Arxiv:1812.08053V1 [Quant-Ph] 19 Dec 2018 This Motivates the Study of Quantum Communication Without a Shared Reference Frame [4]

Communicating without shared reference frames

Alexander R. H. Smith1, ∗ 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, USA (Dated: December 20, 2018) We generalize a quantum communication protocol introduced by Bartlett et al. [New. J. Phys. 11, 063013 (2009)] in which two parties communicating do not share a classical reference frame, to the case where changes of their reference frames form a one-dimensional noncompact Lie group. Alice sends to Bob the state ρR ⊗ρS , where ρS is the state of the system Alice wishes to communicate and ρR is the state of an ancillary system serving as a token of her reference frame. Because Bob is ignorant of the relationship between his reference frame and Alice’s, he will describe the state ρR ⊗ ρS as an average over all possible reference frames. Bob measures the reference token and applies a correction to the system Alice wished to communicate conditioned on the outcome of the 0 measurement. The recovered state ρS is decohered with respect to ρS , the amount of decoherence depending on the properties of the reference token ρR. We present an example of this protocol when Alice and Bob do not share a reference frame associated with the one-dimensional translation group 0 and use the ﬁdelity between ρS and ρS to quantify the success of the recovery operation.

I. INTRODUCTION quire highly entangled states of many qubits. Another possibility for Alice and Bob to communicate Most quantum communication protocols assume that without a shared reference frame is for Alice to send Bob the parties communicating share a classical background a quantum system ρR to serve as a token of her reference reference frame. For example, suppose Alice wishes to frame, together with the state ρS she wishes to commu- communicate to Bob the state of a qubit using a telepor- nicate to him. Since Bob does not know the relation tation protocol [1]. Alice begins by having the qubit she between his reference frame and Alice’s, with respect to wishes to communicate to Bob interact with one half of his reference frame he will see the joint state ρR ρS aver- ⊗ an entangled pair of qubits shared by her and Bob. Alice aged over all possible orientations of his lab with respect then measures the two qubits in her possession and picks to Alice’s; this averaging operation is referred to as the up the phone and informs Bob of the measurement re- G-twirl and the averaged state denoted as [ρR ρS]. G ⊗ sult. Bob uses this information to apply an appropriate Bob can apply a recovery operation to this G-twirled gate to his half of the entangled pair to recover the state state by measuring the reference token and applying an Alice wished to send to him. appropriate correction to the system Alice wishes to send 0 The success of this protocol depends on Alice’s ability to him, allowing him to recover a state ρS that is close to classically communicate to Bob which gates he should to ρS. This recovery operation was first constructed by apply to his half of the entangled state. This can only Bartlett et al. [6], and its success was found to depend be done if Alice and Bob share a reference frame. As on the size of the reference token, which is necessarily an example, suppose Alice informs Bob that he needs to bounded if the reference token is described by a finite apply the Pauli z operator to the qubit in his position. If dimensional Hilbert space. Bob is ignorant of the orientation of his lab with respect However, this communication protocol is based on Bob to Alice’s, he does not know in which direction to orient assigning the G-twirled state [ρR ρS] to the system G ⊗ the magnetic field in his Stern-Gerlach apparatus to im- and reference token, and the G-twirl does not yield nor- plement the Pauli z operator to recover the state sent by malizable states when the group of reference frames being Alice. In this case the teleportation protocol is unable to averaged over is noncompact [7]. This begs the question: be carried out perfectly [2, 3]. Can an analogous communication protocol involving a reference token sent by Alice and a recovery operation arXiv:1812.08053v1 [quant-ph] 19 Dec 2018 This motivates the study of quantum communication without a shared reference frame [4]. One way Alice implemented by Bob be constructed given that changes can communicate to Bob, despite not sharing a refer- of their reference frames form a noncompact group? Fur- ence frame with him, is to encode information into de- thermore, if the Hilbert space of the reference token is in- 2 grees of freedom that are invariant under a change of finite dimensional, for example R L (R), what phys- H ' Alice’s reference frame. Without knowing his relation to ical aspect of the reference token acts as its effective size? Alice’s reference frame, Bob is able to extract both clas- The purpose of this article is to examine these ques- sical and quantum information encoded in these degrees tions. Considerations of noncompact groups within the of freedom [5]. However, in practice such communication theory of quantum reference frames is important if one schemes may be challenging to implement since they re- hopes to apply the theory to the physically relevant Galilean and Poincarégroups, which are both noncompact. We begin in Sec. II by describing the encoding and re- ∗ [email protected] covery operations introduced by Bartlett et al. [6]. In 2

Sec. III we introduce a G-twirl over a compact subset then the reference token and system relative to Bob’s of a noncompact group and a complementary recovery frame will be given by the encoding operation operation, such that in the limit when this G-twirl becomes an average over the entire noncompact group, the [ρS] := e e ρS composition of the recovery operation with this G-twirl E ZG | ih | ⊗ results in properly normalized states. We then apply = dg R(g)[ e e ] S(g)[ρS] , (2) U | ih | ⊗ U this construction in Sec. IV to the case when Alice and G Bob do not share a reference frame associated with the † where i(g)[ρ] := Ui(g) ρ Ui(g) denotes the adjoint rep- one-dimensional translation group, which is relevant for resentationU of the action of the group element g G on parties communicating without a shared positional refer- ρ ( ) for i R,S . ∈ ence frame. In this case, we identify the inverse of the i ∈Bob’s S H task is now∈ { to best} recover the state of the system width in position space of the reference token’s state as ρ given the encoded state [ρ ]. In other words, he must the eﬀective size of the reference token and demonstrate S S construct a recovery operationE that in the limit when this width goes to zero Alice and Bob are able to communicate perfectly without a shared : ( R S) ( S), (3) reference frame. We conclude in Sec. V with a summary R S H ⊗ H → S H of our results and an outlook to future questions. 0 that when applied to [ρS] results in a state ρ ( S ) E S ∈ S H that is as close as possible to ρS. A recovery operation was constructed by Bartlett et al. [6] with such prop- II. COMMUNICATION WITHOUT A SHARED R erties, and its action on the encoded state [ρS] yields CLASSICAL REFERENCE FRAME E Z 0 Consider two parties, Alice and Bob, each employing ρS := [ρS] = dg p(g) S(g)[ρS] , (4) R ◦ E U their own classical reference frame to describe the state G of a single quantum system associated with the Hilbert 2 where p(g) e U (g) e with U (g) ( ) being space . Suppose that this system transforms via a R R R S the unitary∝ representation |h | | i| of g G on∈ U H. We will unitaryH representation of the group G when changing the R explicitly construct a similar recovery∈ operationH in the reference frame used to describe the system; for the time next section for the case when G is noncompact. being we will assume G is a compact Lie group. Let g G label the group element which describes the transformation∈ from Alice’s to Bob’s reference frame. If Alice prepares the system in the state ρS ( S) with ∈ S H E respect to her reference frame, where ( S) is the space S H of states on S, and g is completely unknown to Bob, ρS ρS′ then the stateH with respect to his reference frame will be G given by a uniform average over all possible g G; that e e R is, by the G-twirl ∈ | ⟩⟨ | Z † [ρS] := dg US(g) ρS US(g) , (1) G G FIG. 1. The communication channel R ◦ E. Alice prepares where dg denotes the Haar measure associated with G a state ρS she wishes to communicate to Bob along with the state |eihe| as a token of her reference frame. As Bob does and US(g) ( S) is the unitary representation of ∈ U H not know the relation between his reference frame and Alice’s, the group element g G on S, with ( S) denoting the space of unitary∈ operatorsH on U.H If instead he sees the joint state of the reference token and system as S the encoded state E[ρ ] = G |eihe| ⊗ ρ . Bob then applies Bob has some partial information aboutH the relation be- S S the recovery operation to the encoded state and recovers the tween his reference frame and Alice’s, the uniform aver- 0 state ρ = R ◦ E[ρS ]. age over all possible g G in Eq. (1) would be replaced S with a weighted average∈ encoding Bob’s partial information [8, 9]. In general, the G-twirl results in decoherence, not from the system interacting with an environment and infor- III. A RECOVERY OPERATION FOR mation being lost to the environment, but from Bob’s NONCOMPACT GROUPS lack of knowledge about the relationship between his reference frame and Alice’s. To combat this decoherence, The action of the G-twirl over a noncompact group on Alice may prepare another quantum system, described a state results is a non-normalizable density matrix [7]. by the Hilbert space R, to serve as a token of her refer- For example, consider the G-twirl over the non-compact H ence frame (a good representative of her reference frame). group of translations in one dimension T1 of the state 2 Suppose Alice prepares the token in the state e R, ρ L (R) . The unitary representation of g T1 is | i ∈ H ∈ S ∈ 3

−iP g U(g) = e , where P is the momentum operator on there corresponds an eigenket aR such that 2 | i L (R), and the G-twirl over T1 is AR aR = f(aR) aR , (6) Z Z | i | i [ρ] = dg e−igP dpdp0 ρ(p, p0) p p0 eigP T1 with eigenvalue f(aR) R. Since σ(AR) is continuous G | ih | ∈ Z and AR is self-adjoint, these eigenkets are normalized = 2π dp ρ(p, p) p p , (5) with the Dirac delta function | ih | 0 0 aR a = δ aR a . (7) where p denote the eigenkets of the momentum opera- h | Ri − R | i 0 0 1 tor P , ρ(p, p ) := p ρ p , and dg is the Haar measure From the above normalization condition we see that h | | i associated with T1; in going from the first to the second aR R, as these eigenkets are not square integrable equality we have used the definition of the Dirac delta and| i therefore 6∈ H do not represent physical states3. 0 R ig(p−p0) function 2πδ(p p ) := dg e . From Eq. (5) it Our first step is to construct a well defined encoding − is clear that T [ρ] / ( ), which can be verified by operation analogous to Eq. (2). To do so, we suppose G 1 ∈ S H computing the norm of T1 [ρ] which is infinite. the state of Alice’s reference token e R, expressed G | i ∈ H Given that the codomain of the G-twirl over a noncom- in the basis furnished by the eigenkets of AR, is pact group does not necessarily correspond to the state Z space ( ), it is not clear whether the encoding opera- e := daR ψR(aR) aR , (8) tion SorH the recovery operation discussed above are | i | i applicableE to reference frames associatedR with noncom- where ψR(aR) := aR e . Next, let us introduce the set pact groups. We now demonstrate that despite this fact, of states h | i the composition of an encoding operation associated with a noncompact group with a suitably defined recovery op- e(g) := UR(g) e g G , (9) eration results in a properly normalized state. | i | i ∀ ∈ where each e(g) corresponds to a different orientation The approach we will take is to define a compact G- | i twirl over a compact subset of the noncompact group G of Alice’s reference frame. The state of the reference token e should be chosen such that each e(g) defined associated with the reference frame, which corresponds | i | i to Bob having partial information that the relation be- in Eq. (9) is distinct, that is, the state of the reference tween his reference frame and Alice’s is described by token should not be invariant with respect to G. Further- more, for the states e(g) to imitate a classical reference g [ τ, τ] G. This compact G-twirl will be used in an | i encoding∈ − operation⊂ analogous to Eq. (2). We will then frame, they must be orthogonal so as they are perfectly construct a complementary recovery operation, compose distinguishable. it with this encoding operation (similar to Eq. (4)), and Now suppose Alice prepares her reference token in the state ρR ( R) and wishes to send Bob the state ρS finally take a limit in which the compact G-twirl corre- ∈ S H ∈ ( S) of a system associated with the Hilbert space S. sponds to a uniform average over the entire noncompact S H H group G. We will show that in this limit the recovered If Bob knows the relation between his reference frame and Alice’s is given by a group element g [ τ, τ] state is properly normalized and contained in ( S). S H G, but within this interval he is completely∈ ignorant− of⊂ which group element corresponds to this relation, he will 1. The encoding map describe the joint state of the reference token and system by the output of the encoding operation

Consider all possible transformations of Alice’s and τ : ( S) ( R S ) Bob’s classical reference frames to form a strongly contin- E S H → S H ⊗ H ρS τ [ρS] := τ ρR ρS , (10) uous one-parameter noncompact Lie group G. Suppose 7→ E G ⊗ that the unitary representation of a group element g G where the map is a uniform average of ρ over the ∈ τ S on the Hilbert space R describing the reference token is compact intervalG [ τ, τ] G, H igAR UR(g) ( R). By Stone’s theorem [11], UR(g) = e − ⊂ ∈ U H 1 Z τ is generated by a self-adjoint operator AR, the spectrum τ [ρR ρS] := dg R(g)[ρR] S(g)[ρS] , (11) of which we denote by σ(AR) and assume to be continu- G ⊗ 2τ −τ U ⊗ U 2 ous . For each element of the spectrum f(aR) σ(AR) ∈ where dg is the Haar measure associated with G.

1 Even though G is a noncompact Lie group, it is still locally compact, and thus possesses a nontrivial left invariant Haar measure 3 More precisely [12], when dealing with operators with contin- that is unique up to a positive constant [10]. In the case of uous spectrum the theory is defined on a rigged Hilbert space 0 the translations group considered here, dg corresponds to the defined by the triplet Φ R Φ , where Φ is a proper subset 0 ⊂ H ⊂ Lebesgue measure on the real line. dense in R and Φ is the dual of Φ, defined through the inner 2 H This is true of the group generated by either the position or product on R. In our case, Φ is the Schwarz space of smooth 2 H 0 momentum operator on L (R). We note that the following con- rapidly decreasing functions on R and Φ is the space of tempered 0 struction does not rely on σ(AR) being continuous. distributions on R. The eigenkets aR are in Φ . | i 4

2. The recovery operation dg E(g) is the POVM element associated with outcome g G, and IR is the identity operator on R. We as- ∈ 4 H As demonstrated by Bartlett et al. [6], Bob may per- sume that these POVM elements satisfy the covariance form a recovery operation by ﬁrst making a measure- relation R ment of the reference token, followed by a reorientation 0 0 R(g )[E(g)] = E(g + g ) g G. (14) of the system conditioned on the outcome of the mea- U ∀ ∈ surement, and then discarding both the reference token If the outcome of the measurement of R is g [ τ, τ], and measurement result. We follow this procedure in associated with the POVM element dg E(g), then∈ − Bob constructing the recovery operation to be applied to the will reorient the system by implementing the unitary map encoded state τ (ρS). −1 E S(g ), which corresponds to the transformation of the Bob will make a measurement R of the reference token Ureference token by an amount indicated by the measure- described by the POVM elements ment result (1st term in Eq. (15)). If the outcome of the measurement is associated with the operator Eτ , Bob R := dg E(g), g [ τ, τ] G Eτ , (12) ∀ ∈ − ⊂ ∪ will do nothing (2nd term in Eq. (15)). After this measurement and reorientation, Bob will discard (trace out) where the reference token and measurement result. This entire procedure will constitute the recovery operation τ . Z τ R E := I dg E(g), (13) The action of the recovery operation τ on the en- τ R R − −τ coded state τ [ρS] is given by E

0 ρS(τ) = τ τ [ρS] R Z◦ Eτ Z τ Z τ 1 0 0 0−1 1 = dg dg tr E(g ) R(g)[ρR] S(g ) S(g)[ρS] + dg tr Eτ R(g)[ρR] S(g)[ρS] . 2τ −τ −τ U U ◦ U 2τ −τ U U (15)

3. Taking the limit τ → ∞ variables to u := g0 g and v := g0, the recovered state becomes − The limit of Eq. (15) in which τ becomes inﬁnite corresponds to the scenario in which Bob knows nothing Z τ Z v+τ 0 1 † about the orientation of his reference frame with respect ρS = lim dv du tr E(u)ρR (u)[ρS] . τ→∞ 2τ US to Alice’s — the G-twirl appearing in the encoding map −τ v−τ (17) in Eq. (10) is an average over the entire group G. As is clear from Eq. (13), in the limit τ the op- → ∞ erator Eτ vanishes, and thus the second term in Eq. (15) Denoting the antiderivative of the above integrand as goes to zero. Taking this into account, the τ limit → ∞ of Eq. (15) is Z x † Z τ Z τ F (x) := du tr E(u)ρR S(u)[ρS] , (18) 0 1 0 0 0 U ρS = lim dg dg tr E(g g)ρR τ→∞ 2τ −τ −τ − 0 S(g g )[ρS] , (16) Eq. (17) takes the form × U − where we have used the covariance property of the POVM Z τ elements expressed in Eq. (14). Changing the integration 0 1 ρS = lim dv F (v + τ) F (v τ) . (19) τ→∞ 2τ −τ − −

4 To the best of the authors’ knowledge the question of whether Making the substitution h := τ + v and h := τ v in the such a measurement exists for any G is an open problem, as ﬁrst and second terms, respectively, the recovered− state suggested by the remarks in Sec. III.4.4 of Ref. [13]. However, it simpliﬁes to is suggested in this reference that it seems plausible that such a measurement can be constructed, although there does not seem to be an easy general procedure for its construction. Nonetheless, Z 2τ such measurements exist for physically relevant groups like the 0 1 ρS = lim dh F (h) F ( h) . (20) translation group considered in the following section. τ→∞ 2τ 0 − − 5

Taking the limit by applying L’Hôpital’srule5 yields From the definition of the characteristic function 0 0 Z 2τ p˜(aS aS) above, we see that if aS = aS, then 0 1 ∂ − 0 ρS = lim dh F (h) F ( h) p˜(aS aS) = 1, and consequently the diagonal elements 2 τ→∞ ∂τ − 0 − − of ρS are unaffected by the action of the communica- = lim F (τ) F ( τ) tion channel limτ→∞ τ τ . On the other hand, since τ→∞ − − R ◦ E 0 Z the characteristic function is bounded, p˜(aS aS) 1, 0 | 0− | ≤ = dg tr E(g)ρ (g)[ρ ] , (21) when aS = a the off diagonal elements of ρ are equal R S S 6 S S G U to those of ρS multiplied by a factor whose magnitude is where the integration is carried out over the entire less than or equal to unity. From this observation we see group G. that the decoherence induced by limτ→∞ τ τ occurs R ◦ E This brings us to our main result: even though the in the basis furnished by the eigenkets associated with action of the G-twirl over a noncompact group yields the generator AS of the group G. non-normalizable states, the composition of the encod- To quantify the success of the recovery operation — 0 ing operation, which makes use of the G-twirl, with the how close the recovered state ρS is to the initial state 0 recovery operation applied to ρS results in a properly ρS — we will make use of the fidelity F (ρS, ρS) between 0 normalized state in ( S). Explicitly the recovered state ρS and the state ρS = ψS ψS S H | ih | ∈ 0 ( R) that Alice sent, which we will take to be pure ρS = lim τ τ [ρS] S H τ→∞ R ◦ E Z Z ψS = daS ψS(aS) aS , (25) = dg p(g) S(g)[ρS] ( S), (22) | i | i G U ∈ S H 0 where ψS(aS) := aS e . The fidelity F (ρ , ρS) is then where p(g) := tr E(g)ρR is a normalized probability h | i S distribution on G. given by Equation (22) is identical to the expression for the F (ρ0 , ρ ) := ψ ρ0 ψ composition of the recovery and encoding map defined S S S S S Zh | | i for compact groups given in Eq. (4). From Eq. (22) 2 = dg p(g) ψS US(g) ψS we see that if p(g) is highly peaked around the identity G |h | | i| Z group element then the only unitary that will contribute 0 0 2 0 2 = daSda p˜(aS a ) ψS(aS) ψS(a ) . significantly is the identity operator, and the state re- S − S | | | S | covered by Bob will be close to the state sent by Alice, (26) 0 ρS ρS. Thus, the success of the recovery operation, and≈ consequently the quality of the reference token, can be quantified in terms of the width of p(g), analogous to IV. REFERENCE FRAMES ASSOCIATED the compact case [6]. WITH THE TRANSLATION GROUP By expressing ρS in the basis furnished by the eigenkets of the generator AS of the group G, we find the recovered 0 We now examine the recovered state ρS = limτ→∞ τ state to be R ◦ τ [ρS] when the relevant reference frame is associated Z Z E 0 0 0 with the one-dimensional translation group. ρS = dg p(g) daSdaS ρS(aS, aS) G Consider Alice and Bob being completely ignorant of iAS g 0 −iAS g the relation between the spatial origins of their labs, i.e., e aS a e × | ih S| the relation between their positional reference frames. Z Z 0 0 ig(aS −aS ) The group formed by all possible changes of Alice’s refer- = daSdaS dg p(g) e G ence frame is the one-dimensional translation group T1. 0 0 The unitary representation of the group element g T1 ρS(aS, aS) aS aS ∈ Z × | ih | on the system is US(g) S( S) and on the reference 0 0 0 0 ∈ U H = daSda p˜(aS a )ρS(aS, a ) aS a , (23) token is UR(g) R( R). These representations are gen- S − S S | ih S| ∈ U H erated by their respective momentum operators AS = PS where in the last equality we have defined the Fourier and AR = PR. transform of p(g) Suppose as a token of Alice’s reference frame she prepares the state e L2( ), which we take to be Z 0 σ R R 0 ig(aS −a ) | i ∈ H ' p˜(aS a ) := dg p(g) e S . (24) a Gaussian state − S G Z 1 −x2 /2σ2 eσ = dxR e R xR , (27) | i π1/4√σ | i 5 Suppose f(x) and g(x) are real differentiable function in 0 where we have expressed e in the basis furnished by (a, b) R, and g (x) = 0 for all x (a, b). Further, suppose σ ⊂ 6 ∈ | i that f 0(x)/g0(x) A as x a. Then L’Hôpital’srule states the eigenkets xR of the position operator XR on R and that if f(x) 0→ and g(x) → 0 as x a or if g(x) as σ > 0 is the spread| i of this state with respect to thisH basis. x a, then f→(x)/g(x) A →as x a [14].→ → ∞ → → → Note that the different orientations of this token state 6 eσ(g) := U(g) eσ are orthogonal in the limit that σ 1.0 | i | i 0 vanishes, limσ→0 eσ(g) eσ(g ) = δg,g0 , imitating a clas- h | i sical reference frame as discussed in the previous section. 0.8 In this limit token states corresponding to different positional reference frames are completely distinguishable 0.6 from each other. We must now construct the recovery measurement R 0.4 for which the associated set of POVM elements satisfy the covariance relation in Eq. (14) with respect to 0.2 the translation group T1. One such set is given by the PVM elements associated with the position operator XR, 0.0 namely, E(x) := xR xR for all xR R T1, where 0 2 4 6 8 10 | ih | ∈ ' xR denotes the eigenket of XR associated with the | i eigenvalue xR. This follows from the fact that the position and momentum operators acting on R satisfy the H canonical commutation relation [XR,PR] = i, which implies that PR generates translations of the operator XR, 0 or equivalently U (g) x = x + g . However, there FIG. 2. The fidelity F (ρS , ρS ) between the state sent by R R R 0 is a more general set of| POVMi | elementsi corresponding Alice√ ρS and the state recovered by Bob ρS as a function 2 2 to unsharp measurements of the position operator con- of σ + δ , where σ is the width of the reference token in structed by the convolution of E(x) with some confidence position space and δ quantifies the accuracy of Bob’s mea- √surement of the reference token. It is seen that for a fixed measure µ σ2 + δ2, states less localized in the position basis (larger ∆) Z are better recovered by Bob. Eµ(x) := dµ(q) E(x + q). (28)

µ Direct substitution of E (x) into Eq. (14) shows that in- and momentum. Using Eq. (26), the ﬁdelity between ρS 0 deed these unsharp POVM elements are covariant with and the state recovered by Bob ρS is respect to the translation group. In what follows we con- µ sider the family of unsharp POVM elements E (x) de- 0 ∆ δ F (ρS, ρS) = q . (32) ﬁned by choosing a Gaussian measure parametrized by ∆2 + 1 (σ2 + δ2) δ > 0, 2

2 2 Z e−q /δ As might be expected, in the limit where σ and δ vanish Eµ(x) := dq E(x + q). (29) the fidelity F (ρ0 , ρ ) is equal to unity and the recovered δ πδ S S √ state is exactly equal to the state Alice wished to send to µ 0 Bob, ρ = ρS. This limit corresponds different orienta- In the limit δ 0, we have Eδ (x) E(x). S Given that→ Alice prepared the reference→ token in the tions of the reference token described by Eq. (9) being orthogonal, thus imitating a classical reference frame, and state ρR = eσ eσ ( R), the probability distribution p(g) appearing| ih | in ∈ Eq. S H (22) is the measurement of the token’s position being carried out perfectly. g2 − 2 2 From Eq. (32) we also observe that states less localized µ e σ +δ p(g) := tr E (g)ρR = . (30) in the position basis (larger ∆) are better recovered by δ 2 2 √π√σ + δ Bob, as illustrated in Fig. 2 in which the fidelity is plotted 2 2 We note that p(g) is peaked around g = 0 with a width as a function of √σ + δ for different ∆. Note that the expression for the fidelity is independent of µ and of √σ2 + δ2. From Eq. (22), and the discussion that im- x µ , implying that for Gaussian states the success of the √ 2 2 p mediately follows, we see that the parameter σ + δ recovery operation is independent of where the state is determines the quality of the recovery operation: the localized in phase space. smaller σ and δ are, the more peaked p(g) is around the As a second example, suppose Alice prepares her token identity element and the closer Bob’s recovered state will in a superposition of two Gaussian wave packets be to the state sent by Alice. As a concrete example, suppose Alice wishes to send 1 Bob the state ρ = ψ ψ , where ψ L2( ) e = ψ(¯x, p,¯ σ) + ψ( x,¯ p,¯ σ) R, (33) S S S S S R | i √N | i | − − i ∈ H is a Gaussian state | ih | | i ∈ H '

1 Z 2 2 where N is an appropriate normalization constant and iµpx −(xS −µx) /2∆ ψS = dxS e e xS , (31) ψ(¯x, p,¯ σ) denotes the state of a Gaussian wave packet | i π1/4√∆ | i |of width σi in position space with average position and and ∆ is the width of the Gaussian state in the position momentumx ¯ andp ¯, respectively. As they appear in basis xS for S, and µx and µp are its average position Eq. (33),x ¯ andp ¯ quantify the size of the superposition | i H 7

act as a resource to improve the communication channel 1.0 2.5 speciﬁc to the state Alice wishes to send to Bob.

0.8 2.0 V. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK 0.6 1.5

0.4 1.0 We began by introducing a communication protocol between two parties, Alice and Bob, that do not share a 0.2 0.5 reference frame associated with a compact group. Alice sends to Bob a token of her reference frame along with a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 system she wishes to communicate to him, and then Bob performs an appropriate recovery operation that enables him to recover a state close to the one Alice wished to communicate. FIG. 3. For a reference token prepared in a superposition of two Gaussian states described by Eq. (33), the maximum In Sec. III we showed that this communication pro- 0 tocol can be applied when Alice’s and Bob’s reference fidelity Fmax := max [F (ρS , ρS ) | x,¯ p,¯ σ > 0] and the size of the superposition in momentum spacep ¯max/σ that realizes frames are associated with a noncompact group, even this maximum is plotted as a function of the width of the in though averaging states over the entire group leads to position space ∆/σ of the state Alice sent to Bob as given non-normalizable states. Furthermore, we demonstrated in Eq. (31). For all values of ∆/σ the size of the superposi- that this communication channel induces decoherence in tion in momentum space which realizes the maximum fidelity the basis furnished by the eigenkets of the generator of isx ¯maxσ = 0. the group. In Sec. IV we applied this result to the study of communication between two parties who do not share a reference frame associated with the translation group. in position and momentum space, respectively. Further, We introduced a sequence of Gaussian states e of the suppose that Bob is able to make a perfect measurement σ reference token with spatial width σ, and saw| i that in of the position of the reference token as described by the the limit σ 0, e imitates a classical reference frame. POVM elements lim Eµ(x). And again, suppose Al- σ δ→0 δ This suggests→ that| thei parameter 1/σ acts as the effec- ice wishes to communicate the Gaussian state given in tive size of the reference token, since as 1/σ becomes Eq. (31). large the two parties are able to communicate perfectly Given the above, the fidelity expressed in Eq. (26) (assuming Bob is able to measure the reference token yields perfectly, δ 0). We also demonstrated that for finite 2 2 2 2 2 2 → eβ x¯ /σ + e−β p¯ σ size reference tokens, i.e., when 1/σ is finite, states less F (ρ0 , ρ ) = β , (34) S S x¯2/σ2 −p¯2σ2 localized in the position basis are better communicated e + e to Bob and examined the case when the reference token where β := ∆/p∆2 + σ2/2; note that β (0, 1) and is prepared in a superposition. is equal to Eq. (32) when δ 0. Further,∈β takes its We note that the group of time translations gener- maximum (minimum) value when→ ∆ σ (∆ σ). Ob- ated by a Hamiltonian is a strongly continuous one- dimensional noncompact Lie group. Thus, provided a co- serve that the fidelity in Eq. (34) is independent of µx variant measurement of the reference token correspond- and µp appearing in Eq. (31), implying that the success ing to a time observable can be constructed [13], the of the recovery operation is independent of where ψS is localized in phase space. | i above communication scheme can be employed. This will The fidelity in Eq. (34) is a monotonically decreasing be fruitful for communication between parties who do not function ofx ¯, which implies that Alice should prepare share a temporal reference frame, that is, their clocks are the size of the superposition in position space to be as not synchronized. Furthermore, it will be interesting to small as possible (i.e., smallx ¯) in order to maximize the see how the above construction can be applied to non- fidelity. A second observation can be made by inspec- compact Lie groups of higher dimension, such as the Eu- tion of Fig. 3, which is a plot of both the maximum clidean group in two and three dimensions, the Galilean 0 group, and ultimately the Poincarégroup. fidelity, Fmax := max [F (ρ , ρS) x,¯ p,¯ σ > 0], and the S | The intended application of the results in this arti- valuep ¯max/σ which realizes this maximum as a function cle, as well as one of the primary motivation for this of the width ∆/σ of the state ψS Alice wishes to send to Bob; since the fidelity is monotonically| i decreasing in investigation, is to study the act of changing quantum 6 xσ¯ , this maximum occurs whenxσ ¯ = 0. From Fig. 3 we reference frames . Palmer et al. [18] have constructed see that depending on the value of ∆/σ, Alice can adjust an operational protocol for changing quantum reference the state of the reference token by choosing the size of the superposition in momentum spacep/σ ¯ so that the fidelity is maximized. That is, having the ability to create different sizes of superposition in momentum space can 6 See Refs. [15–17] for a different approach. 8 frames associated with compact groups. They used the by the composition of the encoding and recovery oper- state [ρA ρS] as a relational description of the state ations discussed in this article. Having general- G ⊗ R ◦ E ρS with respect to a quantum reference frame ρA, and ized the operation to reference frames associated then considered the operation of changing the quantum with noncompact groups,R ◦ E we hope to study the effect of reference frame from the state ρA to ρB. They found changing quantum reference frames associated with the that this operation could not be done perfectly and that Galilean and Poincarégroups. Understanding the pro- the best one could do is cess of changing quantum reference frames is an essential step in the construction of a relational quantum theory, in 0 [ρA ρS] [ρB ρS], (35) which all objects, including reference frames, are treated G ⊗ → G ⊗ quantum mechanically. 0 where ρS = [ρS]. In other words, one is not able to change quantumR ◦ E reference frames without affecting the state of the system described with respect to the refer- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 0 ence frame — ρS changes to ρS when the reference frame is changed. This results in a fundamental decoherence I wish to thank Marco Piani, Robert B. Mann, and mechanism associated with the act of changing quantum Urgje [19] for useful discussions and Mehdi Ahmadi and reference frames. This is in stark contrast to the classi- Lorenza Viola for a careful reading of this manuscript. cal case, in which the act of changing reference frames This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and does not affect the system being described with respect Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Dart- to the reference frames. This decoherence is described mouth College Society of Fellows.

[1] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation pany,, Princeton, N.J., 1965). and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, [11] M. H. Stone, PNAS 16, 172 (1930). Cambridge, 2010). [12] L. E. Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Devel- [2] G. Chiribella, V. Giovannetti, L. Maccone, and opment (World Scientiﬁc, 1998). P. Perinotti, Phys. Rev. A 86, 010304(R) (2012). [13] P. Busch, M. Grabowski, and P. J. Lahti, Operational [3] D. Verdon and J. Vicary, Phys. Rev. A 98, 012306 (2018); Quantum Physics (Springer, 1997). arXiv:1802.09040v2 [quant-ph] (2018). [14] W. Rudin, Principles of mathematical analysis [4] S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, Rev. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976). Mod. Phys. 79, 555 (2007). [15] F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, and Caslav˘ Brukner, [5] S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, Phys. arXiv:1712.07207 [quant-ph] (2018). Rev. Lett. 91, 027901 (2003). [16] A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Hoehn, F. Giacomini, and [6] S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, R. W. Spekkens, and P. S. E. Castro-Ruiz, arXiv:1809.00556 [quant-ph] (2018). Turner, New J. Phys. 11, 063013 (2009). [17] P. A. Hoehn and A. Vanrietvelde, arXiv:1810.04153 [gr- [7] A. R. H. Smith, M. Piani, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. qc] (2018). A 94, 012333 (2016). [18] M. C. Palmer, F. Girelli, and S. D. Bartlett, Phys. Rev. [8] F. M. Miatto, arXiv:1209.4281 [quant-ph] (2012). A 89, 052121 (2014). [9] M. Ahmadi, A. R. H. Smith, and A. Dragan, Phys. Rev. [19] Urgje, https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/219979 A 92, 062319 (2015). (2015). [10] L. Nachbin, The Haar Integral (D. Van Nostrand Com-