Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Bloch Sphere of the Qutrit System

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read At resonance, the qutrit Bloch sphere splits into S4 and S2

desk verdict The paper's only new claim, the resonant S4/S2 split of the qutrit Bloch sphere, is contradicted by its own equations; the rest is standard material re-derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16480 v1 pith:KT4WD3CV submitted 2024-11-25 quant-ph

Surajit Sen , Tushar Kanti Dey This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords qutritBlochsphereSU(3)groupthree-levelsystemtrajectoryresonantdynamicsLambdaVandXiconfigurations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to give a unified geometric picture of the qutrit's Bloch space using SU(3) Bloch vectors, and to show that geometry and Schrödinger dynamics agree on the sphere's size. It claims that any pure qutrit state occupies a seven-sphere $\mathbb{S}^7$ with radius squared $4/3$, obtained once from a spherical-coordinate parametrization and once from the time-dependent wave functions of the $\Lambda$, $V$, and $\Xi$ three-level configurations. Its new assertion is that at resonance the sphere separates into a four-sphere $\mathbb{S}^4$ and a two-sphere $\mathbb{S}^2$, with radii fixed by the initial amplitudes. If that split is right, each resonant configuration's Bloch trajectories are confined to those two sectors, appearing as trisectrix-like closed curves and near-elliptical orbits instead of filling one unstructured sphere. A reader would care because this would provide a concrete phase-space geometry for three-level systems, the natural step beyond the qubit's $\mathbb{S}^2$.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the eight-component SU(3) Bloch vector built from the Gell-Mann matrices $\lambda_i$, with the density operator written as $\rho_{TLS}(t)=\tfrac13(\lambda_0+\tfrac32\,\mathbf{n}(t)\cdot\lambda)$; the $3/2$ factor is chosen so that $|\mathbf{n}|^2=4/3$ reproduces the geometric norm. The dynamical argument runs through the rotating-frame Hamiltonians of the three configurations, the explicit normalized amplitudes (24), and the norm identities (32a)--(34c). The claimed split is carried by the two quadratic sums (32b) and (32c), which are assigned fixed radii at resonance and whose component sets are permuted among the $\Lambda$, $V$, and $\Xi$ configurations.

What would settle it

Take the paper's resonant Hamiltonian and Bloch equations for the Λ configuration, set $\Delta=0$, and compute $d/dt\,(n_2^2+n_3^2+n_5^2+n_6^2+n_8^2)$. If the derivative is not identically zero for generic couplings, the claimed $\mathbb{S}^4$ sector is not closed under the paper's own dynamics, so the split cannot be an invariant. Independently, insert the amplitudes (24) into the rotating-frame Schrödinger equation for (23) at resonance and compare the oscillation frequency: if the residual is nonzero, the plotted trajectories are not solutions to that Hamiltonian.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the SU(3) Bloch vector $\mathbf{n}_T(t)=\operatorname{Tr}[\lambda\rho_{TLS}(t)]$ moves on $\mathbb{S}^7$ with norm squared $4/3$, and that under resonant driving this sphere splits into an $\mathbb{S}^4$ sector and an $\mathbb{S}^2$ sector. For the $\Lambda$ configuration with equal initial populations, the paper gives $\sum_{i\in\{2,3,5,6,8\}} n_i^2=4/9$ and $\sum_{i\in\{1,4,7\}} n_i^2=8/9$ at zero detuning, with analogous component assignments for the $V$ and $\Xi$ configurations. It further claims the phase portraits of the five-dimensional sector are closed curves of the trisectrix family, the three-dimensional sector gives near-elliptical curves, and off-resonance the splitting disappears and the trajectories precess. The same norm $4/3$ is obtained from geometry and dynamics, which the paper uses to justify its choice of the factor $3/2$ in the density-matrix parametrization.

Load-bearing premise

The main new claim rests on two unstated structural premises: that the quadratic combinations (32b) and (32c) are constants of the resonant motion, and that the amplitudes (24) solve the rotating-frame Schrödinger equation for (23); if either fails, the $\mathbb{S}^4/\mathbb{S}^2$ trajectories are not consequences of the paper's Hamiltonian.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Resonant three-level dynamics would decompose exactly into five- and three-dimensional Bloch sectors, so a qutrit's evolution could be visualized on two smaller spheres rather than one high-dimensional one.
  • The geometric and dynamical derivations of $|\mathbf{n}|^2=4/3$ would certify the factor-$3/2$ density-matrix parametrization as the natural SU(3) Bloch convention for qutrits.
  • Because the same sector pattern appears in all three level schemes with only component labels permuted, the separation would be a structural property of resonant three-level systems.
  • The contrast between trisectrix-type curves in the $\mathbb{S}^4$ sector and near-elliptical curves in the $\mathbb{S}^2$ sector would give a visual signature that distinguishes resonance from detuning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper treats (32b) and (32c) as fixed radii but does not prove their conservation; a Casimir-like derivation from the Bloch equations (A.11) would either turn the numerical split into a theorem or reveal which initial states and couplings preserve it.
  • The paper's own conclusion notes that its analysis uses a narrow parameter range; checking the sector radii for other initial populations and coupling strengths would show whether the split is generic or special to equal-population states.
  • A natural extension the paper does not pursue is to look for analogous $\mathbb{S}^{p}\times\mathbb{S}^{q}$ sector decompositions in higher-dimensional qudits under symmetric driving.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an SU(3)-based Bloch-sphere description of the qutrit, derives Bloch vectors from a geometric parametrization and from the dynamics of Λ, V, and Ξ three-level configurations, and claims that the two derivations give the same norm, |n|^2 = 4/3. Its central new claim is that under resonant conditions the Bloch sphere S^7 splits into an S^4 sector and an S^2 sector with fixed radii, producing trisectrix-like and approximately elliptical phase portraits. The paper presents closed-form amplitudes, lengthy Bloch-vector expressions, and Bloch equations in appendices, which makes the claims directly checkable.

Significance. If the resonant S^4/S^2 splitting were correct, it would give an attractive geometric picture of qutrit dynamics and could be a useful visualization tool. The manuscript's explicit formulas and appendices are a strength because they permit exact verification. However, the verification fails on several load-bearing points: the geometric norm equation is violated by the paper's own components, the dynamical amplitudes do not solve the stated Schrödinger equation, and the claimed S^4 radius is not conserved under the paper's own Bloch equations. These are internal inconsistencies, not merely disagreements with the literature, and they invalidate the central claim.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (13h) and Eq. (14)] The component S_T8 in Eq. (13h) is too large by a factor of 2. For the cardinal state |1>, which corresponds to θ1=0 in the parametrization (6), Eqs. (13a)-(13g) give S_T1=...=S_T7=0 and S_T3=1, while Eq. (13h) gives S_T8=2/√3. The norm in Eq. (14) would then be |S|^2=1+4/3=7/3, not 4/3. Direct evaluation with λ8=(1/√3)diag(1,1,-2) gives S_T8=Tr(λ8|1><1|)=1/√3. Thus the geometric derivation of the norm 4/3 is invalid as written.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (31)] The definitions of n3(t) and n8(t) in Eq. (31) are inconsistent with the Gell-Mann matrices in Eq. (12) and with the density-matrix parametrization in Eq. (25a). From λ3=diag(1,-1,0), one must have n3=|c1|^2-|c2|^2, not |c1|^2-|c3|^2. From λ8=(1/√3)diag(1,1,-2) and the inversion of Eq. (25a), one must have n8=(|c1|^2+|c2|^2-2|c3|^2)/√3, not the factor 1/√2 used in Eq. (31). These errors propagate into the Bloch-vector formulas in Appendix A and into the claimed sector norms.
  3. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (23) and (24)] The amplitudes in Eq. (24) do not solve the Schrödinger equation for the rotating-frame Hamiltonian in Eq. (23). At resonance Δ=0, differentiating Eq. (24) at t=0 gives dc1/dt(0)=-(i/2)(κ13 c30+κ23 c20), dc2/dt(0)=-(i/2)κ23 c10, and dc3/dt(0)=-(i/2)κ13 c10. The Hamiltonian (23) at Δ=0 gives Hc(0)=(κ23 c20+κ13 c30, κ23 c10, κ13 c10)^T, so Schrödinger's equation requires dc/dt(0)=-iHc(0), with the full couplings and no factor 1/2. Every Rabi frequency in the proposed solution is therefore too small by a factor of 2, invalidating the dynamical Bloch vectors, the figures, and the dynamical derivation of the sector norms.
  4. [Section 3.2, Eq. (32b) and Appendix A, Eq. (A.11)] The claimed S^4-sector norm is not a constant of motion under the paper's own Bloch equations. Setting Δ=0 in Eqs. (A.11a)-(A.11h) and differentiating Q=n2^2+n3^2+n5^2+n6^2+n8^2 gives dQ/dt=2√3 κ13 n5 n8, which is generically nonzero; the paper's own Fig. 1a shows n5(t) and n8(t) nonzero over extended intervals for the parameters used. Moreover, for the initial condition c10=c20=c30=1/√3 used in Section 4, the left side of Eq. (32b) at t=0 is 0 while the right side evaluates to 4/9. The S^4/S^2 split is therefore unsupported and contradicts the manuscript's own equations.
  5. [Section 3.2, Eq. (25a) and Eq. (32a)] The claimed identity between the geometric and dynamical norms is imposed by construction rather than derived. The text states that the prefactor 3/2 in Eq. (25a) is chosen 'judiciously' so that the density matrix gives precisely the norm of Eq. (14). With that normalization, any pure state automatically satisfies Tr ρ^2=1 and hence |n|^2=4/3; Eq. (32a) therefore repeats the normalization condition and provides no independent dynamical confirmation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (9)] The superposition states in Eq. (9) contain inconsistencies: Eq. (9a) has θ1=π/2, θ2=π but writes e^{iφ2}|2>, whereas Eq. (6b) would give e^{iφ1}|2>; and Eqs. (9b) and (9c) both list the same argument θ1=π, θ2=π/2, so one of them appears to be mistyped.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (23)] The detuning definitions after Eq. (23) are garbled: the text defines Δ13 twice with the same expression and does not give a coherent definition of Δ23. Similar issues appear in the definitions after Eqs. (A.13) and (A.16).
  3. [Appendix A and B] There are typographical errors in the appendices: Eq. (A.11c) writes n5 without the Λ superscript, Eq. (A.13) contains U†_Λ where U†_V is intended, and Eq. (A.17b) is missing the plus sign between ΔΞ n1(t) and 2κ n3(t). These should be corrected if the manuscript is revised.
  4. [Figures 1-6] The figure captions do not specify the time units or the detuning scale consistently; for example, Fig. 3b uses Δ=20 over t∈[0,1] while Figs. 1b and 2b use Δ=0.2 over t∈[0,100]. This makes the off-resonance comparison difficult to interpret.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The claimed geometric-vs-dynamical norm identity is fixed by the 3/2 normalization in Eq. (25a), and the central resonant S4/S2 split is imported from the authors' own reference [33] without derivation; the paper's novel conclusions reduce to construction and self-citation.

  1. self definitional [Abstract; Sec. 3.2, Eq. (25a), Eq. (30), Eq. (32a)]
    "Here we emphasize that the judicious choice of 3/2 in front of nT(t) · λ in Eq. (25a) rather than its other value discussed in the literature [5,23], ensures that the density matrix ρTLS gives precisely the same norm Eq. (14) obtained for the qutrit system. ... n2 1(t) + n2 2(t) + n2 3(t) + n2 4(t) + n2 5(t) + n2 6(t) + n2 7(t) + n2 8(t) = 4/3 (32a) which exactly aligns with Eq.(14)."

    The 3/2 prefactor is not derived; it is explicitly chosen so that the density matrix in Eq. (25a) reproduces the geometric norm of Eq. (14). Because the dynamical vector is defined in Eq. (30) as nT(t) = Tr[λρTLS(t)] for the same pure-state density matrix, Eq. (32a) is the identity |Tr[λρ]|^2 = 4/3 valid for any pure qutrit state, independent of the Schrödinger amplitudes (24). The claimed agreement between the geometric and dynamical norms is therefore imposed by the normalization in (25a), not obtained from the dynamics.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (32b)-(32c); Sec. 4 phase portraits of the S4/S2 sectors]
    "In addition, in this dynamical approach we note that at the zero detuning condition (∆ = 0), the seven-sphere S7 splits into two subspace: a four-sphere S4 with the norms [33], ... and two-sphere S2 ... respectively."

    The central new claim, the resonant S4/S2 split, is not derived in the text: Eqs. (32b) and (32c) are attributed to reference [33], a paper by the present authors' own group (Sen, Nath, Dey and Gangopadhyay). No proof that those quadratic forms are constants of motion is supplied, and the paper's own Bloch equations (A.11) at ∆ = 0 give d/dt(n2^2+n3^2+n5^2+n6^2+n8^2) = 2√3 κ13 n5 n8, which is generically nonzero. The novel dynamical conclusion therefore rests on an unverified self-citation chain rather than on an independent derivation contained in this paper.

full rationale

The 4/3 norm itself is standard and harmless, but this paper presents it as a new equivalence between geometry and dynamics while explicitly fixing the 3/2 normalization in Eq. (25a) to force that equivalence, making the 'both results are identical' statement self-definitional. The genuinely new assertion, the resonant split of S7 into S4 and S2, is neither proved nor derived in the manuscript; it is transferred from the authors' own reference [33], and the paper's own Bloch equations indicate that the S4-sector quadratic combination is not conserved. Thus the central conclusions are either built into the parametrization by construction or carried by a load-bearing self-citation. The paper is not self-contained against an independent derivation of the split, so a high circularity score is appropriate; there is no fitted-input circularity, but the definitional norm identity plus the self-cited split justify score 8.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central results rest on: (i) a normalization choice (3/2 in Eq. 25a) that manufactures the norm identity; (ii) the equal-detuning and equal-coupling restrictions; (iii) the unproven conservation of two quadratic forms (the S4 and S2 norms), which the paper's own equations of motion (A.11) contradict; and (iv) a subjective visual classification of trajectories over a narrow parameter range the authors themselves flag. No numerical fits to data appear, but several hand-picked constants and restrictions carry the weight of the claims.

free parameters (4)
  • Normalization prefactor 3/2 in the SU(3) density matrix (Eq. 25a) = 3/2
    The authors state this value is chosen so that the purity formula reproduces the geometric norm of Eq. (14); the claimed identity of geometric and dynamical norms is therefore built into the parametrization.
  • Equal detuning condition Delta13=Delta23=Delta = Delta=0 (resonance) and Delta=0.2 or 20 (off-resonance plots)
    All claimed results are derived on the equal-detuning submanifold; this restriction is stated but its effect on the generality of the split claim is not assessed.
  • Coupling strengths for the figures = kappa13=0.3, kappa23=0.2 (Lambda); kappa13=0.3, kappa12=0.2 (V); kappa12=kappa23=kappa (Xi)
    These are hand-chosen values for the time series and phase portraits. The trajectory classification (trisectrix-like, elliptical) is inferred from this narrow sample, which the conclusion itself acknowledges.
  • Equal coupling kappa12=kappa23 for the Xi configuration = kappa (equidistant ladder)
    Imposed in Appendix B (iii) to make the Xi Bloch equations tractable; the claimed Xi split is derived only under this extra restriction.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math SU(3) Gell-Mann algebra with structure constants, lambda_l lambda_m = delta_lm + d_lmn lambda_n + f_lmp lambda_p
    Used throughout Section 2.2 to build the Bloch vectors; standard group theory.
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation and the unitary transformation (22) that makes the three-level Hamiltonian time-independent (Eq. 23)
    The time-dependent Hamiltonians (16)-(18) are reduced via RWA to (23) or analogous forms; the RWA validity conditions are not stated.
  • ad hoc to paper The garbled detuning definitions after Eq. (23) are read charitably as physical detunings
    The displayed detunings are dimensionally inconsistent and repeated ('Delta13 = 2*omega13 + omega13 - Omega13' appears twice); reading them as intended detunings is an act of charity required for the derivation.
  • domain assumption Equal-detuning condition Delta13=Delta23=Delta for Lambda, and analogous conditions for V and Xi
    Invoked after Eq. (23); confines the whole analysis to a codimension-one manifold.
  • ad hoc to paper The amplitude solution (24) is the solution of the Schrodinger equation for Hamiltonian (23)
    At resonance, (24) implies a Rabi frequency half of what Hamiltonian (23) requires (dc1/dt at t=0 is -i(c30*kappa13+c20*kappa23)/2 instead of -i(c30*kappa13+c20*kappa23)), so this assumption is violated by the displayed equations.
  • ad hoc to paper The quadratic expressions (32b)-(32c) are conserved under the resonance dynamics
    Never proven; the paper's own Bloch equations (A.11) imply d/dt(n2^2+n3^2+n5^2+n6^2+n8^2)=2*sqrt(3)*kappa13*n5*n8, generically nonzero, so the assumption fails.
  • ad hoc to paper The phase portraits are visually classifiable as 'trisectrix family' (S4 sector) and 'approximately elliptical' (S2 sector)
    Section 4 asserts these curve families with no defining equation, no fit, and no quantitative test.
invented entities (1)
  • The S4 and S2 sectors of the qutrit Bloch sphere
    purpose: Claimed decomposition of S7 into a five-component sphere and a three-component sphere at resonance; used to organize the trajectory plots.
    No falsifiable handle outside the paper's own algebra; the conservation law the sectors require is violated by the paper's own Bloch equations, so the entity has no independent support.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bloch Sphere of the Qutrit System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KT4WD3CV

@misc{pith2026241116480,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bloch Sphere of the Qutrit System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KT4WD3CV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16480}
}
abstract

We present a novel method to study the Bloch space of the qutrit system by examining the Bloch trajectories in it. Since such system is inherently a three-level quantum system, therefore we use the SU(3) group as the basis group to obtain the Bloch vectors of different configurations of it. The norm of the Bloch space is evaluated from the geometric consideration and also from the dynamics of the Bloch vectors and both results are found to be identical. The analysis of the dynamical evolution of the Bloch vectors reveals an additional feature that, under resonant conditions, the Bloch sphere $\mathbb{S}^{7}$ splits into two parts, a four-sphere $\mathbb{S}^{4}$ and a two-sphere $\mathbb{S}^{2}$. The Bloch trajectories of the two sectors across different configurations exhibit a range of simple to complex curves, highlighting the non-trivial structure of the Bloch space of the qutrit system.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    S. Sen, M. R. Nath, T. K. Dey, and Gautam Gangopadhyay. Bloch space structure, the qutrit wavefunction, and atom–field entanglement in three-level systems. Annals of Physics , 327:224–252, 2012

    work page 2012

  2. [1]

    P. W. Milonni and J. H. Eberly. Laser Physics . Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2010

    work page 2010

  3. [2]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang. Quantum Information and Quantum Computation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 10th edition, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [3]

    Benenti, G

    G. Benenti, G. Casati, and G. Strini. Principles of Quantum Computa- tion and Information - Volume I: Basic Concepts and Volume II: Basic Tools and Special Topics. World Scientific, Singapore, 1st edition, 2004

    work page 2004

  5. [4]

    G. Jaeger. Quantum Information: An Overview . Springer, Berlin, Hei- delberg, 1st edition, November 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [5]

    S. K. Goyal, B. N. Simon, R. Singh, and S. Simon. Geometry of the generalized bloch sphere for qutrits. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 49:165–203, March 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    Kossakowski and G

    A. Kossakowski and G. Kimura. The bloch-vector space for n-level sys- tems: The spherical-coordinate point of view. Open Systems & Infor- mation Dynamics , 12:207–229, 2005

    work page 2005

  8. [7]

    Zachcial and M

    S. Zachcial and M. Zachcial. Alternative representation of n x n density matrix. Applied Physics B: Lasers and Optics , 82:143–151, March 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 35 references
  1. [8]

    R. A. Bertlmann and P. Krammer. Bloch vectors for qudits. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 41:235–303, May 2008

    2008

  2. [9]

    Mallesh, and N

    Arvind, K.S. Mallesh, and N. Mukunda. The bloch vector for n-level systems. Physics Letters A , 314:339–349, August 2003

    2003

  3. [10]

    G. Kimura. The bloch vector for n-level systems. Physics Letters A , 314:339–349, 2008

    2008

  4. [11]

    Jak´ obczyk and M

    L. Jak´ obczyk and M. Siennicki. Geometry of bloch vectors in two-qubit system. Physics Letters A , 286:383–390, 2001

    2001

  5. [12]

    J. E. Avron, G. Bisker, and O. Kenneth. Visualizing two qubits. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 48:102107, 2007

    2007

  6. [13]

    Morelli, C

    S. Morelli, C. Eltschka, M. Huber, and J. Siewert. Correlation con- straints and the bloch geometry of two qubits. Quantum, 7:1027, 2023. 32

    2023

  7. [14]

    C. Wie. Bloch sphere model for two-qubit pure states. arXiv preprint ,

  8. [15]

    J. Bley, E. Rexigel, A. Arias, N. Longen, L. Krupp, Ma. Kiefer- Emmanouilidis, P. Lukowicz, A. Donhauser, S. K¨ uchemann, J. Kuhn, and A. Widera. Visualizing entanglement in multiqubit systems. Phys- ical Review Research, 6(2):023–077, 2024

    2024

  9. [16]

    K. B. Wharton and D. Koch. Unit quaternions and the bloch sphere. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 48:235–302, 2015

    2015

  10. [17]

    Heisenberg- weyl observables: Bloch vectors in phase space

    A Ali, Paul Erker, Marcus Huber, and Claude Kl¨ ockl. Heisenberg- weyl observables: Bloch vectors in phase space. Physical Review A , 94:010301, July 2016

    2016

  11. [18]

    Sharma, S

    G. Sharma, S. Ghosh, and S. K. Sazim. Bloch sphere analog of qudits using heisenberg-weyl operators. Physica Scripta, 99:045105, 2024

    2024

  12. [19]

    Baumgartner, B

    B. Baumgartner, B. C. Hiesmayr, and Heide Narnhofer. State space for two qutrits has a phase space structure in its core. Physical Review A , 74:032327, September 2006

    2006

  13. [20]

    Kurzy´ nski

    P. Kurzy´ nski. Multi-bloch vector representation of the qutrit. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 44:492–002, 2011

    2011

  14. [21]

    Bengtsson and K

    I. Bengtsson and K. ˙Zyczkowski. Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2nd edition, 2017

    2017

  15. [22]

    Geometry of quantum com- putation with qutrits

    Bin Li, Zu-Huan Yu, and Shao-Ming Fei. Geometry of quantum com- putation with qutrits. Scientific Reports, 3:2594, September 2013

    2013

  16. [23]

    Kurzy´ nski, A

    P. Kurzy´ nski, A. Ko lodziejski, W. Laskowski, and M. Markiewicz. Three-dimensional visualization of a qutrit. Physical Review A , 93:062126, 2016

    2016

  17. [24]

    Kurzy´ nski

    P. Kurzy´ nski. Multi-bloch vector representation of the qutrit.Quantum Information & Computation , 11:361–373, 2011

    2011

  18. [25]

    Sen and T

    S. Sen and T. K. Dey. An inequality for entangled qutrits in su(3) basis. Quantum Information Processing, 23:267(1–12), 2024

    2024

  19. [26]

    F. T. Hioe and J. H. Eberly. Nonlinear constants of motion for three- level quantum systems. Physical Review A , 25:2168–2183, 1982. 33

    1982

  20. [27]

    F. T. Hioe. Gell-mann dynamic symmetry for n-level quantum systems. Physical Review A , 32:2824–2836, 1985

    1985

  21. [28]

    H. I. Yoo and J. H. Eberly. Dynamical theory of an atom with two or three levels interacting with quantized cavity fields. Physics Reports, 118:239–337, 1985

    1985

  22. [29]

    M. R. Nath, S. Sen, A. K. Sen, and G. Gangopadhyay. Bloch space struc- ture, the qutrit wavefunction, and atom–field entanglement in three-level systems. Pramana - Journal of Physics , 71:77–97, July 2008

    2008

  23. [31]

    S. Sen, T. K. Dey, and B. Deb. A unified approach to lambda, cascade, and vee-type systems with one continuum. Journal of Modern Optics , 64:2083–2096, July 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    S. Sen, T. K. Dey, and B. Deb. Resonance fluorescence in lambda, cas- cade, and vee type three-level configurations. Physica Scripta, 98:115– 124, 2023

    2023

  25. [34]

    Greiner and B

    W. Greiner and B. M¨ uller.Quantum Mechanics: Symmetries . Springer Science and Business Media, New York, 2012

    2012

  26. [35]

    Quantum mechanics — Wikipedia, the free ency- clopedia

    Wikipedia. Quantum mechanics — Wikipedia, the free ency- clopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum% 20mechanics&oldid=1258667380, 2024. [Online; accessed 24- November-2024]. 34

    2024

  27. [2014]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.8069

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.