Entanglement Or Separability an Introduction

Bachelor Thesis

Entanglement or Separability an introduction

Lukas Schneiderbauer

December 22, 2012

Quantum entanglement is a huge and active research field these days. Not only the philosophical aspects of these ’spooky’ features in quantum mechanics are quite interesting, but also the possibilities to make use of it in our everyday life is thrilling. In the last few years many possible applications, mostly within the ’Quantum Information’ field, have been developed. Of course to make use of this feature one demands tools to control entanglement in a certain sense. How can one define entanglement? How can one identify an entangled quantum system? Can entanglement be measured? These are questions one desires an answer for and indeed many answers have been found. However today entanglement is not yet fully in control by mathematics; many problems are still not solved. This paper aims to provide a theoretical introduction to get a feeling for the mathematical problems concerning entanglement and presents approaches to handle entanglement identification or entanglement measures for simple cases. The reader should be aware of the fact that this paper constitutes in no way the claim to be a summary of all available methods, there exist many more than demonstrated in the following pages.

Student ID number 0907633 Degree course Physics

assisted by ao. Univ.-Prof. i.R. Dr. Reinhold Bertlmann Contents

1 Introduction 3

2 Preliminary deﬁnitions 4 2.1 Composite quantum systems ...... 4 2.2 Density operator ...... 4 2.2.1 Reduced density operator for a bipartite quantum system ...... 4 2.3 Entangled states ...... 5 2.3.1 A pure correlated composite state ...... 5 2.4 Hilbert-Schmidt space ...... 6 2.5 Qudit systems ...... 6 2.5.1 Qubit systems ...... 6

3 Pure bipartite qudit states 7 3.1 Schmidt decomposition ...... 7 3.2 Von-Neumann entropy ...... 8

4 Mixed bipartite qudit states 11 4.1 A criterion for non-entanglement ...... 11 4.2 Generalization of the Von-Neumann entropy ...... 12 4.2.1 Requirements for entanglement measures ...... 12 4.2.2 Entanglement measures ...... 13 4.3 Generalization of the Schmidt rank ...... 14 4.4 Entanglement witnesses ...... 14 4.4.1 Entanglement Witness Theorem (EWT) ...... 15 4.4.2 Positive Map Theorem (PMT) ...... 15 4.4.3 Positive Partial Transpose (PPT) Criterion ...... 16 4.4.4 Bertlmann-Narnhofer-Thirring Theorem ...... 17

5 Multipartite states 20 5.1 Some entanglement measures ...... 20 5.1.1 Geometric measure of entanglement ...... 20 5.1.2 Measure of entanglement by Barnum ...... 20 5.2 An entanglement witness ...... 20

6 The choice of factorization 22 6.1 The choice of factorization for pure states ...... 22 6.2 The choice of factorization for mixed states ...... 22

7 Conclusion 24

References 24 1 INTRODUCTION

1 Introduction

Quantum entanglement, named by Erwin Schrödinger1, is a quantum mechanics phenomenon which was ﬁrst outlined by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolski and Nathan Rosen in 1935 and led to the fa- mous EPR paradoxon.[6] Their result was that quantum mechanics can’t be a correct theory since entanglement would lead to a violation of the classical principle of local realism:

»We are thus forced to conclude that the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality given by wave functions is not complete.« - Einstein, Podolski, Rosen [6]

On the other hand quantum mechanics was succussfully conﬁrmed by experiments. Therefore the idea of ’hidden variables’ arose, meaning quantum theory is not fundamental but a statistical theory which covers the fundamental theory. This makes it possible to deny a violation of local realism as matter of principle and at the same time to ’believe’ in the success of the theory. 1964 John Stewart Bell provided a way to determine experimentally whether hidden variables exist or not (see his Bell inequalities[4]). Surprisingly the experiments turned out to deny the existence of such hidden variables. Although the interpretation of quantum theory may vary, today quantum mechanics is widely ac- cepted as fundamental theory by physicists.

This work is an introduction developing criteria to identify entangled quantum systems for specific cases. To start at an uniform level it first provides some fundamental mathematical definitions in section 2. Mathematical entities with physical meaning like the Hilbert space or a density operator are defined. Also a (mathematical) answer to the question »What is entanglement?« is given. The following derivations are based on these definitions. Next it faces one of the simplest non trivial problems in section 3: a pure bipartite qudit state. Two important concepts, the Schmidt-decomposition and the Von-Neumann entropy, are introduced which will prove to be useful in further studies. The Bell states will function as examples. In chapter 4 mixed bipartite qudit systems are discussed. First a simple but important criterion for non-entanglement is derived. Generalization approaches of the Von-Neumann entropy and the Schmidt rank are presented as entanglement measures which will include the entanglement of formation, the relative entropy of entanglement, the entanglement of distillation, entanglement cost and a Hilbert- Schmidt measure. Also the concept of entanglement witnesses with a few applications like the Positive Partial Transpose Criterion is displayed. Furthermore a small outlook for multipartite systems is given in section 5. Two more measures of entanglement are presented and a specific entanglement witness for an N-partite system is given. And last but not least the issue of the possibility to choose different algebra factorizations with respect to the consequences to entanglement is discussed in chapter 6.

1The original German name for this ’spooky’ feature was »Verschränkung«.

3 2 PRELIMINARY DEFINITIONS

2 Preliminary deﬁnitions

2.1 Composite quantum systems A quantum system is represented by a Hilbert space H. Let’s consider a number of such systems, denoted by HA, HB and so forth.

Deﬁnition 2.1. It is postulated that the composite system of these subsystems HA, HB, ... is represented by their Product-Hilbert space HAB...

HAB... = HA ⊗ HB ⊗ ... (2.1)

An operator O in a composite system SAB... is denoted by OAB... . For a product state |ΨAi⊗|ΨBi⊗... one also writes |ΨA, ΨB, ...i.

2.2 Density operator

Deﬁnition 2.2. Given an ensemble {|ϕii, pi} of N possible pure states |ϕii with probability pi one deﬁnes the density operator ρ N N X X ρ := pi|ϕiihϕi|, pi = 1 (2.2) i=1 i=1

Note that the |ϕii are not the eigenstates of ρ, therefore not orthogonal in general. This density operator ρ represents a mixed state2 (see e.g. [2]) of a quantum system and has the following important properties:

hϕ|ρ|ϕi ≥ 0 ∀|ϕi ∈ H ⇐⇒ ρ† = ρ (2.3)

tr(ρ) = 1 (2.4)

Proof. Eq. (2.3) is obvious and eq. (2.4) can be shown by just using the deﬁnition of the trace: P tr(ρ) ≡ ihΨi|ρ|Ψii with an arbitrary ON basis {Ψi}.

2.2.1 Reduced density operator for a bipartite quantum system Definition 2.3. Let ρAB be a density operator on HAB. Then the reduced density operator ρA is defined as A AB ρ := trB(ρ ), (2.5) AB AB P B AB B whereas trB(Z ) is called a partial trace, which is defined by trB(Z ) := nhΨn |Z |Ψn i with A arbitrary basis {|Ψii}. The result is an operator on H . More to partial traces can be found in [2]. The reduced density operator ρA can be envisioned as the state in the subsystem SA. All probability A predictions for local measurements (the related observable is in the form of A ⊗ I) on system S can be allocated to the reduced density operator.

2A mixed state is a generalization of a pure state. To see this, set N = 1 in eq. (2.2) and one gets the density operator of a pure state, namely ρpure = |ϕihϕ|.

4 2.3 Entangled states 2 PRELIMINARY DEFINITIONS

2.3 Entangled states Deﬁnition 2.4. A composite state is called correlated if and only if its density operator ρAB... can not be written as a product operator, i.e.

ρAB... 6= ρA ⊗ ρB ⊗ ... (2.6)

Since ρ represents a mixed state in general, correlation alone may not necessarily imply a deviation from classical views. To classify a non classical eﬀect we go on with further deﬁnitions.

Deﬁnition 2.5. A state is called separable if and only if the density operator ρAB... can be written as

n AB... X A B ρ = pr ρr ⊗ ρr ⊗ ... (2.7) r=1

Note, that for n = 1, ρAB... is not correlated. The state for n 6= 1, that is a separable correlated state, is called a classical correlated state. From the deﬁnition it is clear that the family of separable states is a convex set 3.

Deﬁnition 2.6. A state is called entangled if and only if the state is correlated and not separable, i.e.

n AB... X A B ρ 6= pr ρr ⊗ ρr ⊗ ... (2.8) r=1 It may be useful to take a look at a special case: a pure and correlated state.

2.3.1 A pure correlated composite state Claim. A pure correlated composite state is an entangled one.

n X ρ = λrρr r=1 n X =⇒ hΦ|ρ|Φi = 0 = λrhΦ|ρr|Φi r=1

Since all hΦ|ρr|Φi are positive (see eq. (2.3)) and λr are positive, the above equation holds, if and only if hΦ|ρr|Φi = 0. Now complete |Ψi to an orthonormal basis {|φki}, |φ1i ≡ |Ψi and look at the matrix elements of ρ and ρr in this basis: hφi|ρr|φji. We conclude, that all elements vanish, except for hΨ|ρ|Ψi = hΨ|ρr|Ψi = 1, because of eq. (2.4). Therefore ρ = ρr ∀r ∈ [1; n]. Thus a decomposition is not possible. Furthermore let’s assume, ρ is correlated, i.e. ρ 6= ρ1 ⊗ ρ2 ⊗ ..., then ρ cannot be written in the form of eq. (2.7). Hence it must be entangled.

That implies: |ΨAB...i= 6 |ΦAi ⊗ |ΦBi ⊗ ... ⇐⇒ |ΨAB...i entangled (2.9)

3A set C is said to be convex if (1 − t) x + t y ∈ C, ∀(x, y) ∈ C, ∀t ∈ [0,1]. 4 Pn Pn The convex sum of ρ is ρ = r=1 λrρr, r=1 λr = 1, λr > 0

5 2.4 Hilbert-Schmidt space 2 PRELIMINARY DEFINITIONS

2.4 Hilbert-Schmidt space

Deﬁnition 2.7. Let H be a Hilbert space describing a quantum mechanical system and He the set of operators acting on H. Then the set He forms a Hilbert space for itself. This space is called a Hilbert-Schmidt space. The scalar product on A denoted by hB,Ci (B,C ∈ He) is deﬁned by

hB,Ci := tr(B†C) (2.10) and induces the Hilbert Schmidt norm ||B|| := phB,Bi .

2.5 Qudit systems Deﬁnition 2.8. A quantum system with d linear independent states is called Qudit system and it is described in a d-dimensional Hilbert space Hd.

2.5.1 Qubit systems A qubit system is an important speciﬁc case of a qudit system, namely a system with d = 2. The system is represented by a 2-dimensional Hilbert space H2. To name a few physical examples:

1 • Spin- 2 -particle • Polarization of single photons

• Quantum dots

Bell states It is not the purpose to discuss Bell states in detail here, however, it makes a good example for an entangled bipartite qubit state as we will see later on.

5 Deﬁnition 2.9. Let |0i and |1i be the eigenstates of the Pauli operator σ3 acting on H2, then we AB A B deﬁne the so called Bell basis also known as Bell states: |Φ±i, |ψ±i ∈ H = H2 ⊗ H2 .

1 1 |Φ±i := √ (|0, 0i ± |1, 1i), |ψ±i := √ (|0, 1i ± |1, 0i) (2.11) 2 2

One could calculate its reduced density operators (see eq. (2.5)) which are in the form: 1 ρA = ρB = (2.12) 2I

5Since the Pauli operators are not the subjects here, a detailed description is omitted, but can be referred in e.g. [2].

6 3 PURE BIPARTITE QUDIT STATES

3 Pure bipartite qudit states

After the basic but important deﬁnitions we will start discussing pure bipartite systems. A very important concept is the so called Schmidt decomposition which can be applied to all pure bipartite states, sadly only for those. In preparation for more complicated matters, e.g. mixed states, the Von-Neumann entropy and its properties will be discussed.

3.1 Schmidt decomposition AB For a pure bipartite qudit state |Ψ i ∈ Hd it is useful to introduce a decomposition named the Schmidt decomposition, bi-orthogonal expansion or polar expansion. (see [7]) Theorem 3.1. Let |ΨABi be a normed state in the composite system SAB in the Product-Hilbert-Space HAB = HA ⊗ HB with dimension dim HA = a and dim HB = b . The reduced density operators of A B A AB B AB the subsystems S and S are given by ρ = trB(ρ ) and ρ = trA(ρ ) with the density operator ρAB = |ΨABihΨAB|. AB A B Then |Ψ i can be written in the form (3.1) with normed eigenstates |un i, |wn i and eigenvalues A B A B pn = pn of ρ and ρ , i.e. A A A A ρ |un i = pn|un i, pn ∈ R B B B B ρ |wn i = pn|wn i, pn ∈ R k AB X √ A B |Ψ i = pn|un , wn i, pn > 0 (3.1) n=1 Proof. First, expand |ΨABi into the basis of eigenstates of ρA and ρB:

a,b AB X A B AB A B |Ψ i = hui , wj |Ψ i |ui , wj i (3.2) i,j | {z } =:cij

The reduced density operator ρA can be written as a decomposition of his eigenstates:

a ( a A X A A > 0 0 ≤ n ≤ k X ρ = pn|un ihun |, pn , pn = 1 (3.3) n=1 = 0 k + 1 ≤ n ≤ a n=1 On the other side ρA must fulﬁll its role as a reduced density operator:

A A B B |ui ihuk |⊗|wj ihwl | a,b a,b A AB AB AB 3.2 X X z A B}| A B{ ρ = trB(ρ ) = trB(|Ψ ihΨ |) = cijckl trB(|ui , wj ihuk , wl |) i,j k,l a,b a,b b X X X B B B B A A = cijcklhwm|wj ihwl |wmi|ui ihuk | i,j k,l m a,b a,b a,b a X X B B A A X X A A = cijckl hwl |wj i |ui ihuk | = cijckj|ui ihuk | (3.4) i,j k,l | {z } i,j k δij

2 A By comparison of eq. (3.3) and (3.4) one ﬁnds that cmn = 0 for m 6= n and cnn = pn . After the B 2 B A B very similar calculation for ρ , one gets cnn = pn . Thus pn = pn ≡ pn. With these results it can immediately be seen that eq. (3.2) reduces to eq. (3.1).

7 3.2 Von-Neumann entropy 3 PURE BIPARTITE QUDIT STATES

AB Deﬁnition 3.1. The number k in eq. (3.1) is called the Schmidt rank of |Ψ i, the eigenvalues {pn} are called Schmidt coeﬃcients.

Claim. |ΨABi is not entangled if and only if the Schmidt rank k = 1.

Proof. We know from eq. (2.9), that a pure state is entangled, if and only if the state is correlated. A B AB Since {|un i} and {|wn i form a basis, |Ψ i can only be written in the form (2.9) if k = 1.

Claim. k = 1 ⇐⇒ tr((ρA)2) = tr((ρB)2) = 1.

A B Proof. k = 1 means, all eigenvalues {pn} of ρ = ρ ≡ ρ∗ vanish except of one. The trace of ρ∗ is 1 2 (see eq. (2.4)). Now suppose k > 1. We know, pn > 0. Then ∀pn : pn < 1 =⇒ pn < pn. Therefore 2 Pk 2 2 the trace tr((ρ∗) ) = n pn < 1. Hence the trace tr((ρ∗) ) = 1 ⇐⇒ k = 1. Let us summarize this important and useful statement: For a pure bipartite qudit state one can recognize entanglement by evaluating the trace of the squared reduced density operators. What we have found is a nice criterion to detect entanglement. Another interesting side product of the Schmidt decomposition is the gained knowledge, that a subsystem of a pure entangled state cannot be pure (remember that a pure state means rk(ρA) = 1 and this is equal to k = 1).

Example. Schmidt decomposition and Bell states Using the above statement and the results from eq. (2.12) we can directly calculate the trace of the reduced Bell states: 1 1 tr((ρA)2) = tr( ) = 4I 2 This ﬁnding is indeed interesting. It tells us, that the Bell states must be entangled.

3.2 Von-Neumann entropy Another important tool to get hints about existent entanglement is the Von-Neumann entropy.[1]

Deﬁnition 3.2. The Von-Neumann entropy S(ρ) is deﬁned as

S(ρ) := −tr(ρ log ρ) (3.5)

One can think of it as the quantum version of the entropy Sˆ known in thermodynamics. To make this clear, one can for example show that the Von-Neumann entropy of the density matrices of the micro canonical, the canonical and the grand canonical ensemble coincides with the entropy Sˆ. As the thermodynamic entropy, the Von-Neumann entropy is a measure of information. For practical reasons it is often useful to express S in the eigenvalues of ρ: Claim. The Von-Neumann entropy S(ρ) can be written in the form

d d X X S(ρ) = − (λi log λi) λi = 1 (3.6) i=1 i=1 with the eigenvalues λi of ρ.

8 3.2 Von-Neumann entropy 3 PURE BIPARTITE QUDIT STATES

Proof. Evaluate the trace with respect to eigenbasis {ψi} of ρ:

S(ρ) = −tr(ρ log ρ) = −tr(log ρ ρ) d d X X = − hψi| log ρ ρ|ψii = − λihψi| log ρ|ψii i=1 i=1 d d X X = − λi log λi hψi|ψii = − λi log λi | {z } i=1 =1 i=1 which is the claimed formula.

The Von-Neumann entropy S(ρ) has among others the following properties:

1. The entropy of a pure state is its minimum value.

ρ = |ΨihΨ| ⇐⇒ S(ρ) = 0 (3.7)

2. The entropy of a density operator with rank d fulﬁlls

0 ≤ S(ρ) ≤ log d (3.8)

Proof. To see the ﬁrst property, one recognizes that ρ has only one eigenvalue λ1 = 1 if and only if ρ is a pure state. With this ﬁnding one can evaluate eq. (3.6), which tells S(ρ|pure) = 0. Property 2 can be proven by calculating extremal values of function (3.6). We need to include the P constraint i λi = 1 in the discussion, therefore we rewrite the expression as

d d−1 d−1 X X X λi = 1 = λi + λd =⇒ λd(λi6=d) = 1 − λi i=1 i=1 i=1 and thus the entropy reads

d−1 X S(λl6=d) = − λi log λi − pd(λl6=d) log pd(λl6=d) i=1

∂λd With = −1 the derivate of S(λl6=d) emerges as ∂λl

d−1 ∂S X ∂λi ∂λi ∂λd ∂λd = − ( log λ + ) − log λ − ∂λ ∂λ i ∂λ ∂λ d ∂λ l i=1 l l l l = − log λl − 1 + log λd + 1 = − log λl + log λd

max max 1 max This is zero if λl = λd =⇒ λl = d , hence the local maximum S is determined.

d 1 X 1 1 Smax = S( ) = − log = log d d d d i=1 Since Smax is the only local maximum (on the whole domain including the boundaries) it is a global one. min The global minimum value S = 0 is obvious (all 0 ≤ λi ≤ 1).

9 3.2 Von-Neumann entropy 3 PURE BIPARTITE QUDIT STATES

We already know from section 2.3.1, that a pure state can only possess non classical correlations (or none at all). Let’s take a look at the valuable example of a pure qubit state.

Example. Von-Neumann entropy and Bell states Let’s calculate the entropy for our example, the Bell states ρAB and its reduced operator ρA = ρB. To ﬁnd S(ρAB), we can use property (3.6) of the entropy S; since ρAB is pure per deﬁnition:

S(ρAB) = 0

This result shows no new ﬁndings, it just conﬁrms the obvious: The pure Bell state is a state with maximum information (as every pure state is of course). A 1 1 The reduced density operator ρ apparently possesses the eigenvalues { 2 , 2 }. We use eq. (3.6) and get the entropy: S(ρA) = log 2 = log d With property (3.8) one notices that this is the maximum value of the entropy. As a consequence, the sub state ρA is a maximal undetermined state.

With these considerations on an information theory level, one is tempted to deﬁne a measure of entanglement:

Deﬁnition 3.3. Consider a pure state |ΨABi with the corresponding density matrix ρAB and reduced density matrices ρA and ρB. Then deﬁne the entropy of entanglement E(ρAB) = E(Ψ)

0 ≤ E(Ψ) := S(ρA) = S(ρB) ≤ 1 (3.9) and call it a measure of entanglement of the state |ΨABi. A state with E(Ψ) = log d, d = dim H is called maximal entangled (see the Bell state).

This is the ﬁrst step to the more general approach of entanglement measures as we will see in chapter 4. Such measures also play a very important role for mixed states.

10 4 MIXED BIPARTITE QUDIT STATES

4 Mixed bipartite qudit states

As mixed states describe a more complicate matter than pure states, there are less concrete criteria available. This chapter begins with a derivation of a speciﬁc criterion for non-entanglement. Then entanglement measures are introduced as a generalization of the Von-Neumann entropy. After a renewed discussion about the Schmidt rank we will proceed with establishing a more geometrical approach by the so called entanglement witnesses.

4.1 A criterion for non-entanglement In section 3.1 we have seen that a sub-state6 cannot be pure if its pure super-state is entangled. We will generalize this now.[2]

AB AB A B AB Theorem 4.1. Let S be a bipartite qudit system described in H = Hd ⊗ He and let ρ be a mixed density operator acting on HAB in this system. The corresponding reduced density operator of the subsystem SA is ρA. Furthermore if ρA is pure then the state ρAB is separable ( ⇐⇒ not entangled).

Proof. The mixed density operator ρAB can be written in its spectral basis:

AB X AB AB X ρ = sn|Ψn ihΨn |, sn = 1, sn > 0 (4.1) n n

AB A B For simplicity set |Ψn i ≡ |Ψni. Now expand |Ψni to the spectral basis of ρ and ρ : {ui} and {wj}: (cp. eq. (3.2)) X |Ψni = cn,ij|ui, wji (4.2) i,j Using the expansion from eq. (4.2), eq. (4.1) reads

AB X X X ρ = sncn,ijcn,kl |ui, wjihuk, wl| (4.3) n i,j k,l | {z } |uiihuk|⊗|wj ihwl|

A To ﬁnd some constraints for the coeﬃcients cn,ij, we evaluate the reduced density operator ρ in an arbitrary ON basis {|ϕri}:

A AB ρ = trB(ρ )

=hwl|wj i=δij X X X zX }| { = sncn,ijcn,kl hϕr|wjihwl|ϕri |uiihuk| n i,j k,l r X X X = sncn,ijcn,kj|uiihuk| (4.4) n i,j k

A Because {|uii} is the eigenbasis of ρ , it can also be written as:

A X ρ = rn|unihun| (4.5) n

6It may be a slight abuse of the used vocabulary, nevertheless it’s a good aberration of “state of a subsystem”.

11 4.2 Generalization of the Von-Neumann entropy 4 MIXED BIPARTITE QUDIT STATES

A By comparison of eq. (4.4) and eq. (4.5), cn,ij = 0 for i 6= j. Suppose now, that ρ is a pure state, A i.e. |ρ i = |u1ihu1|. Hence all cn,ij are zero except cn,11. This implies that eq. (4.3) reduces to

AB X 2 ρ = sncn,11 (|u1ihu1| ⊗ |w1ihw1|) (4.6) n which is the form of a separable state (see eq. (2.7)).

To sum up, this means: If a system is in a pure state it cannot be entangled with another system.

4.2 Generalization of the Von-Neumann entropy We have seen in section 3.2 that for pure bipartite states the Von-Neumann entropy is a measure of entanglement. For mixed states this measure fails to distinguish classical and quantum correlations. There are however some attempts to generalize the Von-Neumann entropy. The so called entropy measures are designed to coincide on the special case of pure bipartite states and to be equal to the entropy of the reduced density operators. What succeeds now are the requirements for a general entanglement measure[5] followed by deﬁni- tions of some speciﬁc cases.[5],[16] Note that not all of these provide a rule to do a practical evaluation. Generally the calculation might not even be possible.

4.2.1 Requirements for entanglement measures The following properties for a “good” entanglement measure E are of course not mandatory and the discussion for such requirements is still open. Actually some of the measures introduced below do not fulﬁll all of the following properties. 1. ρ is separable ⇐⇒ E(ρ) = 0 2. Normalization 0 ≤ E(ρ) ≤ log d (4.7) for an entangled state of a d-dimensional system. 3. LOCC (local operations and classical communication) cannot increase E.7 4. Continuity E(ρ) − E(σ) → 0 for ||ρ − σ|| → 0 (4.8)

5. Additivity: n identical copies of the state ρ should contain n times the entanglement of one copy.8

E(ρ⊗n) = n E(ρ) (4.9)

6. Subadditivity: E(ρ ⊗ σ) ≤ E(ρ) + E(σ) (4.10)

7. Convexity: The entanglement measure should be a convex function, i.e.

E(λρ + (1 − λ) σ) ≤ λ E(ρ) + (1 − λ) E(σ) (4.11)

with 0 < λ < 1. 7A measure which decreases under LOCC is called entanglement monotone. 8A⊗m := A ⊗ A ⊗ ... ⊗ A | {z } m times

12 4.2 Generalization of the Von-Neumann entropy 4 MIXED BIPARTITE QUDIT STATES

4.2.2 Entanglement measures

Entanglement of formation AB P Deﬁnition 4.1. Let ρ = i piρi, ρi ≡ |ϕiihϕi| be a mixed bipartite state, then the i-th entropy of entanglement Ei ≡ E(ρi) for the pure states ρi is given by eq. (3.9), i.e. E(ρi) = S(trB(ρi)). The entanglement of formation also known as entanglement of creation is then deﬁned as

AB X EF (ρ ) := min piEi (4.12) {dec} i where min means the minimum over all possible decompositions of ρAB. {dec} To express this formula in words: Form the average entanglement entropy for pure states over a decomposition. Do this with all possible decompositions and pick the minimum. Relative entropy of entanglement Deﬁnition 4.2. Let ρAB be a mixed bipartite state (see eq. (2.7)) and σAB a separable one in the AB AB system S . Then one deﬁnes the relative entropy of entanglement ER(ρ ).

AB AB AB AB ER(ρ ) := min tr[ρ (log ρ − log σ )] (4.13) σAB ∈SAB To understand the structure of this formula let’s compare it with the original entropy S(ρ) = ρ 9 −tr(ρ log ρ). ER looks like “tr(ρ log σ )” . So one could speak of this as the entropy of a state relative to an arbitrary separable one. As above, form this entropy for all available separable states and take the minimum. Entanglement of distillation Proposition. Suppose ρA is the reduced density operator of ρAB. For such a ρA one can ﬁnd a pure super state |φABi ∈ HA ⊗ HB, where ρA is again the corresponding reduced density operator. This process is called puriﬁcation. It makes clear that a reduced density operator is not unique. The statement follows from the Schmidt decomposition theorem in section 3.1.

AB Definition 4.3. The entanglement of distillation ED(ρ ) tells us about the number mout of maximal AB AB AB ⊗n entangled states |φ i that can be purified from nin copies of a given state ρ (written as (ρ ) in ). AB ⊗n More precisely it is defined as the ratio mout over nin in the limit of infinitely many states (ρ ) in .

AB mout ED(ρ ) := lim (4.14) nin→∞ nin

A mixed state, that can be distilled, i.e. ED > 0 is called free entangled. Its counterpart is bound entanglement, for ED = 0.

Entanglement cost In contrast to the entanglement of distillation the entanglement cost quantiﬁes the amount of pure-state entanglement needed to create ρAB using local operations.

AB Deﬁnition 4.4. The entanglement cost EC (ρ ) is therefore deﬁned as

AB min EC (ρ ) := lim (4.15) nout→∞ nout

AB AB ⊗nout where min is the number of maximal entangle states |φ i required to prepare (ρ ) .

9Mathematically this expression is of course only valid in the sense of deﬁnition (4.13).

13 4.3 Generalization of the Schmidt rank 4 MIXED BIPARTITE QUDIT STATES

The entanglement cost has not been computed for any mixed state yet, however the calculation can be done for our examples, the Bell states.[17]

Then the entanglement cost EC is given by 1 E (ρ ) = H ( + pp (1 − p)) C p 2 2 ∗ ∗ P 10 where H2(x) = S (x, 1 − x) with Shannon entropy S (p1, p2) = − i pi log pi.

Remarkable is that ED and EC are extremal measures, any ’sensible’ entanglement measure should lie in between. Hilbert-Schmidt measure Similar to the relative entropy of entanglement we can pursue an even more geometrical approach by using the Hilbert-Schmidt distance ||ρ1 − ρ2||. Deﬁnition 4.5. For an arbitrary state ρAB the Hilbert-Schmidt measure is deﬁned as

AB AB AB EH (ρ ) := min ||ρ − σ || (4.16) σAB ∈S where S is the set of all separable states in HA ⊗ HB.

It is intuitively clear that EH serves as a measure of entanglement since it evaluates the distances to all separable states and takes their minimum. As will be shown in chapter 4.4.4 the Hilbert-Schmidt measure plays an important role connecting entanglement measures with entanglement witnesses.

4.3 Generalization of the Schmidt rank Similarly to the generalization approach for the entanglement of formation (4.2.2), one can deﬁne the Schmidt number as generalization of the Schmidt rank (discussed in section 3.1).[5]

AB P ki ki Deﬁnition 4.6. Let ρ = i piρi, ρi ≡ |ϕi ihϕi | be a mixed bipartite state. Every pure state ρi has its Schmidt rank ki. Set kmax ≡ max ki. The Schmidt number r is deﬁned as the minimum of the highest Schmidt rank over all possible decompositions.

r := minkmax (4.17) {dec} The Schmidt number r cannot be higher than the smaller of the dimensions of the two subsystems. It is called a measure of entanglement and useful in connection with Schmidt witnesses which are discussed below.

4.4 Entanglement witnesses A quite geometrical approach is the use of so called entanglement witnesses. Entanglement witnesses cover a huge area by themselves. Again this chapter is not meant to be a summary of the whole topic but speciﬁc topics are chosen. A central role plays of course the Entanglement Witness Theorem (EWT).[11]

10Prooﬁng this would need a couple of preparations and is omitted.

14 4.4 Entanglement witnesses 4 MIXED BIPARTITE QUDIT STATES

4.4.1 Entanglement Witness Theorem (EWT) The Entanglement Witness Theorem states the following:

Theorem 4.2. A state ρent ∈ H is entangled if and only if there exists a Hermitian operator A ∈ H which satisﬁes

hρent,Ai < 0 hσ, Ai ≥ 0 ∀σ ∈ S (4.18) where S is the set of all separable states. A is then called an entanglement witness.

This can be derived via the Hahn-Banach Theorem[12] of functional analysis. A geometrical representation of this theorem states the following:[10]

Theorem 4.3. Let C be a convex closed set in a topological vector space X, and let b ∈ X but b∈ / C. Then there exists a hyperplane that separates b from the set C.

Proof. of Theorem 4.2. If we identify the above vector spaces X ≡ H and sets C ≡ S we know according Theorem 4.3 that there exists a hyperplane which separates entangled and separable states. Since such a hyperplane must exist there exists an A ∈ H which satisﬁes hρ, Ai = 0 where ρ is an arbitrary vector in H. Theorem 4.2 follows straightaway with ﬁgure 4.1a (exchange A by −A if necessary).

Deﬁnition 4.7. An entanglement witness A is called optimal, that is Aopt, if there exists a separable state σ˜ ∈ S such that hσ,˜ Aopti = 0 (4.19) It is called optimal since it detects more entangled states than normal witnesses would do as ﬁgure 4.1b illustrates.

(a) A plane in Euclidean space (b) An optimal entanglement witness.

Figure 4.1: Geometrical illustration of entanglement witnesses, Source: [10]

4.4.2 Positive Map Theorem (PMT) From the EWT another useful theorem can be derived, namely the Positive Map Theorem (PMT):

Theorem 4.4. Let Λ be a positive map acting on the Hilbert space. Then a bipartite state ρ is separable if and only if (I ⊗ Λ)ρ ≥ 0 ∀ positive maps Λ. (4.20)

15 4.4 Entanglement witnesses 4 MIXED BIPARTITE QUDIT STATES

Proof. The ⇐=- direction is shown easily.[10] One applies (I ⊗ Λ) to a separable state 2.7 and gets

X A B (I ⊗ Λ)ρ = piρi ⊗ Λρi . i

B Since Λ is positive, Λρi is positive as well and therefore (I ⊗ Λ)ρ is positive. The proof for the =⇒ - direction is more complex and provided by Michael, Pawel and Ryszard Horodecki [8].

In other words that means if we can ﬁnd a positive map Λ where (I⊗Λ)ρ < 0, i.e Λ is not completely positive11, we know that ρ is entangled.

Example. An often stated example is the partial transposition PT : (I ⊗ T ). Let’s test it on the Bell state |Φ+i (see eq. (2.11)). The matrix representation of its corresponding density operator ρB ≡ |Φ+ihΦ+| and its partial transposition reads

 1 1   1  2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 (I ⊗ T )ρB = (I ⊗ T )   =  1  . 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

1 1 1 1 Calculating the eigenvalues leads to {− 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 } which means (I ⊗ T )ρB is not positive, therefore ρB is entangled (as we already know).

4.4.3 Positive Partial Transpose (PPT) Criterion Theorem 4.4 can be used to create a more speciﬁc criterion for the special case of a bipartite qubit system. It is a necessary and suﬃcient criterion developed by Peres and Horodecki [8].

Theorem 4.5. A state ρ acting on H2 ⊗ H2, H2 ⊗ H3 or H3 ⊗ H2 is separable if and only if its partial transposition ρTB is a positive operator, i.e.

T ρ B ≡ (I ⊗ T )ρ ≥ 0. (4.21)

Deﬁnition 4.8. A state satisfying eq. (4.21) is called a PPT state.

The fact that this is indeed a necessary condition can immediately be seen recalling the PMT (Theorem 4.4) and the stated example of the partial transposition. As shown in [10], to prove that the criterion is also suﬃcient, one needs a theorem by Stormer and Woronowitz [14],[19] which is repeated here for the sake of completeness.

Theorem 4.6. Any positive map Λ that maps operators on Hilbert spaces H2 ⊗H2, H2 ⊗H3 or H3 ⊗H2 can be decomposed in the following way

CP CP Λ = Λ1 + Λ2 T (4.22)

CP CP where Λ1 and Λ2 are completely positive maps. CP CP Proof. Let ρ be a state which satisﬁes (I ⊗ T )ρ ≥ 0. Since Λ1 and Λ2 are completely positive it must be true that CP CP (I ⊗ Λ1 )ρ + (I ⊗ Λ2 )(I ⊗ T )ρ ≥ 0

11 A positive map Λ is called completely positive if the map (Id ⊗ Λ) is still a positive map ∀d.

16 4.4 Entanglement witnesses 4 MIXED BIPARTITE QUDIT STATES which can obviously be written as

CP CP (I ⊗ (Λ1 + Λ2 T ))ρ ≥ 0 (4.23) . Now the need of Theorem 4.6 gets apparent. It tells us that eq. (4.23) reduces to

(I ⊗ Λ)ρ ≥ 0 where Λ is a positive map. Now since any Λ can be decomposed in terms of (4.22) the PMT (theorem 4.4) can be used which tells us that ρ is separable if and only if (I ⊗ T )ρ ≥ 0.

4.4.4 Bertlmann-Narnhofer-Thirring Theorem The Bertlmann-Narnhofer-Thirring Theorem connects the Hilbert-Schmidt measure defined in section 4.2.2 with the concept of entanglement witnesses. More specific it tells that the Hilbert-Schmidt measure of an entangled state equals the maximal violation of an inequality which basically defines the entanglement witnesses. Before going into details we will proof a Lemma which will considerably ease the proof of the theorem itself. After that the mentioned inequality will be defined and the theorem will be stated.

12 Lemma. Let ρ1 and ρ2 be two arbitrary states and an operator C be deﬁned as

ρ1 − ρ2 − hρ1, ρ1 − ρ2i I C(ρ1, ρ2) := (4.24) ||ρ1 − ρ2||

Also let ρ0 be the ’nearest’ separable state of ρent, i.e.

||ρ0 − ρent|| = min ||σ − ρent|| σ∈S where S denotes again the set of all separable states, then Ce := C(ρ0, ρent) is an optimal entanglement witness of ρent as deﬁned by eq. (4.18) and (4.19).

Proof. In order to be an entanglement witness of ρent the operator Ce has to fulfill hρent, Cei < 0 and hσ, Cei ≥ 0 ∀σ ∈ S. That this is satisfied can be shown in the following manner: Looking at figure 4.2 it is obvious that

ρ1 − ρ2 hρp − ρ1, i = 0 ||ρ1 − ρ2|| deﬁnes a hyperplane through ρ1 orthogonal to ρ1 − ρ2. By evaluating hρ, C(ρ1, ρ2)i, which is

ρ1 − ρ2 ρ1 − ρ2 ρ1 − ρ2 hρ, C(ρ1, ρ2)i = hρ, i − hρ1, i hρ, Ii = hρ − ρ1, i ||ρ1 − ρ2|| ||ρ1 − ρ2|| | {z } ||ρ1 − ρ2|| =1 one recognizes that the above hyperplane deﬁnition reduces to13

hρp,Ci = 0 (4.25)

, similar one deﬁnes the left-hand and right-hand states ρl and ρr (see ﬁgure 4.2) as:

hρl,Ci < 0

hρr,Ci > 0

12h., .i is deﬁned by eq. (2.10) . 13 In this context omitting the arguments of C(., .) means evaluating C(ρ1, ρ2).

17 4.4 Entanglement witnesses 4 MIXED BIPARTITE QUDIT STATES

Figure 4.2: A hyperplane orthogonal to ρ1 − ρ2, Source: [10]

Now consider Ce ≡ C(ρ0, ρent). Since ρ0 is the nearest separable state of ρent it lies on the boundary of S. Therefore the plane deﬁned by hρp, Cei = 0 is tangent to S. Also the plane is orthogonal to ρent − ρ0. So we have hρent, Cei < 0, hσ, Cei ≥ 0 ∀σ ∈ S and hρp, Cei = 0. Thus Ce is indeed an optimal entanglement witness.

It is not hard to see that the deﬁnition (4.18) of an entanglement witness can be rewritten as

hσ, Ai − hρent,Ai ≥ 0 ∀σ ∈ S (4.26) This inequality is also called a generalized Bell inequality (GBI). One can define the maximal violation of the GBI as follows. Definition 4.9. The maximal violation of the GBI is given by B(ρent) := max min (hσ, Ai − hρent,Ai) (4.27) A, ||A−aI||≤1 σ∈S where a is the coefficient corresponding to the identity matrix when expanding A into the Pauli-Matrix basis {σi ⊗ σj}. However, the specific choice of the used norm will not be of any importance to us.

Theorem 4.7. The Hilbert-Schmidt measure EH (ρent) of an entangled state ρent equals the maximal violation of the GBI B(ρent): EH (ρent) = B(ρent) (4.28)

Proof. The distance ||ρ1 − ρ2|| of two states can be written as

ρ1 − ρ2 ρ1 − ρ2 ||ρ1 − ρ2|| = hρ1 − ρ2, i = hρ1 − ρ2, + c Ii ||ρ1 − ρ2|| ||ρ1 − ρ2|| where c is a complex constant because (ρ1 − ρ2, c I) = c (tr(ρ1) − tr(ρ2)) = 0 since tr(ρ) = 1 ∀ρ. Choosing c = − hρ1,ρ2−ρ2i yields per deﬁnition to ||ρ1−ρ2||

ρ1 − ρ2 − hρ1, ρ1 − ρ2i I ||ρ1 − ρ2|| = hρ1 − ρ2, i ||ρ1 − ρ2|| = hρ1,C(ρ1, ρ2)i − hρ2,C(ρ1, ρ2)i (4.29)

Using eq. (4.29) the Hilbert-Schmidt measure EH (ρent) can be written as:

EH (ρent) = min ||ρent − σ|| = ||ρent − ρ0|| = hρ0, Cei − hρent, Cei = ♣ σ∈S

18 4.4 Entanglement witnesses 4 MIXED BIPARTITE QUDIT STATES

From the deﬁnition of an optimal entanglement witness it is clear that maxAhρent,Ai = hρent,Aopti (Aopt has to be parallel to ρent) and hρ0,Aopti = 0 since ρ0 is on the plane. Since Ce is an optimal entanglement witness we can rewrite EH (ρent) further as ♣ = max (hρ0,A) − hρent,Ai) = max min (hσ, A) − hρent,Ai) = B(ρent) A A σ∈S which completes the proof.

19 5 MULTIPARTITE STATES

5 Multipartite states

The classification and quantification of entanglement is in its early stage when it comes to multipartite systems. Many measures are designed to function in specific domains where they perform successful operations. At the same time the same measures might fail badly in other areas. The mathematical treatment of such measures is a delicate matter. The next few sections provide the definitions of more or less often stated entanglement measures. [1]

5.1 Some entanglement measures 5.1.1 Geometric measure of entanglement An attempt to quantify the entanglement of a pure state is given by the minimal distance of the state from the set of all pure product states Φ.

Deﬁnition 5.1. A geometric measure Eg(Ψ) for a pure multipartite state is deﬁned as follows:

2 Eg(Ψ):= − log max |hΨ|Φi| (5.1) Φ As shown in [18] this measure can be extended to an entanglement monotone measure for mixed states. It is zero for separable states and rises up to its maximum for e.g. the maximal entangled N-particle GHZ state.

5.1.2 Measure of entanglement by Barnum Another measure was provided by Barnum.[3]

Deﬁnition 5.2. A generalized entanglement measure for qubit systems is given by

N 2 X E := 2 − tr(ρ2) (5.2) gl N j j=1 where N is the number of qubits. ρj is the reduced density matrix of the j-th qubit. Remembering the consequence of the Schmidt decomposition for pure bipartite states (section 3.1), which stated that tr((ρA)2) = 1 for non entangled states, eq. 5.2 looks like an average of such evaluations. However, a deeper connection would remain to be shown.

5.2 An entanglement witness The concept of entanglement witnesses can in principle be extended to general multipartite systems since the proof done in section 4.4.1 is independent of the dimension of the system. Of course, in practice it is quite hard to ﬁnd useful quantities. In [9] the hermitian operator W in an N-partite system is studied:

1 X W = b (Q+ − Q−) (5.3) 2 ~k ~k ~k ~k∈{0,1}N where Q± are projectors to generalized GHZ states, i.e. Q± = |G±ihG±| with ~k ~k ~k ~k 1 G± = √ |~ki ± σ⊗N |~ki (5.4) ~k 2 x and b~k are constrained coeﬃcients.

20 5.2 An entanglement witness 5 MULTIPARTITE STATES

It turns out that under the constraint (5.5) the hermitian operator W witnesses entanglement.

X N |b~k| ≤ 2 (5.5) ~k

By choosing different sets of b~k one can obtain specific W ’s for different purposes.

21 6 THE CHOICE OF FACTORIZATION

6 The choice of factorization

Until now when we spoke e.g. about a bipartite qubit system in a 4-dimensional Hilbert space H2 ⊗H2 we silently ignored the specific structure of these tensor factors. Mostly it was implied that the local measurement is a projective measurement to the |0i state, which has of course its meaning, because that is how it’s mainly done in experiments. However, that is certainly a special case. In general it is allowed to do measurements w.r.t. all states in the eigenspace of a particular Hamilton operator that relates to the actual present physical problem. We will lift this restriction now and study what would happen to states (respectively entanglement) if we chose different factorization of the tensor algebra. Among other things we will find that for an entangled state we can always find a factorization of its algebra in which this same state does not appear to be entangled but not the other way around!

6.1 The choice of factorization for pure states For pure states the situation is quite clear as can be seen in the following section.[15]

Theorem 6.1. For any pure state ρ ∈ He with He being a d1 × d2-dimensional Hilbert-Schmidt space one can ﬁnd a factorization of He, He = A1 ⊗ A1, such that ρ is separable w.r.t. this factorization as well as a factorization He = B1 ⊗ B2 such that ρ is maximal entangled. Proof. To see this it suﬃces to know that for any |Ψi ∈ H there exists a unitary operator U which transforms |Ψi in the following way: 1 X U|Ψi = √ |Ψ1,ii ⊗ |Ψ2,ii (6.1) d i with d = min(d1, d2). Let’s consider |Ψi to be separable w.r.t. He = A1 ⊗ A1. So with unitary transformations we can transform every separable state in a maximal entangled one. Since ρsep = † |ΨihΨ| the transformed state has the form ρent = UρsepU ∈ A1 ⊗ A1. Instead of the state ρ we can as † well transform the underlying algebra: B ⊗ B2 = U(A1 ⊗ A1)U . Now it becomes clear that ρ which appears to be separable w.r.t He = A1 ⊗ A1 is maximal entangled w.r.t He = B1 ⊗ B2.

6.2 The choice of factorization for mixed states For mixed states the situation is not that easy and in fact much more interesting. To proof theorem 6.2 we need a maximal entangled ONB for a d × d-dimensional Hilbert space. The state (6.2) provides one which is proven in lemma 6.1.[15] Lemma 6.1. The set of vectors

X 2πi jl |χkli = e d |ϕji ⊗ |ψj+ki, j = 1, ..., d; k = 1, ..., d (6.2) j is a maximal entangled ONB of the d × d-dimensional Hilbert space Hd ⊗ Hd.

Proof. Evaluating hχkl|χmni yields to

X − 2πi jl 2πi in hχkl|χmni = e d e d (hϕj| ⊗ hψj+k|)(hϕi| ⊗ hψi+m|) i,j X 2πi (lj−ni) = e d hϕj|ϕii hψj+k|ψi+mi i,j | {z } | {z } =δij =δ(j+k),(i+m) X 2πi j(l−n) = δkm e d = δkmδln j

22 6.2 The choice of factorization for mixed states 6 THE CHOICE OF FACTORIZATION

which proves that the set of |χkli’s is an ONB. That these states are entangled can be seen by considering the Schmidt decomposition (see section 3.1). The Schmidt rank equals its maximum value.

Theorem 6.2. For any mixed state ρ ∈ He with He being a d1 × d2-dimensional Hilbert-Schmidt space one can ﬁnd a factorization of He, He = A1 ⊗ A1, such that ρ is separable w.r.t. this factorization. A factorization He = B1 ⊗ B2 such that ρ is entangled exists only beyond a certain bound of mixedness. P Proof. To realize the ﬁrst statement one has to recall that ρ can be written as α pα|χαihχα| where |χαi can be an arbitrary state. We’ve already mentioned that every pure state can be transformed into a separable state with a unitary transformation U: U|χαi = |ϕi,αi ⊗ |ψj,αi. Transforming ρ yields to

† X UρU = pk|ϕjihϕj| ⊗ |ψj+kihψj+k| (6.4) k,j

This is the expansion of UρU † into a set of maximal entangled states. But this set is not convex, therefore the state has not necessarily to be entangled.

Knowing this it makes sense to introduce the following deﬁnition:

Deﬁnition 6.1. If a state ρ remains separable for any factorization of its algebra (that is for any unitary transformation U of ρ) it is called a absolutely separable state.

In [15] this theorem is stated more precisely for e.g. Werner states ρw in d × d dimensions: 1 − α ρ = αP + 2 0≤ α ≤1 (6.5) w d2 Id

1 where P is a projector to a maximal entangled state. This state is entangled for α > d+1 . It is shown 3 that if the largest eigenvalue λ1 of ρw satisﬁes λ1 > d2 then there exists always an algebra such that ρw appears entangled. Furthermore the following theorem has been proven for general mixed states in 2 × 2 dimensions:

Theorem 6.3. Let ρ be an arbitrary mixed state in 2×2 dimensions with an ordered spectrum {λi}, i = 1, .., 4 with λ1 ≥ λ2 ≥ λ3 ≥ λ4. If the eigenvalues satisfy p λ1 − λ3 − 2 λ2λ4 ≤ 0 (6.6) then ρ is absolutely separable.

23 7 CONCLUSION

7 Conclusion

Let’s summarize the previous steps. We started studying the simplest non trivial case, a pure bipartite state. For these states concrete methods are available to exactly identify entanglement. Looking at the AB Pk √ A B Schmidt decomposition |Ψ i = n=1 pn|un , wn i we derived that one just has to evaluate the trace of the squared reduced density operator to detect entanglement. Also the Schmidt rank quantifies entanglement in a certain sense. It was shown that the Von-Neumann entropy S(ρ) = −tr(ρ log ρ) as generalization of the entropy Sˆ from thermodynamics (and therefore leading to a measure of information) offers useful properties by considering sub systems and was our first candidate for an entanglement measure. In mixed bipartite states we generalized the idea of the entropy and defined a general entanglement measure to not only detect entanglement but to quantify it. We have seen that there is no unique measure and stated a few possibilities, each for different purposes. Further we saw that pure systems cannot be entangled with other systems. In this sense the whole is not the sum of its parts but more:

»Bestmögliches Wissen um ein Ganzes schließt nicht notwendig das Gleiche für seine Teile ein.« - Erwin Schrödinger[13] »The best possible knowledge of a whole does not necessarily include the best possible knowledge of all its parts.«

From the Hahn-Banach Theorem of functional analysis it follows that there must exist an operator which detects entanglement, namely an entanglement witness, which was discussed as well. An opera- tional criterion, the PPT-criterion, was derived with the help of these witnesses. It was shown that one is even able to construct an optimal entanglement witness that was used to proof the Bertlmann-Narnhofer-Thirring Theorem which connects the concept of entanglement witnesses with the approach of entanglement measures. The quantiﬁcation of multipartite states is even more of a challenge. Mathematically the most measures are not fully understood in the sense that many properties are just proven for special cases which are merely assumed to hold in general. Not only the quantiﬁcation is a problem: the question, if a state is actually entangled or not, cannot be answered in general. Initial attempts were made to provide tools, but that hopefully should only be the beginning. Finally the factorization of the algebra was considered. The results were quite interesting. We can transform every entangled state to a non-entangled one while the reverse is not true in general but just for certain bound of mixedness.

24 References References

References

[1] L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Entanglement in many-body systems, Reviews of Modern Physics 80 (2008), no. 2, 517.

[2] J. Audretsch, Verschränkte Systeme, Wiley Online Library, 2005.

[3] H. Barnum, E. Knill, G. Ortiz, R. Somma, and L. Viola, A subsystem-independent generalization of entanglement, Arxiv preprint quant-ph/0305023 (2003).

[4] J.S. Bell, On the einstein-podolsky-rosen paradox, Physics 1 (1964), no. 3, 195–200.

[5] Dagmar Bruss, Characterizing Entanglement, J. Math. Phys. 43, 4237 (2002) (2001).

[6] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Physical review 47 (1935), no. 10, 777.

[7] A. Ekert and P.L. Knight, Entangled quantum systems and the Schmidt decomposition, American Journal of Physics 63 (1995), 415.

[8] Michal Horodecki, Pawel Horodecki, and Ryszard Horodecki, Separability of Mixed States: Neces- sary and Suﬃcient Conditions, June 1996.

[9] Dagomir Kaszlikowski and Alastair Kay, A Witness of Multipartite Entanglement Strata, February 2008.

[10] Philipp Krammer, Quantum Entanglement: Detection, Classiﬁcation, and Quantiﬁcation, Mas- ter’s thesis, October 2005.

[11] , Characterizing entanglement with geometric entanglement witnesses, J. Phys.A: Math. Theor. 42, 065305 (2009) (2008).

[12] M. Reed and B. Simon, Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics. I Functional Analysis, second ed., Academic Press, New York, 1980.

[13] E. Schrödinger, Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik, Die Naturwissenschaften 23 (1935), no. 49, 823.

[14] E. Stormer, Positive linear maps of operator algebras, Acta Math. 110 (1963).

[15] W. Thirring, R.A. Bertlmann, P. Köhler, and H. Narnhofer, Entanglement or separability: the choice of how to factorize the algebra of a density matrix, The European Physical Journal D- Atomic, Molecular, Optical and Plasma Physics 64 (2011), no. 2, 181–196.

[16] V. Vedral, M. B. Plenio, M. A. Rippin, and P. L. Knight, Quantifying Entanglement, Phys.Rev.Lett.78:2275-2279,1997 (1997).

[17] G. Vidal, W. Dür, and JI Cirac, Entanglement cost of bipartite mixed states, Physical review letters 89 (2002), no. 2, 27901.

[18] Tzu-Chieh Wei and Paul M. Goldbart, Geometric measure of entanglement and applications to bipartite and multipartite quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 68, 042307 (2003) (2003).

[19] S. L. Woronowicz, Positive maps of low dimensional matrix algebras, Rep. Math. Phys 10 (1976).