Realization of the Tradeoff Between Internal and External Entanglement
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PHYSICAL REVIEW RESEARCH 2, 043068 (2020) Realization of the tradeoff between internal and external entanglement Jie Zhu,1,3 Meng-Jun Hu,1,3 Yue Dai, 2,6 Yan-Kui Bai,4 S. Camalet,5 Chengjie Zhang,2,6,* Chuan-Feng Li,1,3 Guang-Can Guo,1,3 and Yong-Sheng Zhang1,3,† 1Key Laboratory of Quantum Information, University of Science and Technology of China, CAS, Hefei 230026, China 2School of Physical Science and Technology, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China 3CAS Center for Excellence in Quantum Information and Quantum Physics, Hefei 230026, China 4College of Physics and Hebei Key Laboratory of Photophysics Research and Application, Hebei Normal University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei 050024, China 5Sorbonne Université, CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Théorique de la Matière Condensée, LPTMC, F-75005 Paris, France 6School of Physical Science and Technology, Soochow University, Suzhou 215006, China (Received 9 January 2019; revised 20 August 2020; accepted 25 August 2020; published 13 October 2020) We experimentally realize the internal and external entanglement tradeoff, which is a kind of entanglement monogamy relation different from that usually discussed. Using a source of twin photons, we find that the external entanglement in the twin photons and the path-polarization internal entanglement of one photon limit each other. In the extreme case, when the internal state is maximally entangled, the external entanglement must be vanishing, which illustrates entanglement monogamy. Our results of the experiment coincide with the theoretical predictions and therefore provide a direct experimental observation of the internal and external entanglement monogamy relations. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.043068 I. INTRODUCTION to Gaussian states. Moreover, other entanglement measures, such as the squashed entanglement [10,11], the negativity Entanglement monogamy is one of the most fundamental [12–15], and the squared entanglement of formation [16–18], properties for multipartite quantum states, which means that were also employed to derive the corresponding entanglement if two qubits, A and B, are maximally entangled, then A or B monogamy inequalities. On the other hand, many experimen- cannot be entangled with the third qubit C [1,2]. The quan- tal results on entanglement and nonlocality have also been titative entanglement monogamy inequality was first proved reported [44,45], including entanglement monogamy in exper- by Coffman, Kundu, and Wootters (CKW) for three-qubit iments [46,47]. states [3], Recently, new kinds of monogamy relations have been 2 + 2 2 , CA|B CA|C CA|BC (1) derived by Camalet [48–51], i.e., internal entanglement (or local quantum resource) and external entanglement have a where C2 denotes the squared concurrence for quantifying bi- tradeoff. The usually discussed entanglement monogamy in- partite entanglement [4]. From Eq. (1), one can easily find that equalities in Refs. [5–7,11–14,16–18] indicate the tradeoff there is a consequent tradeoff between the amount of entangle- relation between E(AB ) and E(AC ) (or its extension to the ment shared by qubits A and B and the entanglement shared N-partite case), where E is one kind of entanglement mea- by qubits A and C. For three-qubit pure states, the difference sure and AB and AC are reduced density matrices from a between the right-hand side and the left-hand side of Eq. (1)is three-qubit state. Unlike these previously derived inequalities, defined as the so-called “three-tangle” [3], which is a genuine Camalet has proposed a different entanglement monogamy three-qubit entanglement measure. After the CKW inequality, inequality [48]. This monogamy relation shows that the local several entanglement monogamy inequalities [5–41] and even resource can influence the entanglement between subsystems monogamy equalities [42,43] were introduced. Osborne and and other external systems. Besides there is no limitation Verstraete proved the CKW monogamy inequality for N-qubit about local resources, which can be entanglement between states [5]. In Refs. [6,7], the CKW inequality was generalized different degrees, entanglement between different particles of the subsystems, local coherence, and so on. Consider the tripartite quantum state A1A2B illustrated in Fig. 1, where A1 *[email protected] and A2 come from the same physical system, but have been †[email protected] encoded in different degrees of freedom, and B is encoded in another physical system. This inequality shows the tradeoff ˜ Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the relation between the internal entanglement EA1|A2 and the ex- ˜ Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further ternal entanglement EA1A2|B, where E and E are two different ˜ distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) but related entanglement measures, and EA1A2|B (EA1|A2 ) de- and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. notes the entanglement of A1A2B ( A1A2 ) under the bipartition 2643-1564/2020/2(4)/043068(10) 043068-1 Published by the American Physical Society JIE ZHU et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW RESEARCH 2, 043068 (2020) between A1 and A2, the inequality (2) for a general three-qubit |ψ pure state A1A2B becomes + |ψ , EF ( A1A2 ) EF ( A1A2|B ) 1 (3) ˜ | = where the intraparticle entanglement EA1 A2 is EF ( A1A2 ) / + − 2 / H(1 2 1 C ( A1A2 ) 2), H is the binary entropy =− − − − = H(x): x log2 x (1 x)log2(1 x), and C( ) max{0,σ1 − σ2 − σ3 − σ4} is the concurrence of with {σi} ∗ being the square roots of eigenvalues of σy ⊗ σy σy ⊗ σy in decreasing order [4]. The external entanglement EA1A2|B is |ψ FIG. 1. For the tripartite quantum state A1A2B, the subsystems EF ( A1A2|B ), as defined by A and A are in the same physical system but they are encoded in 1 2 |ψ = − † EF ( A1A2|B ): 1 max EF (U A1A2U ) different degrees of freedom, and B is encoded in another physical U system. E˜ | and E | represent the internal entanglement be- A1 A2 A1A2 B = − { ,λ − λ − λ λ } , tween A1 and A2 and the external entanglement between A1A2 and B, 1 f (max 0 1 3 2 2 4 ) (4) respectively. where U√denotes the unitary operators of A, f (x):= / + − 2/ {λ } H(1 2 1 x 2), and i are the eigenvalues of A1A2 A1A2|B (A1|A2). The inequality holds whatever is the under- in nonascending order [48,53]. In Ref. [53], the maximum lying physical nature of the internal entanglement. It can be entanglement for a given spectrum {λi} measured by the neg- entanglement between two long-distance-separated particles, ativity and the relative entropy of entanglement have also two short-distance-separated particles, or even 2 degrees of been provided. Thus, one can obtain the inequality (2) with freedom of a single particle. This last kind of internal entan- the intraparticle entanglement measure being the negativ- glement is considered here and for precision we refer to it as ity and the relative entropy of entanglement as well (see intraparticle entanglement. Appendix A). Here we experimentally demonstrate the entanglement For simplicity, we first consider a class of three-qubit pure monogamy relation between the intraparticle and external states with one parameter φ as an example: entanglement, with a source of twin photons. As shown in |01+|10 Fig. 1, there are two qubits (the polarization qubit A1 and the |= cos φ|110+sin φ √ |1 . (5) path qubit A2) encoded in photon A, but only one qubit (the 2 A1A2B polarization qubit B) is encoded in photon B. We provide a BasedonEqs.(3) and (4), one can obtain its intraparticle direct experimental observation of the tradeoff between the and external entanglement by using the entanglement of for- | 2 intraparticle entanglement in A1 A2 and the external entangle- mation, i.e., E ( ) = f (sin φ) and E (|ψ | ) = 1 − | F A1A2 F A1A2 B ment in A1A2 B. f (max{cos2 φ,sin2 φ}). Moreover, the states such as 1 cos θ|01+sin θ|10 II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK |= √ |110+ √ |1 (6) 2 2 A1A2B Let us focus on the tripartite state , where A and A A1A2B 1 2 = are also analyzed. For these states, we find EF ( A1A2 ) are encoded in the same physical system A by using different 1 f ( sin 2θ ), which depends on θ, and E (|ψ | ) = 1 − degrees of freedom (see Fig. 1). The third party is encoded in 2 F A1A2 B / ≈ . system B. Camalet’s entanglement monogamy inequality is f (1 2) 0 645 is a constant. The theoretical results are shown in Fig. 2 as the solid and dotted lines. We can see ˜ + ˜ , EA1|A2 EA1A2|B Emax (2) that all the results are bounded by the green dashed line, i.e., the monogamy inequality (3) always holds. Moreover, ˜ | where EA1 A2 denotes the intraparticle entanglement measure the inequality (3) is valid for any finite-dimensional subsys- | between A1 and A2, EA1A2 B is the external entanglement mea- tems. However, not all the general allowed region can be ˜ ˜ | sure between A1A2 and B, and Emax is the value of EA1 A2 when reached with three-qubit states. For all the three-qubit pure A1 and A2 are maximally entangled [48]. It is worth noting that states, since λ1 1/2 and there are at most only two nonzero E˜ and E are strongly related, although they are two different {λ ,λ } = − { ,λ } eigenvalues 1 2 for A1A2 , EF 1 f (max 0 1 ) entanglement measures. From the inequality (2), one can see 1 − f (1/2) ≈ 0.645, and this bound also holds for all three- | ˜ that EA1A2 B is also bounded by Emax. When the state A1A2B qubit mixed states. Therefore, the allowed region specific to is pure and the reduced density operator A1A2 is absolutely all three-qubit states is given in Fig.