Arxiv:2006.07165V2 [Quant-Ph] 11 Nov 2020 Is More Convenient to Describe Path Interference
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Entanglement for any definition of two subsystems Yu Cai,1 Baichu Yu,2 Pooja Jayachandran,2 Nicolas Brunner,1 Valerio Scarani,2, 3 and Jean-Daniel Bancal1 1Department of Applied Physics, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland 2Centre for Quantum Technologies, National University of Singapore, 3 Science Drive 2, Singapore 117543, Singapore 3Department of Physics, National University of Singapore, 2 Science Drive 3, Singapore 117542, Singapore The notion of entanglement of quantum states is usually defined with respect to a fixed bipartition. Indeed, a global basis change can always map an entangled state to a separable one. The situation is however different when considering a set of states. In this work we define the notion of an \absolutely entangled set" of quantum states: for any possible choice of global basis, at least one of the states in the set is entangled. Hence, for all bipartitions, i.e. any possible definition of the subsystems, the set features entanglement. We present examples of such sets, including sets with minimal size. Moreover, we propose a quantitative measure for absolute set entanglement. To lower-bound this quantity, we develop a method based on polynomial optimization to perform convex optimization over unitaries, which is of independent interest. Introduction.| Composite quantum systems can be written as product by changing modes [9], since it is equal y y found to be in entangled states, a direct consequence of to j1; 1i = A A jvacuumi for A = p1 (a ± ia ). But + − ± 2 1 2 the linearity of quantum mechanics. This concept has there is no mode transformation in which the same state 2 far-reaching implications, and is by now considered as can be written p1 Ay jvacuumi = j2; 0i; not to mention one of the defining features of quantum theory [1,2]. 2 the impossibility of connecting states with different num- The notion of entanglement relies on partitioning the ber of photons. In this context, some states were recently system into subsystems. Some choice may be very natu- found that remain entangled under any mode transfor- ral to us, notably the one based on localization: what mation [10]. is accessible in Alice's location, versus what is acces- sible in Bob's location. In other cases, the arbitrari- Such results are clearly impossible if one considers all ness of the partition is more patent. Consider a two- the unitaries U in the Hilbert space, as we plan to do path interference for a molecule. If one chooses the N here (in the context of distinguishable systems). In this atoms that form the molecule as subsystems, the state case, given j i, there exists U such that U j i = jφi for of the molecule in the interferometer will be a highly any target state jφi. However, the situation becomes entangled state of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger type: completely different when one considers sets of quan- N N tum states, as we discuss in this work. Indeed, there N j~x + d~ i + N j~x + d~ i, where ~x is the posi- j=1 j I j=1 j II j exist sets of quantum states, from which the entangle- tion of the j-th atom. But if one chooses the centre- ment cannot be removed even by global unitaries. That of-mass (CM) and the relative coordinates as subsys- ~ is, entanglement will remain no matter what definition tems, the state of the molecule will be product: (jdI i + of the subsystems is adopted. We term such sets \ab- ~ jdII i)CM ⊗ j~r1i ⊗ ::: ⊗ j~rN−1i, where ~rk are the rela- solutely entangled". We formally define this notion, fol- tive coordinates. Philosophers may discuss whether some lowed by a warm-up discussion. We prove a general lower choices of subsystems represent \reality" better than oth- bound on the size of an absolutely entangled set: for ers [3,4]. In the practice of the physicist, the definition d d1 d2 C = C ⊗C , one needs a set of at least max (d1; d2)+2 of subsystems relies on operational convenience [5{7]. To pure states, while for any smaller set there is a choice of stay with the example (see also [8]): we may well believe global basis such that all states become product. Then that molecules are \really" made of atoms; this division we present an explicit construction of an absolutely en- may also prove suited for calculations in quantum chem- tangled set consisting of d1 + d2; this set is therefore istry; but the description of CM and relative coordinates minimal if min (d1; d2) = 2. Further, we quantify the arXiv:2006.07165v2 [quant-ph] 11 Nov 2020 is more convenient to describe path interference. amount of entanglement present in an absolutely entan- For another related example, consider the second quan- gled set. For this, we develop a method for performing tisation of bosons. The Fock space is constructed as a convex optimization over unitaries, which can be cast as tensor product of spaces, each representing a bosonic a semidefinite programming (SDP). We present several mode. A change of mode decomposition reads Aj = illustrative case studies. Finally, we discuss the potential y Uaj = UajU , where U is a unitary operator acting on applications of these ideas, as well as some open ques- the modes and U is the corresponding representation in tions. the Hilbert space. Any U is allowed, but the correspond- Context and definition.— As mentioned above, a sin- ing U must be a linear-optics transformation. Thus, if gle quantum pure state is always unitarily equivalent to a one assumes that the only meaningful tensor decomposi- product state. Similarly, for any mixed quantum state ρ, tions of the field are those in modes, not all quantum which can always be expressed as a probabilistic mixture states can be connected. For instance, the entangled of pure states forming an orthonormal basis fj jig, there y2 y2 state p1 (j2; 0i + j0; 2i) = 1 (a + a ) jvacuumi can be 2 2 1 2 exists a unitary U that maps fj jig to the computational 2 ∗ 0 basis (containing only product states), and thus maps c2;1c3;1 = h 2j 3i. Now, the overlap of the (d + 1)- ρ to a separable state. Hence a single quantum state, th state with the previous ones will be fully encoded in whether pure or mixed, can only be entangled with re- the component with the second system in state j0i: we spect to some bipartitions [11]. Note that this is in fact are therefore completely free to choose how to write the not even always the case: there exist mixed states (in component with the second system in an orthogonal state particular in the vicinity of the maximally mixed state) j1i. In particular, we can write that remain separable for any global basis choice [12]. d−1 ! d−1 ! The situation becomes completely different if one con- X X sider sets of states. Indeed, there exist sets of states, for j d+1i = cd+1;i jii j0i + cd+1;d+1 cd+1;i jii j1i which any global basis choice will leave at least one state i=0 i=0 in the set entangled. A trivial example is the set of all d−1 ! d d X pure states in a given Hilbert space C 1 ⊗C 2 : clearly no = cd+1;i jii (j0i + cd+1;d+1 j1i): unitary can map all those states into product ones [13]. i=0 This motivates the following: (2) Definition: absolutely entangled set (AES). Thus, there exists a basis in which all the d0 +1 states are Consider a set of quantum states fρ1; :::; ρK g in a fixed d product. It is natural to ask whether this construction Hilbert space C of non-prime dimension. The set is said to be absolutely entangled with respect to all bipartitions is tight, i.e. if one can find absolutely entangled sets of d0 + 2 states. The next explicit construction proves that into subsystems of dimension (d1; d2), if for every uni- y this is the case for min (d ; d ) = 2 (i.e. for d = 2d0). tary U 2 SU(d), at least one state UρkU is entangled 1 2 d1 d2 Tighteness for min (d ; d ) > 2 remains an open question, with respect to C ⊗ C . 1 2 When d is not a product of primes, one could consider as well as proving that the lower bound on the size of a a stronger definition, by requesting that at least one state AES remains valid for mixed states. d d1 Minimal absolutely entangled sets.| Our first explicit remains entangled for all d1; d2 ≥ 2 such that C = C ⊗ d2 , rather than for a fixed pair of dimensions; but we construction of an AES is as follows. Consider d non- C d d d shall leave this stronger definition for further work. prime and the bipartition C = C 1 ⊗ C 2 , and let d Let us discuss a warm-up example in C4. As noted fjξiigi=1;:::;d be an orthonormal basis of C . The K ≡ above, any orthonormal basis (such as the Bell ba- d1 + d2 states sis) is unitarily equivalent to the computational basis. jφ i = jξ i ; Then, a natural AES candidate that comes to mind 1 1 p (3) jφ i = c jξ i + 1 − c2 jξ i ; k = 2; :::; K (at least for the authors) is the set in C4 consisting k 1 k of the computational basis and the four Bell states: q + − + − form an AES when c 2 ( (d1−1)(d2−1) ; 1). In particular, fj00i ; j01i ; j10i ; j11i ; jΦ i ; jΦ i ; jΨ i ; jΨ ig.