• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Quantum information Ryszard Horodecki∗ International Centre for Theory of Quantum Technologies, University of Gdańsk, Wita Stwosza 63, 80-308 Gdańsk, Poland and Institute of Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics, National Quantum Information Centre Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, University of Gdańsk, Wita Stwosza 57,80-308 Gdańsk, Poland Dedicated to memory of Roman Stanisław Ingarden on his centennial birthday “. the quantum information theory is not only scientifically interesting subject, but is a practical need” R.S. Ingarden This article reviews the extraordinary features of quantum information predicted by the quan- tum formalism, which, combined with the development of modern quantum technologies, have opened new horizons in quantum physics that can potentially affect various areas of our live, leading to new technologies such as quantum cybersecurity, quantum communication, quantum metrology, and quantum computation. topics: quantum cryptography, quantum entanglement, nonlocality, entanglement witness 1 Introduction application of quantum information to unforge- able quantum money. Unfortunately, both dis- The concept of quantum information was born on coveries were ahead of their time and passed un- the border between quantum mechanics and in- noticed. Three years later Holevo proved [6] that formation theory science. The stunning success of there is a bound for our ability to access classi- the former has led to think that the concept of cal information from quantum systems which con- information cannot be separated from the math- firmed earlier Gordon’s [7] and Levitin’s [8] con- ematical structure of quantum formalism that jectures. This strengthened the conviction that imposes fundamental constraints on the form of Shannon’s communication theory is incomplete, in physical laws. a sense that it did not consider the transmission Already in the 1930s, von Neumann defined of all physical information carriers such as quan- entropy [1] for quantum states as an analogue tum particles. A few years later, Ingarden, a Pol- of the classical Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy, which ish mathematical-physicist, published a work enti- later turned out to be the quantum counterpart tled: “Quantum information theory” in which of Shannon entropy [2] – the concept underlying he proposed a quantum generalization of Shan- of classical communication theory. At about the non’s theory in terms of the generalized quan- arXiv:2103.07712v2 [quant-ph] 27 Apr 2021 same time, Einstein Podolsky and Rosen pointed tum mechanics of open systems [9] (see also [10]). out the unusual features of quantum formalism However, it was only a series of seminal papers that seemed to lead to the conclusion that quan- [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, tum mechanics is incomplete [3]. In 1970, two 24, 25, 26, 27] that revealed specific features the young physicists, Park [4] from the Department of quantum code of nature pointing to the quantum Physics at Washington State University and Wies- origins of information. ner [5] from Columbia University in New York, independently analyzed the physical implications There were various reasons for the relatively of quantum formalism. While the former discov- late advent of the quantum information era ered a fundamental limitation on copying quan- crowned with the bilding of Shannon’s quantum tum information, the latter discovered the first theory (see [28]). In particular, the unusual suc- ∗e-mail: [email protected] 1 cess of Shannon’s theory led to the belief that the momentum operators. The structures and mu- laws of physics could be derived from information tual interrelations of noncommutative observables processing as a purely mathematical concept de- bring deep questions concerning the properties of tached from physical information carries. On the the quantum systems related to the fundamen- other hand the identification of peculiar features tal principles: uncertainty and complementarity. of quantum information such as monogamy of en- The first one limits the precision of the statis- tanglement [29, 30, 31] required advanced quan- tics of the results of two complementary observ- tum technologies. Additionally, the obstacle was ables, such as position and momentum [34]. The the abstract, mathematical and non-intuitive na- complementarity principle says that two quantum ture of the standard quantum formalism, which observables cannot be measured simultaneously, looked like inscription, not all predictions of which and thus provide “independent” information about were entirely clear even for its fathers. physical systems [35]. Contrary to classical theories, quantum mea- 2 Quantum inscription as a paradigm for surement is active. It creates properties, does it quantum information randomly, and can change state if the latter is not specially tailored for a given measurement. The measurement does not always provide information Roughly speaking, quantum inscription is an in- about state but it can be part of a quantum oper- struction – a set of prescriptions that determine ation. Any state % defines the probability distri- the way of probabilistic prediction of the results bution as the mapping assigning to each measure- of future measurements in laboratories [32, 33]. ment result i the probability pi of that measure- Each physical system corresponds to complex ment result (the Born rule): vector space Hilbert H equipped with the linear scalar product h:j:i such that the space is complete pi = Tr[Πi%] (2) with respect to the norm P where fΠig, Πi = I are elements of a positive k k = ph j i: i (1) operator-value measure (POVM) and I is unit op- erator. In particular, if Πi is projector operator H S n The space of system compound of sub- then the generalized measurement correspond to S ;S ;:::;S H = systems 1 2 n is a tensor product the von Neumann measurement, which completely H ⊗ H ;::: ⊗ H 1 2 n of the Hilbert space of sub- determines the post-measurement state. After the systems. The subsystems can represent distin- measurement with the outcome i, the system goes guishable particles, various complex objects, e.g. to the post-measurement state atoms, molecules, or different degrees of freedom of the same object, e.g. photon polarization and 0 −1 %i = pi Λi(%) (3) propagation modes. The central object is the wave function (state where Λi(%) = Πi%Πi is particular positive su- vector) j i with the unit norm k k = 1, which is peroperator which clearly maps positive operators 0 an element of a Hilbert space. It contains all prob- to positive operators and normalization of %i re- abilistic information about the system and sat- quires the condition to be met Tr[%Πi] = Tr[Λi(%)] @j i 0 isfies the Schrödinger equation: i} @t = Hj i, where Λi(%) = pi%i. The most general phys- where H is linear self-adjoint operator called ically implementable map is a completely posi- Hamiltonian. The symbol % denotes the state tive map Λ which satisfies condition: Λ ⊗ In 2 n n of the system about which we only have par- B(H1 ⊗ C ;H2 ⊗ C ), where B is space of pos- n tial information. It can be described by a Her- itive maps between the Hilbert spaces H1 ⊗ C n mitian positive semidefinite operator with unit and H2 ⊗ C , In is unit operator on n dimen- trace: % = %y, % ≥ 0, Tr(%) = 1 where trace sional Hilbert space Cn. If in addition Λ is trace- P Tr(%) = khφkj%jφki and sum runs over diago- preserving it determines quantum channel which nal elements in arbitrary orthonormal basis fφkg. play a central role in the processing of quantum The symbol U stands for unitary operations that information [28]. Any completely positive map on transform states, and in the case of pure states, a system S in a given state % can be realised via they keep the scalar product preserved. unitary interaction of S with some other system Observable quantities correspond to Hermi- (ancilla) in a pure state followed by von Neumann tian linear operators O acting on the state space measurement and final partial trace. This fact H. In contrast to classical observables the quan- comes from so called Stinespring dilation theorem tum ones can be noncommutative: [O1;O2] = [32]. O1O2 − O2O1 6= 0. The most familiar example The crucial difference between the quantum is [Q; P ] = i where Q and P are the position and description of physical reality and the classical one 2 is the principle of superposition: if jΨ1i, jΨ2i are 3 Quantum bit – the unit of quantum in- system states then their superposition; formation The concept of qubit appeared for the first time in jΨi = ajΨ i + bjΨ i 1 2 (4) the context of the theory of quantum information transmission [23] as a two-level system, the state is also in good state, provided that a and b are of which can be written as a superposition of two chosen so that jΨi is normalized. base states j0i and j1i The prediction power of quantum inscription is jΨi = aj0i + bj1i (5) astonishing: “All our experience so far using quantum theory seems to say: What is pre- where a and b are complex numbers, jΨi 2 C2 dicted by quantum formalism must come (two-dimensional Hilbert space). to the laboratory” [36]. In the early 1970s, Contrary to the classical bit, the qubit repre- it seemed that all possible predictions of quan- sents a continuum of possible states defined by tum inscription had already been recognized. The its wave function, which can be visualized by papers of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [3] and the two-dimensional Bloch sphere with two real Schrödinger [37] were initially treated rather as a parameters θ and ' where a = cos(θ=2), b = mathematical artefact detached from its physical sin(θ=2 exp(i')) where 0 ≤ θ ≤ π, 0 ≤ ' ≤ 2π. implications. Ironically, it was them who drew at- For illustration, consider a photon as a paradig- tention to the extraordinary implications of quan- matic example of a qubit.

Load more

  32

Copy Link