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 Poincar´egroups, which are both noncom- pact. 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 be- comes an average over the entire noncompact group, the [ρS] := e e ρS composition of the recovery operation with this G-twirl E ZG j ih j ⊗ results in properly normalized states. We then apply = dg R(g)[ e e ] S(g)[ρS] ; (2) U j ih j ⊗ U this construction in Sec. IV to the case when Alice and G Bob do not share a reference frame associated with the y 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 . 2 ence frame. In this case, we identify the inverse of the i 2Bob's S H task is now2 f to bestg 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 2 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 jh j j ij of g G on2 U H. We will unitaryH representation of the group G when changing the R explicitly construct a similar recovery2 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 transformation2 from Alice's to Bob's reference frame. If Alice prepares the system in the state ρS ( S) with 2 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 2 | ⟩⟨ | Z y [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 jeihej as a token of her reference frame. As Bob does and US(g) ( S) is the unitary representation of 2 U H not know the relation between his reference frame and Alice's, the group element g G on S, with ( S) denot- ing the space of unitary2 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 jeihej ⊗ ρ .