arXiv:quant-ph/0205069v5 10 Feb 2003 httesaei uepsto fdffrn ltrde- Slater different of superposition a situation is the but state nothing the is particles that of number entanglement fixed occupation-number the a perma- in the in or Therefore, determinants basis Slater nents. (anti)symmetrized i.e., normalized space, configuration the just state is basis number cle ∗ ageetpoet fasse fietclparticles identical of the en- system the on in a Thus, depends particles of of property system. set tanglement different many-particle parti- a the identical chooses on representing the made and is of particle transformation one each local basis single-particle on no The only is cles. There acts that transformations. invariant operation unitary is distin- entanglement local of which under that for from particles, identical different elaborate guishable of shall fundamentally system We a is in space. entanglement particles presump- Fock of unphysical the concept the the os- to that access harmonic under full or was of qubits identical- it tion of but of space the [2], study state mapping cillators the previous formally to a space on use Fock in based The entanglement, made [1]. particle was computing quantum modes in of used been already en- served identical-particle quantifying in tanglement dif- freedom (distinguishab of of the numbers as degrees occupation states is of basis This use single-particle which ferent the representation. to basis, number be leads particle (anti)symmetrized naturally can the the it to that using equivalent to clarify by due we done nonfactorization Here, the (anti)symmetrization. char- exclude correct must a Obviously, acterization particles? identical of number mi address:[email protected] Email o osoecaatrz nageeti fixed a in entanglement characterize one does How h cuainnmeso ieetmdshave modes different of occupation-numbers The . vnwe h ubro atce scon- is particles of number the when even itnusal pn ssont easeilcs fteocc 73.21.-b the 03.65.-w, of 03.67.-a, case numbers: special PACS a be state to basis shown particle is single spins entangle distinguishable different identical-particle of the numbers quantifying occupation nu in particle freedom the entanglemen of equivalently, (anti)symmetriz of or, to issue due the basis in nonfactorization (anti)symmetrized one-parti role The the special chosen. a which play basis in not basis identical-par does single-particle it The But the be particles. to distinguishable identical-particle shown of of t that meaning and the from particles overlap, identical the functions all wave over symmetrized be should ecnie nageeti ytmo xdnme fidenti of number fixed of system a in entanglement consider We single-particle eateto ple ahmtc n hoeia Physics Theoretical and Mathematics Applied of Department o xdnme fparticles of number fixed a for nvriyo abig,CmrdeC30E ntdKingdom United 0HE, CB3 Cambridge Cambridge, of University unu nageeto dnia particles identical of entanglement Quantum ibroc od abig B W,Uie igo and Kingdom United 0WA, CB3 Cambridge Road, Wilberforce ai sd h parti- The used. basis hoyo odne atr aeds Laboratory, Cavendish Matter, Condensed of Theory le) uShi Yu etwt osrito h cesbesbpc fthe of subspace entangle- accessible in occupation-number the space. on is the Fock constraint it of a that with case ment show special the We in a freedom, particles. fact of distinguishable degree of another dis- way of effectively are terms they between in when entanglement tinguished It particles, the identical treat which of diagonal. to spins in wisdom is common basis ba- matrix a single-particle Schmidt density is the the reduced like is one-particle that basis the not show entanglement. Yang does we the the hand, [3], characterizing sis, other ago in the long role On Yang similar by a obtained play ma- first antisymmetric was an trix of the transformation since decomposition corresponding Yang call we de- which Schmidt composition, the that of is counterpart consequence two-identical-particle Another the permanents. or terminants | + sfrbsn hl - sfrfrin.Spoethat Suppose fermions. for is ‘-’ while in bosons for is ‘+’ hr h umtosaemd over made are summations the where h umto sol vraldffrn permutations. different all over only The is summation the | r only are P zd(nismerzdbasis, (anti)symmetrized ized ety h coefficients the dently, hr ( where k k ∗ N 1 ntrso h rdc basis product the of terms In ti fe ovnett s h unnormal- the use to convenient often is It P N k , i · · · 1 ! the , brrpeetto.Tentrldegrees natural The representation. mber ( N eti hsnsnl-atcebssare basis single-particle chosen a in ment , il onepr fteShitbssis basis Schmidt the of counterpart ticle − · · · .Teetnlmn ewe effectively between entanglement The s. | nageeti udmnal different fundamentally is entanglement to sntrlyecue yuigthe using by excluded naturally is ation pril tt sthen is state -particle ψ k , eei h rcniinta h spatial the that precondition the is here 1) k l eue est arxi diagonal. is matrix density reduced cle pto-ubrentanglement. upation-number ,wihdpnso h single-particle the on depends which t, i | 1 k , ψ N P N , N = i · · · i | N k ! ( pril tt is state -particle = / ( ± 1 a atce.Sneayoperation any Since particles. cal hr are there , k k , , Q nvriyo Cambridge, of University , ) 1 k · · · , X ··· 1 α ∞ N = , X ··· ,k =0 ,dseadn h re of order the disregarding ), k , N ,k P n N ) N g α i q P ′ q ( ieetpruain.Hence, permutations. different ! where , ( k ( ( k k − n 1 1 , 1 α 1) , · · · , · · · · · · k P i k , swihare which ’s Q k , k , | P N k α N N 1 ) eoe permutations, denotes n , ) | r (anti)symmetric. are ) k · · · | α k | 1 | k 1 k , k 1 , k , 1 · · · 1 , · · · , , · · · · · · N · · · k , k , | ≡ i α k , k , N k , N hnthere then , N i N k N i ( k 1 , ± i i , indepen- 1 ( ) where , ± · · · ⊗ ·⊗ · i⊗· , ) k , (1) (2) N = , 2 is a single index. Up to the sign depending on the or- tropy of any density matrix characterizes its decomposi- der of k1, , kN in q(k1, , kN ), q is equal to g, i.e., tion in its eigenbasis, which is the Yang basis in the case each set of· · · (anti)symmetrized· · · terms in Eq. (1) corre- of one-particle reduced density matrix for a system of sponds to one term in Eq. (2). Equation (2) can be two identical particles, as explicitly shown below. The n- rewritten in terms of the normalized (anti)symmetrized particle reduced density matrix for a N-particle system is (s) ( ) (n) basis k1, , kN = 1/N! nα! k1, , kN ± , as k′ , , k′ ρ k , , kn = T r(ak′ ak′ ρa† a† ), p Qα 1 n 1 1 n kn k1 | · · · i | ·( ·s ·) i h · · · (n|) | · · · i · · · · · · ψ = h(k1, , kN ) k1, , kN . with Trρ = N(N 1) (N n + 1). One can find | i P(k1, ,kN ) · · · | · · · i For a fixed··· number of particles, the normalized − · · · − (n) 1 (anti)symmetrized basis can be rewritten in terms of k1′ kn′ ρ k1 kn = (N n)! the occupation numbers of different single-particle ba- h · · · | ( )| · · · i − × ( ) ± k′ k′ kn kN ρ k knkn kN ± . Pkn+1 kN 1 n +1 1 +1 sis states. This is the particle number representation, in ··· h · · · · · · | | · · · · · · i (4) which † † k For a two-boson product state ak1 ak2 0 with 1 = k , the one-particle reduced density matrix| i is given6 ψ = X f(n1, ,n ) n1, ,n , (3) 2 | i · · · ∞ | · · · ∞i by k ρ(1) k = k ρ(1) k = 1 and k ρ(1) k = n1, ,n∞ 1 1 2 2 1 2 ··· k hρ(1)| k | =i 0, henceh | the| one-particlei partialh | entropy| i h 2| | 1i where nj is the occupation number of mode j, is log 2, contradicting the previous claim. n1 n∞ The dependence of entanglement on the single-particle n1, ,n (a1†) (a† ) 0 , the summations are | · · · ∞i≡ · · · ∞ | i basis is consistent with the point of view that individ- subject to the constraint Pα nα = N, hence in the com- plete summation, of course most of the f’s are zero. ual particles are excitation of quantum fields, and that In Refs. [4, 5, 6, 7, 8], an arbitrary N-particle state, each different single-particle basis, in fact, defines a dif- in an arbitrary single-particle basis, is inappropriately ferent set of particles representing the many-body state. In fact, in many-body physics, it is a routine to make var- written as i iN wi1 iN ai† ai†N 0 , where wi1 iN is P 1 ··· 1 · · · | i ··· (anti)symmetric,··· and each subscript of the creation op- ious transformations, which usually changes the nature erators runs over all the modes. One should note that of entanglement [11]. the creation or annihilation operators are associated With (anti)symmetrization already made on the ba- sis, the correlation embedded in the coefficients natu- with (anti)symmetrized basis. For example, ai†aj† 0 = 1 | i rally gives the information on entanglement. A Slater a†a† 0 = 1i 1j = ( i j i j ), where i = j. ± j i | i | i| i √2 | i| i ± | i| i 6 determinant or permanent is just a (anti)symmetrized Therefore a† a† 0 in these papers may be corrected basis state, hence is nonentangled with respect to the i1 · · · iN | i to i1 iN . On the other hand, if one uses the particle given single-particle basis. One can regard a superpo- number| · · · basisi states, no (anti)symmetrization needs to sition of Slater determinant or permanent as entangled made [9]. in the given single-particle basis. Any operation, even a Single-particle basis transformation for identical parti- one-body one, of which the single-particle basis transfor- cles is not the counterpart of the local unitary transfor- mation is an example, acts on all the particles. A trans- mation in a system of distinguishable particles. It acts formation from a superposition of Slater determinant or on each identical particle in the same way. For distin- permanent to a single Slater determinant or permanent, guishable particles, local unitary transformations do not in another single-particle basis, must involve operations change the entanglement. In contrast, for identical par- on all particles and actually chooses a different set of ticles, the entanglement depends on which single-particle particles in representing the state. In a sense, there is a basis is chosen. Consequently, unlike the Schmidt decom- builtin nonseparability, based on both the symmetriza- position of distinguishable particles, the Yang decompo- tion of any operation and the spatial wave function over- sition does not play a special role in identical-particle lap. Consistently, without spatial wave function overlap entanglement [10]. or under the condition of the so-called remoteness [12], As a simple example, consider a two-particle state the symmetrization does not have any physical effect. 1 ak† ak† 0 ( k1 k2 k2 k1 ), assuming k1 = k2. Hence, the entanglement is between different single- 1 2 | i ≡ √2 | i| i ± | i| i 6 In terms of momentum basis, this is only a basis state particle basis states. Whether a certain single particle in particle number representation. Written in terms of basis state is entangled with other single particle basis the product basis, the non-factorization is only due to states can be decided by whether the former is mixed (anti)symmetrization. Therefore, there is no entangle- with the latter in the single-particle basis transformation ment. However, in terms of the position basis, it becomes which transforms the superposition into a single Slater i(k1 r1+k2 r2) determinant or permanent. This can be seen most clearly r r e · · a†r a†r 0 , which is entangled. P 1, 2 1 2 Since a single-particle basis| i transformation is made on by using the second quantization. For example, in a two- particle state 1/√mak† (ak† + + ak† ) 0 , where ki’s every particle, the entanglement property depends on the 1 2 · · · m+1 | i single particle basis chosen. This invalidates the use of are different from each other, m > 1, k1 state is ob- | i the von Neumann entropy of the one-particle reduced viously separated from the others. One can obtain the density matrix as a measure of entanglement for two one-particle partial entropy as log 2 + 1/2log m> log 2. identical particles [7]. Of course, the von Neumann en- Since, the distinguishable label is the set of oc- 3 cupation numbers of different single-particle basis pied by only one particle, i.e. Ps no,s = 1 for each rele- states, clearly they can be used to quantify entan- vant value of o. Then with the orbit modes as the labels glement, in the way of entanglement between dis- with which the particles are effectively distinguished, the tinguishable objects. From Eq. (3), one obtains entanglement can be viewed as the spin entanglement the density matrix as n1′ , ,n′ ρ n1, ,n = among the particles in different orbit modes. Under the h · · · ∞| | · · · ∞i f ∗(n1′ , ,n′ )f(n1, ,n ), from which one can ob- constraint of half filling, the many-particle state must · · · ∞ · · · ∞ tain the reduced density matrices of occupation be a sum of products of no,s , under the constraint Qs | i numbers. For example, the reduced density ma- Ps no,s = 1, for relevant orbits. In the many-particle trix of mode 1 is defined as n′ ρ (1) n = state, one simply rewrites no,s as So , where So is h 1| 1 | 1i Qs | i | i n′ ,n , ,n ρ n ,n ,n . Similarly, unambiguously the s corresponding to no,s = 1. This Pn2, ,n∞ 1 2 1 2 the reduced··· h density· · · matrix∞| | of the· · set · ∞ ofi modes 1, ,l rigorously justifies the common wisdom that although it is · · · is meaningless to identify which particle is in which or- bit, it is meaningful to say that the particle in a certain n′ , ,n′ ρl(1 l) n , ,nl = h 1 · · · l| · · · | 1 · · · i orbit is spin entangled with the particle in another or- n , ,n ,nl ,n ρ n , ,nl,nl ,n , nl+1, ,n∞ 1′ l′ +1 1 +1 bit. Hence, the entanglement between Heisenberg spins, P ··· h · · · ∞| | · · · ∞i (5) which appears as entanglement between distinguishable l the nonvanishing elements of which satisfy Pi=1 ni′ = objects, is in fact a special case of occupation-number l entanglement. Pi=1 ni as constrained by the particle number conserva- tion. From these Fock-space reduced density matrices, Entanglement between Heisenberg spins is the basis one can, for example, calculate bipartite entanglement of the quantum computing scheme based on electrons between the occupation numbers of l modes and the oc- in double quantum dots [14]. When the electrons are cupation numbers of the other modes. separated in the two dots, because there are only one- It is important to note that the use of occupation num- dot potentials, while the Coulomb interaction is negli- bers as the degrees of freedom in characterizing entangle- gible, the condition of remoteness [12] is satisfied. One ment is valid even when the particle number is conserved. can verify that an antisymmetrization between electrons This physical constraint, as well as the constraints that in different dots has no physical effects. On the other for fermions nj is either 0 or 1 and that the number of hand, when they are close, and the interaction is appre- the relevant modes [13] may be finite are all automati- ciable, the antisymmetrization has physical effects, and cally satisfied by the set of nonzero f ′s. Hence, this ap- the entanglement can be characterized by using the full proach is a natural one within the standard second quan- formalism of occupation-number entanglement. During tization formalism, compatible with the representations the interaction period, they access the full Hilbert space, of the observables in terms of creation or annihilation which includes the state in which the two electrons, with operators, which can be viewed as coordinated transfor- opposite spins, locate in a same dot, i.e. 1 i, 1i, , mations of occupation numbers of a set of modes. The where i =1, 2 represents the dots. There are| 4!i/2!2!↑i| =↓i 6 second-quantized representation of an n-body operator two-particle antisymmetrized basis states, or occupation-

O is ai†′ ai†′ i1′ in′ O i1 in ain ai1 . One can number basis states. Nevertheless, as far as the ini- P 1 · · · n h · · · | | · · · i · · · observe that, for example, there is no operation which tial and final states are in single occupancy, and the only changes the occupation number of one mode. One Heisenberg model is a valid description, the interaction may consider “second-quantized computation”. period can be viewed as an intermediate process deter- In principle, one can define entanglement with respect mining the effective spin coupling, while the leakage into to any reference state of the system. In this case, the the full Hilbert space of two identical particles during occupation number of each mode in defining the relative a two-particle gate operation does not cause any prob- entanglement is the difference with that in the reference lem. In terms of the occupation-number states, the spin state of each electron in each dot is i = 1 i, 0 i, , state, as conveniently seen by considering the action of | ↑i | i ↑| i ↓ i = 0 i, 1 i, . Because a spin qubit is in fact an creation operators. There are two reference states that | ↓i | i ↑| i ↓ are of particular interest. One is the empty state, as we occupation-number state, the loss of identification after have implicitly considered up to now. Another one is separating from the double occupation, as concerned in the ground state of the system, which is suitable when Ref. [15], does not matter. Note that the intermediate all physical processes are in a same bulk of material. In state with double occupancy is necessary for the electrons discussing the entanglement in a ground state, it is with to interact in order to undergo a two-qubit operation. respect to the empty state. The considerations can even Finally, we come to the question that what is special be extended to relativistic quantum field theory, where about the Yang basis. For two distinguishable parti- the ground state is the vacuum. cles, the Schmidt basis is clearly the one in which the An important situation is that the single-particle basis reduced density matrix of each particle is diagonal: For includes both spin and orbit (momentum or position). Pi ci i a i b of distinguishable particles a and b, the ele- One can denote the total index as (o,s), where o sub- ments| ofi | thei reduced density matrix of either a or b are 2 stitutes for momentum k or position r. A special case given by i ρa(b) j = ci δij . In the following, we show is half-filling, i.e., each orbit is constrained to be occu- that the Yangh | basis| i is| the| basis in which the one-particle 4 reduced density matrix is diagonal. even when particle number is conserved. Entanglement In their Yang basis, a two-fermion state is like ψf = of identical particles is a property dependent on which c ( 1 2 2 1 )+c ( 3 4 3 4 )+ where we| usei i single-particle basis is chosen, as any operation should 1 | i| i−| i| i 2 | i| i−| i| i · · · | i to denote different single-particle basis states. If k2′ = k2, act on each identical particle in the same way. Indeed, then k′ = k is necessary for any of k′ k′ ρ k k , individual particles are excitations of a quantum field, 1 1 h 1 2| | 1 2i k1′ k2′ ρ k2k1 , k2′ k1 ρ k1k2 and k2′ k1 ρ k2k1 to be and the single-particle basis defines which set of particles nonvanishing.h | | i h Therefore| | i usingh Eq.| (4),| onei finds are used in representing the many-particle state. The (1) ( ) ( ) (1) k′ ρ k1 = δk′ k − k1k2 ρ k1k2 − . Hence, ρ many-particle state is entangled in the corresponding sin- 1 1 1 Pk2 his diagonal.| | i h | | i gle particle basis when it is not a single Slater determi- In their Yang basis, a two-boson state is like ψb = nant or permanent. The entanglement is between dif- | i d 1 1 + d 2 2 + . Then one finds k′ k′ ρ k k = ferent single-particle basis states in the given basis. We 1| i| i 2| i| i · · · h 1 2| | 1 2i k′ k′ ρ k′ k = k′ k′ ρ k k = k′ k′ ρ k k = also show that the entanglement between effectively dis- h 1 2| | 2 1i h 2 1| | 1 2i h 2 1| | 2 1i δk′ k′ δk k k1k1 ρ k2k2 . Consequently, using Eq. (4), one tinguishable spins of identical particles is a special case 1 2 1 2 h | | i finds k ρ(1) k = δ ′ (+) k k ρ k k (+). Hence, ρ(1) of the occupation-number entanglement. We have dis- 1′ 1 k1k1 1 1 1 1 is diagonal.h | | i h | | i cussed its use in quantum computing. The (necessary) Let us summarize. If one uses the prod- leakage into the larger Hilbert space during the inter- uct basis, the coefficients mix the information on mediate two-particle process is harmless. Finally it is (anti)symmetrization and that on entanglement. If, in- shown that the two-identical-particle counterpart of the stead, the (anti)symmetrization is made on the basis, Schmidt basis is the basis in which the one-particle re- then the coefficients unambiguously give the informa- duced density matrix is diagonal. In addition to quantum tion on entanglement, with respect to the given single- computing implementations involving identical particles, particle basis. (Anti)symmetrized basis is equivalent to the result here is also useful for many-body physics [16]. particle number representation, and the occupation num- bers of different modes are distinguishable degrees of free- This publication is an output from project activity dom which can be used in quantifying the entanglement funded by The Cambridge-MIT Institute Limited.

[1] For example, E. Knill, R. Laflamme and G. J. Milburn, terminant is zero, and if one transforms to the Yang basis, Nature (London) 409, 46 (2001). then the state is a single Slater determinant in the Yang [2] P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A. 65, 042101 (2002). basis. It does not tell whether it is a single Slater de- [3] C. N. Yang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 34, 694 (1962), see Ap- terminant in the given basis. It is easy to find examples pendix A. of a state which is a superposition of different Slater de- [4] J. Schliemann, D. Loss and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. terminants while the determinant of the coefficients van- (−) (−) B 63, 085311 (2002); ishes, e.g., cα|1, 2i + cβ |1, 3i , where the numbers [5] J. Schliemann et al., Phys. Rev. A 64, 022303 (2001). denote single-particle states, cα and cβ are nonzero coeffi- [6] K. Eckert, J. Schliemann, D. Bruss, and M. Lewenstein, cients. For two bosons in four-dimensional single-particle e-print quant-ph/0203060. Hilbert space, the vanishing of the coefficient determi- [7] R. Paskauskas and L. You, Phys. Rev. A 64, 042310 nant does not mean single Slater permanent even in the (2001). Yang basis, as claimed in Ref. [6]. A counterexample is [8] Y. S. Li, B. Zeng, X. S. Liu, and G. L. Long, Phys. Rev. c1|1i|1i + c2|2i|2i + c3|3i|3i, where at least two of the A 64, 054302 (2001). coefficients are nonzero. Similar problems exist in those [9] If the creation operators are used, then each coefficient discussions on more general cases. is defined only up to a set of modes. Nevertheless, one [11] Some transformations, e.g., the one appearing in the has the freedom to split each term. Thus, in the case exact solution of independent boson model, are global of two particles, the state may be written in terms of canonical transformation leading to a diagonalized a coefficient matrix and creation operators. The coef- Hamiltonian. Some transformations, e.g. that between ficient matrix may be made to be (anti)symmetric in Bloch basis and Wannier basis, are single-particle ba- consideration of the (anti)commutation relations of the sis transformations. Some transformations, e.g., Jordan- creation operators. But this is artificial. In fact, there Wigner transformation, are based on representing the are infinite number of ways of splitting. For instance, original operators in terms of new operators, which makes † † † † † † a1a2|0i≡ (xa1a2 ± ya2a1)|0i, where x + y = 1. the Hamiltonian diagonal and the eigenstates nonentan- [10] The definition of “quantum correlation” and “Slater gled. In some cases, the combination of the original parti- rank” in Ref. [4, 5, 6] is meaningful only when the given cles gives quasiparticles, for example, polaron, polariton, single-particle basis is just the Yang basis. In general, the exciton, etc. Some transformations even split the original proposed “concurrence” or the determinant of the co- operators, e.g., the slave boson approach. efficient matrix does not characterize the entanglement [12] A. Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods property in the given single-particle basis. For exam- (Kluwer Academic, Boston, 1995). ple, the result on the two fermions with four-dimensional [13] Relevant mode means that in at least one of those basis single-particle Hilbert space only implies that iff the de- states corresponding to nonzero f, the occupation num- 5

ber of this mode is nonzero. The occupation-number state [15] X. Hu and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. A. 61, 062301 of an irrelevant mode is simply a factor |0i and can be (2000). neglected. [16] Y. Shi, e-print quant-ph/0204058; e-print [14] D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A 57, 120 cond-mat/0205272. (1998).