastino, A.R.; Plastino, A. Entanglement and the lower bounds on the speed of quantum evolution. Physical Review A 2006, 74, 022326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zander, C.; Plastino, A.R.; Plastino, A.; Casas, M. Entanglement and the speed of evolution of multi-partite quantum systems. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 2007, 40, 2861–2872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ness, G.; Alberti, A.; Sagi, Y. Quantum Speed Limit for States with a Bounded Energy Spectrum. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2022, 129, 140403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Shrimali, D.; Bhowmick, S.; Pandey, V.; Pati, A.K. Capacity of entanglement for a nonlocal Hamiltonian. Phys. Rev. A 2022, 106, 042419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Thakuria, D.; Pati, A.K. Stronger Quantum Speed Limit. arXiv:2208.05469, arXiv:2208.05469 2022.
  49. Deffner, S.; Lutz, E. Quantum Speed Limit for Non-Markovian Dynamics. Physical Review Letters 2013, 111, 010402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. del Campo, A.; Egusquiza, I.L.; Plenio, M.B.; Huelga, S.F. Quantum Speed Limits in Open System Dynamics. Physical Review Letters 2013, 110, 050403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Taddei, M.M.; Escher, B.M.; Davidovich, L.; de Matos Filho, R.L. Quantum Speed Limit for Physical Processes. Physical Review Letters 2013, 110, 050402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fung, C.H.F.; Chau, H.F. Time-energy measure for quantum processes. Physical Review A 2013, 88, 012307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pires, D.P.; Cianciaruso, M.; Céleri, L.C.; Adesso, G.; Soares-Pinto, D.O. Generalized Geometric Quantum Speed Limits. Physical Review X 2016, 6, 021031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Deffner, S. Quantum speed limits and the maximal rate of information production. Physical Review Research 2020, 2, 013161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jing, J.; Wu, L.A.; Del Campo, A. Fundamental Speed Limits to the Generation of Quantumness. Scientific Reports 2016, 6, 38149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. García-Pintos, L.P.; Nicholson, S.B.; Green, J.R.; del Campo, A.; Gorshkov, A.V. Unifying Quantum and Classical Speed Limits on Observables. Physical Review X 2022, 12, 011038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mohan, B.; Das, S.; Pati, A.K. Quantum speed limits for information and coherence. New Journal of Physics 2022, 24, 065003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mohan, B.; Pati, A.K. Quantum speed limits for observables. Phys. Rev. A 2022, 106, 042436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pandey, V.; Shrimali, D.; Mohan, B.; Das, S.; Pati, A.K. Speed limits on correlations in bipartite quantum systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05645, arXiv:2207.05645 2022.
  60. Thakuria, D.; Srivastav, A.; Mohan, B.; Kumari, A.; Pati, A.K. Generalised quantum speed limit for arbitrary evolution. arXiv:2207.04124, arXiv:2207.04124 2022.
  61. Carabba, N.; Hörnedal, N.; Campo, A.d. Quantum speed limits on operator flows and correlation functions. Quantum 2022, 6, 884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Naseri, M.; Macchiavello, C.; Bruß, D.; Horodecki, P.; Streltsov, A. Quantum Speed Limit for Change of Basis. arXiv:2212.12352, arXiv:2212.12352 2022.
  63. Meng, W.; Xu, Z. Quantum Speed Limits in Arbitrary Phase Spaces. arXiv:2210.14278, arXiv:2210.14278 2022.
  64. Deffner, S.; Lutz, E. Generalized Clausius Inequality for Nonequilibrium Quantum Processes. Physical Review Letters 2010, 105, 170402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Das, S.; Khatri, S.; Siopsis, G.; Wilde, M.M. Fundamental limits on quantum dynamics based on entropy change. Journal of Mathematical Physics 2018, 59, 012205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bekenstein, J.D. Energy Cost of Information Transfer. Physical Review Letters 1981, 46, 623–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lloyd, S. Ultimate physical limits to computation. Nature 2000, 406, 1047–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Lloyd, S. Computational Capacity of the Universe. Physical Review Letters 2002, 88, 237901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Ashhab, S.; de Groot, P.C.; Nori, F. Speed limits for quantum gates in multiqubit systems. Physical Review A 2012, 85, 052327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Caneva, T.; Murphy, M.; Calarco, T.; Fazio, R.; Montangero, S.; Giovannetti, V.; Santoro, G.E. Optimal Control at the Quantum Speed Limit. Physical review letters 2009, 103, 240501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Campbell, S.; Deffner, S. Trade-Off Between Speed and Cost in Shortcuts to Adiabaticity. Physical Review Letters 2017, 118, 100601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Campbell, S.; Genoni, M.G.; Deffner, S. Precision thermometry and the quantum speed limit. Quantum Science and Technology 2018, 3, 025002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mukhopadhyay, C.; Misra, A.; Bhattacharya, S.; Pati, A.K. Quantum speed limit constraints on a nanoscale autonomous refrigerator. Physical Review E 2018, 97, 062116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Margolus, N.; Levitin, L.B. The maximum speed of dynamical evolution. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 1998, 120, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.

Downloads

263

Views

146

Comments

0

Subscription

Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.

Email

Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated