The State Postulate
The State Postulate
Quantum mechanics is built on four postulates. The first answers the most basic question: what is the state of a system? The answer — a unit vector in a Hilbert space, identified up to a global phase — is deceptively simple, but it already encodes superposition, the irrelevance of global phase, and the physical reality of relative phase. Everything else in the theory acts on this object.
Learning Objectives
After this lesson you will be able to:
- State Postulate 1 precisely and explain why states are unit vectors (rays), not arbitrary vectors.
- Apply the normalization condition and normalize an arbitrary vector to a valid state.
- Distinguish global phase (unobservable) from relative phase (observable) and justify the difference.
- Use the superposition principle and interpret amplitudes via the (forthcoming) Born rule.
- Represent and normalize states in NumPy and reason about phase equivalence.
Intuition
A classical bit is in state or . A quantum system is described instead by a vector of complex amplitudes — one amplitude per classically-distinguishable configuration. For a qubit there are two configurations, and , so the state is
The amplitudes are not probabilities — they're complex numbers whose squared magnitudes are probabilities, and whose relative phase governs interference. Two requirements pin down which vectors are physical: the probabilities must sum to (normalization), and multiplying the whole vector by a phase changes nothing measurable (global phase freedom). A physical state is therefore not quite a vector — it's a vector modulo these redundancies, a ray.
Theory
Postulate 1 (State space)
Postulate 1. Associated to any isolated physical system is a complex Hilbert space , the state space. The state of the system is completely described by a unit vector , i.e. . Two vectors that differ only by a global phase, and (), represent the same physical state.
For a single qubit, with computational basis (from 0.1.1). For qubits, (Postulate 4, 1.1.4).
Normalization
Writing in an orthonormal basis, normalization is
By the (upcoming) Born rule, is the probability of obtaining outcome on measurement in that basis; normalization is exactly "the probabilities sum to one." Any nonzero vector becomes a state by normalizing: (Parseval, 0.1.2).
The superposition principle
Because is a vector space, any linear combination of states is (after normalization) a state: if are valid states, so is $\alpha\lvert\psi_1\rangle + \beta\lvert\psi_2\rangle\alpha,\beta$. This superposition principle is the mathematical heart of quantum computing — a single register can hold a superposition over all bit-strings — and is a direct consequence of states living in a linear space.
Global phase is unobservable; relative phase is not
These two facts look similar but are opposite in consequence.
Global phase. The states and are physically identical. Why: every physical prediction is an expectation value or a probability (Postulate 2). Under ,
The phase cancels in every observable quantity. Hence a physical state is really an equivalence class — a ray in (a point of projective Hilbert space).
Relative phase. Inside a superposition, the relative phase between components is physical. Compare
These differ only by a relative sign () on the component, yet they are orthogonal () — perfectly distinguishable states. A global phase rescales everything; a relative phase reweights components against each other, and that survives into measurable interference (e.g. measuring in the basis gives opposite certain outcomes). This distinction is the reason quantum mechanics needs , foreshadowed in 0.1.1.
Caution. "Global phase doesn't matter" is true for a state in isolation. A relative phase between two branches of a superposition — including one introduced by a controlled operation — absolutely matters. Phase-kickback (Term 2.4) weaponizes exactly this.
Worked Examples
Example 1 — Normalizing a state
Let . Then $\langle v|v\rangle = |2|^2 + |1-i|^2 = 4 + 2 = 6$, so the normalized state is
Measurement-in-the-computational-basis probabilities (Born rule): , , summing to . ✓
Example 2 — Global vs relative phase
Consider .
- Apply a global phase : . Overlap with any has the same modulus, so it is physically — same state.
- Apply a relative phase to the component: . Now — a different, orthogonal state. Same-looking operation, opposite physical consequence.
Hands-on (Python)
import numpy as np
ket0 = np.array([1, 0], dtype=complex)
ket1 = np.array([0, 1], dtype=complex)
def normalize(v):
return v / np.linalg.norm(v)
# Example 1:
v = 2 * ket0 + (1 - 1j) * ket1
psi = normalize(v)
print(np.round(psi, 4)) # [0.8165+0.j 0.4082-0.4082j]
print(np.abs(psi) ** 2) # [0.6667 0.3333] = Born probabilities, sum 1def same_physical_state(a, b, tol=1e-9):
"""Equal up to GLOBAL phase iff |<a|b>| = 1 for normalized a, b."""
a, b = normalize(a), normalize(b)
return np.isclose(abs(np.vdot(a, b)), 1.0, atol=tol)
plus = normalize(ket0 + ket1)
minus = normalize(ket0 - ket1)
# Global phase e^{iπ/3} on |+> -> same physical state:
print(same_physical_state(plus, np.exp(1j * np.pi / 3) * plus)) # True
# Relative phase (sign on |1>) turns |+> into |-> -> DIFFERENT, orthogonal state:
print(same_physical_state(plus, minus)) # False
print(np.vdot(plus, minus)) # 0j (orthogonal)Looking ahead to Braket. A simulator stores the amplitude vector you just built. Because global phase is unobservable, two simulators may report state vectors differing by an overall phase yet be physically identical — always compare via , never raw components (Appendix B §8).
Exercises
E1 (easy). Normalize and give the computational-basis measurement probabilities.
Solution
, so . Probabilities , (sum ).
E2 (easy). Are and the same physical state?
Solution
, a global phase . Same physical state. Check: .
E3 (medium). Show that for normalized states, is invariant if either state is multiplied by a global phase, and explain why this means rays (not vectors) are physical.
Solution
Under , , whose modulus squared is unchanged (); same for a phase on . Since all predictions are such overlaps/expectations, the global phase is operationally inaccessible — the physical object is the equivalence class , a ray.
E4 (medium). A student claims and "differ by a phase, so they're the same state." Where is the error?
Solution
The is a relative phase on the component only, not a global phase on the whole vector. After normalization they are and , which are orthogonal and perfectly distinguishable. A global phase would multiply both components equally; here only one flips.
E5 (hard). A qubit state up to global phase has how many real parameters? Derive the count and connect it to the Bloch sphere (Term 1.2).
Solution
A vector in has real parameters (two complex amplitudes). Normalization removes ; global-phase freedom removes another . That leaves real parameters — exactly the two angles of a point on the Bloch sphere (developed in 1.2.2). This matches the count from 0.1.1 E5.
Checkpoint
- State Postulate 1. Why a unit vector, and why "up to global phase"?
- What does normalization mean physically?
- Give an operation that is unobservable and one that is observable, both "just a phase."
- State the superposition principle and why it follows from being a vector space.
- How many real parameters describe a qubit state, and why?
Answers
- The state is a unit vector with , defined up to a global phase. Unit norm makes Born probabilities sum to ; global phase cancels in all predictions, so it carries no information.
- The measurement-outcome probabilities — total probability is one.
- Unobservable: multiplying the whole state by (global phase). Observable: a relative phase between components, e.g. .
- Any linear combination of states is (after normalization) a state, because is closed under addition and scalar multiplication.
- Two: real parameters of , minus one for normalization and one for global phase.
Further Reading
- [NC] Nielsen & Chuang, §2.2.1 (Postulate 1) — the state-space postulate.
- [Sak] Sakurai & Napolitano, §1.1–1.3 — kets, states, and the physical setup.
- [Pre] Preskill, Ph219, Ch. 2 — axioms of quantum theory.
← Prev: Term 0 · Reversible Computation · Up: Term 1 · Next: Observables & the Measurement Postulate →