DOCSLIB.ORG

Separability Criterion for Quantum Effects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Separability Criterion for Quantum Effects Separability Criterion for Quantum Effects Ikko Hamamura1 ∗ 1Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyoto University, 6158540 Kyoto, Japan Abstract. Entanglement of quantum states is one of the most important concepts in modern quantum science and technology. The existence of entanglement is shown by the violation of the famous Bell{Clauser{Horne{Shimony{Holt (Bell{CHSH) inequality. On the other hand, entanglement of the measurement of observable can also be considered. An effect, in the title, represents a binary observable. In this poster presentation, we will discuss the definition of the entanglement of observables, the detection way of the effect using a dual version of the Bell{CHSH inequality, and the application of our inequality to quantum teleportation. Keywords: Bell{CHSH inequality, Entanglement of observables, IBM Quantum Experience 1 Introduction separable. An observable is an effect valued mea- sure (corresponding to positive operator valued mea- Entanglement of quantum states is one of the sure). A separable observable is a separable effect most important concepts in modern quantum sci- valued measure. An entangled observable is defined ence and technology. To detect the entanglement as an observable which is not separable. of states, several ways have been proposed includ- In the poster, we discuss the entanglement of ob- ing the Bell{Clauser{Horne{Shimony{Holt (Bell{ servables. The detection way of the entanglement is CHSH) inequality [1, 2]. Alice and Bob share a discussed in section 2. Here, the dual version of the quantum state ρ. After that, Alice makes a mea- Bell{CHSH inequality is proposed. This is a sep- surement of a binary observable A or A , or Bob 0 1 arability criterion for quantum effects (binary ob- makes a measurement of a binary observable B or 0 servables). In section 3, we show the experimental B . The output values of these measurements are 1 setting and the experimental result by IBM's cloud mapped to +1 or −1. Let B be quantum computer. In section 4, we discuss the application of our inequality to quantum teleporta- tr [ρA0 ⊗ B0] + tr [ρA1 ⊗ B0] tion. Some concluding comments are addressed in + tr [ρA ⊗ B ] − tr [ρA ⊗ B ] : (1) 0 1 1 1 section 5. If the shared state ρ are not entangled (separable), 2 Dual version of the Bell{CHSH in- then equality −2 ≤ B ≤ 2 (2) holds. This inequality is called the Bell{Clauser{ Now, we discuss the detection way of the entan- Horne{Shimony{Holt (Bell{CHSH) inequality. If gled effect. We proposed the separability criterion some state and observables violate the inequal- for quantum effect, called a dual version of the Bell{ ity (2), then the given state is entangled. This is CHSH inequality [3]. the detection of the entanglement of states. The inequality formulates as follows: Figure 1 On the other hand, entanglement of observables shows the setting of the inequality. Alice and Bob prepare states respectively and they make a mea- can be considered. Let X be an effect. That is, X surement with output f +1 −1 g. Let and is an operator on a Hilbert space H and 0 ≤ X ≤ 1 ; M1 M−1 be the corresponding POVM elements (effects). We is satisfied. An effect X is called separable if X can be decomposed to introduce the expectation operator M defined as X X 0 0 M = 1 × M1 + (−1) × M−1: (4) X = Ai ⊗ Bi = 1 − Aj ⊗ Bj; (3) i j For simplicity, we assume that each system is where A ;B ;A0 ;B0 are positive operators. An en- qubit system in this manuscript. That is HA = i i j j 2 tangled effect is defined as an effect which is not HB = C . The general description is shown in Ref. [3] ∗[email protected] 3 Experiment We use the cloud computing, called IBM Quan- A tum Experience, to show our inequality violates. Al- ρi ice prepare an eigenstate with an eigenvalue +1 of M 0 1 1 0 B X = ;Z = : (10) ρj 1 0 0 −1 Bob prepares an eigenstate with eigenvalue +1 of 1 1 1 1 p Z + p X; p Z − p X: (11) Figure 1: The setting of our experiment. Alice pre- 2 2 2 2 pares states ρA and ρA, and Bob prepares states ρB 0 1 0 They perform a Bell measurement as a nonlocal and ρB. After that, they make a nonlocal measure- 1 measurement. The Bell measurement is defined as ment M. We assume that this nonlocal measurement following POVM with four outcomes: M has a binary output f +1; −1 g. 0 1 0 0 ±11 We consider the difference from ignorance defined 1 B 0 0 0 0 C MΦ± = B C (12) as 2 @ 0 0 0 0 A 1 ±1 0 0 1 tr ρ − M : (5) ; 2 and The difference from ignorance for two quantum sys- 00 0 0 01 tems is defined as 1 B0 1 ±1 0C M ± = B C : (13) 1 1 Ψ 2 @0 ±1 1 0A E(ρA; ρB; M) = 2 tr ρA − ⊗ ρB − M : 2 2 0 0 0 0 (6) Our theorem requires the condition tr [Mi] ≤ 1. This coefficient 2 is not essential, but this is neces- Therefore, we prepare the completely mixed state 1 and check the value of tr 1 . At least one sary to set the maximum value to 2 of our inequality. 2 2 Mi Mi A B satisfies the condition, so we choose it as M1 and By using effect M1, this E(ρ ; ρ ; M) is equal to P summarise the others like M−1 = others Mi. Af- 1 1 terthat, we check the value D in the dual Bell{CHSH 4 tr ρA − ⊗ ρB − M (7) 2 2 1 inequality. In our experiment, D is greater than 2, so the Let D be violation of the dual Bell{CHSH inequality is con- A B A B firmed. A detailed setting of our experiment can be E(ρ0 ; ρ0 ; M) + E(ρ0 ; ρ1 ; M) A B A B seen in the jupyter notebook in the Qiskit Tutori- + E(ρ1 ; ρ0 ; M) − E(ρ1 ; ρ1 ; M): (8) als [4]. In the notebook, an experiment with a sim- ulator and a cloud quantum computer is presented. Theorem 1 We assume that a binary observable M with two outcomes f +1 −1 g satisfies the condition ; 4 Application to quantum teleportation tr [M1] ≤ 1 or tr [M−1]. If this observable M is sep- arable, then the following inequality holds: In this section, we discuss an application to quan- tum teleportation. Quantum teleportation is a pro- −2 ≤ D ≤ 2: (9) tocol which transfers quantum states using local op- erations and classical communication [5]. Alice pre- This inequality is called the dual version of Bell{ pares an unknown pure state and Alice and Bob CHSH inequality. The proof is shown in Ref. [3] in share a maximally entangled state. Alice performs general case. The condition tr [M ] = 1 or tr [M ] 1 −1 a measurement of an entangled observable M for her is necessary to the proof of the theorem but can states. Alice tells Bob the measurement result by be removed by using postprocessing. The detailed classical communication. Bob performs a unitary procedure is shown in Ref. [3] operation U to his state according to Alice's result. In the next section, we check the violation of our i After this protocol Bob outputs a state ρ. In the inequality by an entangled effect. by LOCC is an open problem. Our inequality de- pends on the dimension of the Hilbert spaces. This dependency should be got rid of also from the view- point of the device independent entanglement detec- tion. Acknowledgements Figure 2: The quantum circuit of quantum telepor- We acknowledge use of the IBM Quantum Expe- tation. The two upper qubits are Alice's ones and rience for this work. The views expressed are those the other is Bob's one. Alice has an unknown state of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of IBM or the IBM Quantum Experience j i and Alice and Bob have an entangled state Φ+. team. The author acknowledges support by Grant- Alice makes a Bell measurement M and tells Bob the measurement result. Bob performs a unitary in-Aid for JSPS Research Fellow (JP18J10310). gate according to Alice's result. Bob's output is a References state ρ. [1] J. S. Bell, \On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox*", Physics 1, 195 (1964). ideal case, an output state is equal to an input state. This protocol is shown in Figure 2. [2] J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and Hereinafter, we assume that the shared entan- R. A. Holt, \Proposed Experiment to Test Lo- gled state is complete, but the Bell measurement cal Hidden-Variable Theories", Phys. Rev. Lett. is incomplete. We assume an unbiased condition 23, 880 (1969). tr [Mi] = 1. For example, one rank projective mea- [3] I. Hamamura, \Separability criterion for quan- surement satisfies this condition. This condition is tum effects”, in press in PLA (2018) https:// necessary to use the violation of the dual Bell{CHSH doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2018.06.043. inequality. If each POVM element violates the dual [4] I. Hamamura, Entangled measurement, (2018) Bell{CHSH inequality, then the maximum value of the average fidelity between an input state and an https : / / github . com / Qiskit / qiskit - output state tutorial/blob/master/appendix/more_qis/ entangled_measurement.ipynb. Z [5] C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr´epeau, R. Fmax = max dM(φ) hφ j ρφi ; (14) f Ui gi S Jozsa, A.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Quantum Cryptography: from Theory to Practice
    Quantum cryptography: from theory to practice by Xiongfeng Ma A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Thesis Graduate Department of Department of Physics University of Toronto Copyright °c 2008 by Xiongfeng Ma Abstract Quantum cryptography: from theory to practice Xiongfeng Ma Doctor of Philosophy Thesis Graduate Department of Department of Physics University of Toronto 2008 Quantum cryptography or quantum key distribution (QKD) applies fundamental laws of quantum physics to guarantee secure communication. The security of quantum cryptog- raphy was proven in the last decade. Many security analyses are based on the assumption that QKD system components are idealized. In practice, inevitable device imperfections may compromise security unless these imperfections are well investigated. A highly attenuated laser pulse which gives a weak coherent state is widely used in QKD experiments. A weak coherent state has multi-photon components, which opens up a security loophole to the sophisticated eavesdropper. With a small adjustment of the hardware, we will prove that the decoy state method can close this loophole and substantially improve the QKD performance. We also propose a few practical decoy state protocols, study statistical fluctuations and perform experimental demonstrations. Moreover, we will apply the methods from entanglement distillation protocols based on two-way classical communication to improve the decoy state QKD performance. Fur- thermore, we study the decoy state methods for other single photon sources, such as triggering parametric down-conversion (PDC) source. Note that our work, decoy state protocol, has attracted a lot of scienti¯c and media interest. The decoy state QKD becomes a standard technique for prepare-and-measure QKD schemes.
    [Show full text]
  • Reliably Distinguishing States in Qutrit Channels Using One-Way LOCC
    Reliably distinguishing states in qutrit channels using one-way LOCC Christopher King Department of Mathematics, Northeastern University, Boston MA 02115 Daniel Matysiak College of Computer and Information Science, Northeastern University, Boston MA 02115 July 15, 2018 Abstract We present numerical evidence showing that any three-dimensional subspace of C3 ⊗ Cn has an orthonormal basis which can be reliably dis- tinguished using one-way LOCC, where a measurement is made first on the 3-dimensional part and the result used to select an optimal measure- ment on the n-dimensional part. This conjecture has implications for the LOCC-assisted capacity of certain quantum channels, where coordinated measurements are made on the system and environment. By measuring first in the environment, the conjecture would imply that the environment- arXiv:quant-ph/0510004v1 1 Oct 2005 assisted classical capacity of any rank three channel is at least log 3. Sim- ilarly by measuring first on the system side, the conjecture would imply that the environment-assisting classical capacity of any qutrit channel is log 3. We also show that one-way LOCC is not symmetric, by providing an example of a qutrit channel whose environment-assisted classical capacity is less than log 3. 1 1 Introduction and statement of results The noise in a quantum channel arises from its interaction with the environment. This viewpoint is expressed concisely in the Lindblad-Stinespring representation [6, 8]: Φ(|ψihψ|)= Tr U(|ψihψ|⊗|ǫihǫ|)U ∗ (1) E Here E is the state space of the environment, which is assumed to be initially prepared in a pure state |ǫi.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Computing : a Gentle Introduction / Eleanor Rieffel and Wolfgang Polak
    QUANTUM COMPUTING A Gentle Introduction Eleanor Rieffel and Wolfgang Polak The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England ©2011 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher. For information about special quantity discounts, please email [email protected] This book was set in Syntax and Times Roman by Westchester Book Group. Printed and bound in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rieffel, Eleanor, 1965– Quantum computing : a gentle introduction / Eleanor Rieffel and Wolfgang Polak. p. cm.—(Scientific and engineering computation) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-262-01506-6 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Quantum computers. 2. Quantum theory. I. Polak, Wolfgang, 1950– II. Title. QA76.889.R54 2011 004.1—dc22 2010022682 10987654321 Contents Preface xi 1 Introduction 1 I QUANTUM BUILDING BLOCKS 7 2 Single-Qubit Quantum Systems 9 2.1 The Quantum Mechanics of Photon Polarization 9 2.1.1 A Simple Experiment 10 2.1.2 A Quantum Explanation 11 2.2 Single Quantum Bits 13 2.3 Single-Qubit Measurement 16 2.4 A Quantum Key Distribution Protocol 18 2.5 The State Space of a Single-Qubit System 21 2.5.1 Relative Phases versus Global Phases 21 2.5.2 Geometric Views of the State Space of a Single Qubit 23 2.5.3 Comments on General Quantum State Spaces
    [Show full text]
  • Other Topics in Quantum Information
    Other Topics in Quantum Information In a course like this there is only a limited time, and only a limited number of topics can be covered. Some additional topics will be covered in the class projects. In this lecture, I will go (briefly) through several more, enough to give the flavor of some past and present areas of research. – p. 1/23 Entanglement and LOCC Entangled states are useful as a resource for a number of QIP protocols: for instance, teleportation and certain kinds of quantum cryptography. In these cases, Alice and/or Bob measure their local subsystems, transmit the results of the measurement, and then do a further unitary transformation on their local systems. We can generalize this idea to include a very broad class of procedures: local operations and classical communication, or LOCC (sometimes written LQCC). The basic idea is that Alice and Bob are allowed to do anything they like to their local subsystems: any kind of generalized measurement, unitary transformation or completely positive map. They can also communicate with each other classically: that is, they can exchange classical bits, but not quantum bits. – p. 2/23 LOCC State Transformations Suppose Alice and Bob share a system in an entangled state ΨAB . Using LOCC, can they transform ΨAB to a | i | i different state ΦAB reliably? If not, can they transform | i it with some probability p > 0? What is the maximum p? We can measure the entanglement of ΨAB using the entropy of entanglement | i SE( ΨAB ) = Tr ρA log2 ρA . | i − { } It is impossible to increase SE on average using only LOCC.
    [Show full text]
  • Distinguishing Different Classes of Entanglement for Three Qubit Pure States
    Distinguishing different classes of entanglement for three qubit pure states Chandan Datta Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar [email protected] YouQu-2017, HRI Chandan Datta (IOP) Tripartite Entanglement YouQu-2017, HRI 1 / 23 Overview 1 Introduction 2 Entanglement 3 LOCC 4 SLOCC 5 Classification of three qubit pure state 6 A Teleportation Scheme 7 Conclusion Chandan Datta (IOP) Tripartite Entanglement YouQu-2017, HRI 2 / 23 Introduction History In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR)1 encountered a spooky feature of quantum mechanics. Apparently, this feature is the most nonclassical manifestation of quantum mechanics. Later, Schr¨odingercoined the term entanglement to describe the feature2. The outcome of the EPR paper is that quantum mechanical description of physical reality is not complete. Later, in 1964 Bell formalized the idea of EPR in terms of local hidden variable model3. He showed that any local realistic hidden variable theory is inconsistent with quantum mechanics. 1Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935). 2Naturwiss. 23, 807 (1935). 3Physics (Long Island City, N.Y.) 1, 195 (1964). Chandan Datta (IOP) Tripartite Entanglement YouQu-2017, HRI 3 / 23 Introduction Motivation It is an essential resource for many information processing tasks, such as quantum cryptography4, teleportation5, super-dense coding6 etc. With the recent advancement in this field, it is clear that entanglement can perform those task which is impossible using a classical resource. Also from the foundational perspective of quantum mechanics, entanglement is unparalleled for its supreme importance. Hence, its characterization and quantification is very important from both theoretical as well as experimental point of view. 4Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 145 (2002).
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Information Science
    Quantum Information Science Seth Lloyd Professor of Quantum-Mechanical Engineering Director, WM Keck Center for Extreme Quantum Information Theory (xQIT) Massachusetts Institute of Technology Article Outline: Glossary I. Definition of the Subject and Its Importance II. Introduction III. Quantum Mechanics IV. Quantum Computation V. Noise and Errors VI. Quantum Communication VII. Implications and Conclusions 1 Glossary Algorithm: A systematic procedure for solving a problem, frequently implemented as a computer program. Bit: The fundamental unit of information, representing the distinction between two possi- ble states, conventionally called 0 and 1. The word ‘bit’ is also used to refer to a physical system that registers a bit of information. Boolean Algebra: The mathematics of manipulating bits using simple operations such as AND, OR, NOT, and COPY. Communication Channel: A physical system that allows information to be transmitted from one place to another. Computer: A device for processing information. A digital computer uses Boolean algebra (q.v.) to processes information in the form of bits. Cryptography: The science and technique of encoding information in a secret form. The process of encoding is called encryption, and a system for encoding and decoding is called a cipher. A key is a piece of information used for encoding or decoding. Public-key cryptography operates using a public key by which information is encrypted, and a separate private key by which the encrypted message is decoded. Decoherence: A peculiarly quantum form of noise that has no classical analog. Decoherence destroys quantum superpositions and is the most important and ubiquitous form of noise in quantum computers and quantum communication channels.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Information 1/2
    Quantum information 1/2 Konrad Banaszek, Rafa lDemkowicz-Dobrza´nski June 1, 2012 2 (June 1, 2012) Contents 1 Qubit 5 1.1 Light polarization ......................... 5 1.2 Polarization qubit ......................... 8 1.3 States and operators ....................... 10 1.4 Quantum random access codes . 12 1.5 Bloch sphere ............................ 13 2 A more mystical face of the qubit 17 2.1 Beam splitter ........................... 17 2.2 Mach-Zehnder interferometer . 19 2.3 Single photon interference .................... 21 2.4 Polarization vs dual-rail qubit . 23 2.5 Surprising applications ...................... 23 2.5.1 Quantum bomb detection . 23 2.5.2 Shaping the history of the universe billions years back . 24 3 Distinguishability 27 3.1 Quantum measurement ...................... 27 3.2 Minimum-error discrimination . 30 3.3 Unambiguous discrimination ................... 32 3.4 Optical realisation ........................ 34 4 Quantum cryptography 35 4.1 Codemakers vs. codebreakers . 35 4.2 BB84 quantum key distribution protocol . 38 4.2.1 Intercept and resend attacks on BB84 . 41 4.2.2 General attacks ...................... 42 4.3 B92 protocol ............................ 43 3 4 CONTENTS 5 Practical quantum cryptography 45 5.1 Optical components ........................ 45 5.1.1 Photon sources ...................... 45 5.1.2 Optical channels ..................... 46 5.1.3 Single photon detectors . 48 5.2 Time-bin phase encoding ..................... 48 5.3 Multi-photon pulses and the BB84 security . 51 6 Composite systems 53 6.1 Two qubits ............................ 53 6.2 Bell's inequalities ......................... 55 6.3 Correlations ............................ 57 6.4 Mixed states ............................ 59 6.5 Separability ............................ 60 7 Entanglement 63 7.1 Dense coding ........................... 63 7.2 Remote state preparation ...................
    [Show full text]
  • Stronger No-Cloning, No-Signalling and Conservation of Quantum Information
    Stronger no-cloning, no-signalling and conservation of quantum information I. Chakrabarty,1,2, ∗ A. K. Pati,3, † and S. Adhikari2, ‡ 1Heritage Institute of Technology, Kolkata, India 2Bengal Engineering and Science University, Howrah-711103, West Bengal, India 3Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar-751005, Orissa,India (Dated: May 3, 2019) It is known that the stronger no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem taken together provide the permanence property of quantum information. Also, it is known that the violation of the no-deletion theorem would imply signalling. Here, we show that the violation of the stronger no-cloning theorem could lead to signalling. Furthermore, we prove the stronger no-cloning theorem from the conservation of quantum information. These observations imply that the permanence property of quantum information is connected to the no-signalling and the conservation of quantum information. Introduction: In recent years it is of fundamental establish the permanence of quantum information. importance to know various differences between classi- Before going into the details, first of all, we should cal and quantum information. Many operations which keep in mind that we are treating information not only are feasible in digitized information become impossibili- as knowledge but also as a physical quantity [17]. In fact, ties in quantum world. Unlike classical information, in there are two opposing concepts regarding information: quantum information theory, we cannot clone and delete (i) subjective, according to this information is nothing an arbitrary quantum states which are now known as but knowledge obtained about a system after interacting the no-cloning and the no-deleting theorems [1, 2, 3].
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Quant-Ph/0606226V1 27 Jun 2006 Aini O E Da O Xml,Ti a Been Has This Example, for Idea
    Scalable Error Correction in Distributed Ion Trap Computers Daniel K. L. Oi,1, ∗ Simon J. Devitt,1, 2 and Lloyd C.L. Hollenberg2 1Centre for Quantum Computation, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, United Kingdom 2Centre for Quantum Computing Technology, Department of Physics, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia A major challenge for quantum computation in ion trap systems is scalable integration of error correction and fault tolerance. We analyze a distributed architecture with rapid high fidelity local control within nodes and entangled links between nodes alleviating long-distance transport. We demonstrate fault-tolerant operator measurements which are used for error correction and non-local gates. This scheme is readily applied to linear ion traps which cannot be scaled up beyond a few ions per individual trap but which have access to a probabilistic entanglement mechanism. A proof-of-concept system is presented which is within the reach of current experiment. PACS numbers: 03.67.-a I. INTRODUCTION SegmentedElectrodes Quantum Computation (QC) [1] poses extreme chal- Data lenges for coherent control of large-scale quantum sys- Ancilla Ions tems. Coping with decoherence and imperfect control Ions implies the use the of error correction codes (QEC) ControlLasers and fault tolerant operation. However, maximizing the threshold for arbitrary computation requires the ability Optical OpticalLink to perform multiple, simultaneous operations between Interface toOther Traps qubits and minimal communication and transport over- Ion heads. Incorporating these features in a scalable man- ner is a major goal for all potential system implementa- RFElectrodes tions [2, 3, 4, 5, 6].
    [Show full text]
  • Generalizing Entanglement
    Generalizing Entanglement 1, 2, Ding Jia (> 丁) ∗ 1Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada 2Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, ON, N2L 2Y5, Canada Abstract The expected indefinite causal structure in quantum gravity poses a challenge to the notion of entangle- ment: If two parties are in an indefinite causal relation of being causally connected and not, can they still be entangled? If so, how does one measure the amount of entanglement? We propose to generalize the notions of entanglement and entanglement measure to address these questions. Importantly, the generalization opens the path to study quantum entanglement of states, channels, net- works and processes with definite or indefinite causal structure in a unified fashion, e.g., we show that the entanglement distillation capacity of a state, the quantum communication capacity of a channel, and the en- tanglement generation capacity of a network or a process are different manifestations of one and the same entanglement measure. arXiv:1707.07340v2 [quant-ph] 24 Feb 2018 ∗ [email protected] 1 I. INTRODUCTION One of the most important lessons of general relativity is that the spacetime causal structure is dynamical. In quantum theory dynamical variables are subject to quantum indefiniteness. It is naturally expected that in quantum gravity causal structure reveals its quantum probabilistic aspect, and indefinite causal structure arises as a new feature of the theory [1–6]. The causal relation of two parties can be indefinite regarding whether they are causally connected or disconnected. In the context of the causal structure of spacetime, it is possible that two parties are “in a superposition” of being spacelike and timelike.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory of Quantum Entanglement
    Theory of quantum entanglement Mark M. Wilde Hearne Institute for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Center for Computation and Technology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA [email protected] On Sabbatical with Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305 Mitteldeutsche Physik Combo, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany, September 17, 2020 Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 1 / 103 Motivation Quantum entanglement is a resource for quantum information processing (basic protocols like teleportation and super-dense coding) Has applications in quantum computation, quantum communication, quantum networks, quantum sensing, quantum key distribution, etc. Important to understand entanglement in a quantitative sense Adopt axiomatic and operational approaches This tutorial focuses on entanglement in non-relativistic quantum mechanics and finite-dimensional quantum systems Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 2 / 103 Quantum states... (Image courtesy of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_state) Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 3 / 103 Quantum states The state of a quantum system is given by a square matrix called the density matrix, usually denoted by ρ, σ, τ, !, etc. (also called density operator) It should be positive semi-definite and have trace equal to one. That is, all of its eigenvalues should be non-negative and sum up to one. We write these conditions symbolically as ρ 0 and Tr ρ = 1. Can abbreviate more simply as ρ ( ), to be read≥ as \ρ isf ing the set of density matrices." 2 D H The dimension of the matrix indicates the number of distinguishable states of the quantum system. For example, a physical qubit is a quantum system with dimension two.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Interactive Proofs and the Complexity of Separability Testing
    THEORY OF COMPUTING www.theoryofcomputing.org Quantum interactive proofs and the complexity of separability testing Gus Gutoski∗ Patrick Hayden† Kevin Milner‡ Mark M. Wilde§ October 1, 2014 Abstract: We identify a formal connection between physical problems related to the detection of separable (unentangled) quantum states and complexity classes in theoretical computer science. In particular, we show that to nearly every quantum interactive proof complexity class (including BQP, QMA, QMA(2), and QSZK), there corresponds a natural separability testing problem that is complete for that class. Of particular interest is the fact that the problem of determining whether an isometry can be made to produce a separable state is either QMA-complete or QMA(2)-complete, depending upon whether the distance between quantum states is measured by the one-way LOCC norm or the trace norm. We obtain strong hardness results by proving that for each n-qubit maximally entangled state there exists a fixed one-way LOCC measurement that distinguishes it from any separable state with error probability that decays exponentially in n. ∗Supported by Government of Canada through Industry Canada, the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research and Innovation, NSERC, DTO-ARO, CIFAR, and QuantumWorks. †Supported by Canada Research Chairs program, the Perimeter Institute, CIFAR, NSERC and ONR through grant N000140811249. The Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through Industry Canada and by the arXiv:1308.5788v2 [quant-ph] 30 Sep 2014 Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research and Innovation. ‡Supported by NSERC. §Supported by Centre de Recherches Mathematiques.´ ACM Classification: F.1.3 AMS Classification: 68Q10, 68Q15, 68Q17, 81P68 Key words and phrases: quantum entanglement, quantum complexity theory, quantum interactive proofs, quantum statistical zero knowledge, BQP, QMA, QSZK, QIP, separability testing Gus Gutoski, Patrick Hayden, Kevin Milner, and Mark M.
    [Show full text]