ENTANGLEMENT DYNAMICS OF

SUPERPOSED COHERENT STATES

Deepika Raj.C
July 21, 2014

Chapter 1
Introduction
In this project we are analysing the properties of entanglement of superposed
coherent states by computing the degrees of entanglement of different states.
Now a days entanglement is at the heart of the current development of quantum information processing. Entanglement may play a key role in secure
communication[1]. The entangled states are interesting because they exhibit
correlations that have no classical analog [2]. The deep ways that quantum
information differs from classical information involve the properties, implications, and uses of quantum entanglement [3]. Moving on to this paper we can
easily find out the contradiction between classical and quantum treatment of
beam splitters.

1.1

Coherent state

Coherent state play an important role in representing quantum dynamics[4].

The coherent state was firstly derived by Erwin Schrodinger as a minimum
uncertainty wave packet in 1926 while searching for solutions of Schrodinger
equation that satisfy the correspondence principle[5]. The coherent state
became significant as the tool for connecting quantum and classical optics.
It is emerged as an an important advent of the laser. Coherent state in
quantum optics embodies the quantum to classical transition[6]. A coherent
state distributes its quantum mechanical uncertainty equally between the
canonically conjugate co-ordinates position and momentum , and the relative
uncertainty in phase and amplitude are roughly equal and small at high
amplitude[2]. It is a pure Gaussian state[7]. Mathematically a coherent
1

state |i is defined to be the right eigenstate of the annihilation operator a

labeled by the eigenvalue . That is

a
|i = |i .
since a
is not hermitian is in general a complex number[5]. It can be
represented as
= || ei ,
where || and are real numbers called the amplitude and phase of the state
respectively. The state |i is called canonical coherent state in literature.
The Fock state representation of |i is
!
||2 X n
|ni ,
(1.1)
|i = exp
2
n!
n=0
where |ni is called Fock States.
A more mathematical definition of Fock state is Fock states are those elements of a Fock space which are eigenstates of the particle number operator.
Elements of a Fock space which are superpositions of states of differing particle number (and thus not eigenstates of the number operator) are, therefore,
not Fock states. Thus, not all elements of a Fock space are referred to as
Fock states. Fock states form the most convenient basis of the Fock space.
They are defined to obey the following relations,

a |ni = n + 1 |n + 1i .

a |ni = n |n 1i .
1
|ni = a |0i .
n!
Fock states are eigenstates of the Hamiltonian of the field:
H |ni = En |ni ,
where En is the energy eigenvalue corresponding to |ni .
The coherent states |i are quantum states very close to classical states
because (i) the expectation value of the electric field has the form of the
classical expression, (ii) the fluctuations in the electric field variables are the
same as for a vacuum, (iii) the fluctuations in the fractional uncertainty for
2

the photon number decrease with the increasing average photon number, and
(iv) the states become well localised in phase with increasing average photon
number. However, in spite of their near-classical properties, they are still
quantum states[8].

1.2

Superposition of Coherent States

One of the most outstanding features of quantum systems is the property

of nonlocal superposition which was elucidated by Einstein, Podolsky, and
Rosen[5]. Essentially such a system involves correlated spatially- separated
states and such systems have been used as tests of quantum mechanics via the
class of theories known as local realism. In the study of certain type of nonlinear hamiltonian evolution by Milburn, the evidence of superposition of coherent states was first appeared[2]. The manifestations of superposition of coherent states was analysed in detail by Yurke and stoler [9]. The crucial feature
of quantum information is the presence of coherent superpositions[10]. The
superposition of coherent states often called Schrodinger cat states. These
cat states have been produced experimentally but only for coherent states
that are not far apart , and such states are often called Schodinger kittens
[2].
Extending the cat state to a superposition of coherent states with more
than one degree of freedom is straightforward, but the properties are much
richer than for one degree of freedom due to the presence of entanglement
superpositions of coherent states are difficult to produce, and fundamentally
this could be due to extreme sensitivity to environmental decoherence. Soon
after the introduction of these single-mode superpositions of coherent states,
entangled coherent states (or superpositions of multimode coherent states)
became of widespread interest[11]. The term entangled coherent state was
introduced by Sanders in a study concerning production of entangled coherent states by using a nonlinear Mach-Zehnder interferometer[2].

1.3

Quantum Entanglement

Quantum entanglement is quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the

quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with refer-

ence to each other , even though the individual objects may be spatially
separated[12]. This leads to correlation between observable physical properties of the systems. For example consider a pair particles with total spin to
be zero, that is one is observed to be spin up and the other one will always
spin down and vice versa. According to quantum mechanics it is impossible
to predict which set of measurements will be observed. As a result measurements performed in one system seem to be instantaneously influencing other
systems entangled with it. An entangled system has a quantum state which
cannot be factored out in to product of states of its local constituents. If
entangled one constituent cannot be fully described without considering the
other. Like quantum states of individual particles the states of an entangled
system is expressible as a superposition of basis states which are eigen states
of some observable.
For example let { |0iA ,|1iA } be the two basis vectors of HA and {|0iB ,|1iB }
be that of HB , then the following is the entangled state,
1 (|0i |1i |1i |0i ).
A
B
A
B
2
Entanglement has many applications in quantum information theory. The
best known applications of entanglement are superdense coding and quantum
teleportation. It is also used in some protocols of quantum cryptography[13].
In interferometry, entanglement is necessary for surpassing the standard
quantum limit and achieving the Heisenberg limit.

1.4
1.4.1

Quantum Mechanics of Beam Splitters

Beam Splitters

The beam splitter is also one of the few experimentally accessible devices that
may act as an entangler. A beam splitter is an optical device that splits light
waves in to two parts, that is it reflects some amount of light and transmit the
rest. It is crucial part of most of the interferometers. In quantum information
the beam splitter plays essential roles in teleportation, bell measurements,
entanglement and in fundamental studies of the photon. For a 50:50 beam
splitter (meaning 50 reflection and transmission) the complex amplitude is

then

1 .
2

The 50:50 beam splitter matrix is then given by

1
B=
2

1 i
i 1


.

(1.2)

Here we are considering the beam splitters in a fully quantum mechanical

manner because the classical treatment in the case of single or few photons is
erroneous. To treat the beam splitter in quantum mechanically we replace the
complex field amplitudes by a set of annihilation operators a
i (i = 1, 2, 3, ......).
Thus the beam splitter transformations for the field operators are
a
2 = r
a1 + t0 a
0
a
3 = t
a1 + r 0 a
0 .
or

a
2
a
1


=

t0 r
r0 t



(1.3)
a
0
a
1


,

(1.4)

which sattisfy the commutation relations

[
ai , a
j ] = ij ,

[
ai , a
j ] = 0 = [
ai , a
j ],

(i, j = 1, 2, 3, .....).

(1.5)

We are considering a 50:50 beam splitter which is constructed as a single

dielectric layer and can provide a phase shift of 2 between transmitted and
reflected beams. The input and output modes are related according to
1
a
2 = (
a0 + i
a1 ) ,
2

1
a
3 = (i
a0 + a
1 ) .
2

(1.6)

Since the transformations between input and output modes are unitary




a
2
a
0

=U
U ,
(1.7)
a
3
a
1
where U is a unitary operator given by

U = exp [i (
aa
1 + a
0 a
1 )].
4 0

(1.8)

This transformation constitute the Schrodinger picture formulation of a beam

splitter[8].
5

1.4.2

Generation of Entangled States

To generate an entangled state we inject a single photon input state |0i0 |1i1
( which may be written as a
1 |0i0 |0i1 ) to a 50:50 beam splitter. From eq.

BS
(1.5) we have a
1 = (i
a2 + a
3 )/ 2. Thus |0i0 |0i1 |0i2 |0i3 ,
1
BS
|0i0 |1i1 (i
a2 + a
3 ) |0i2 |0i3
2
1
= (i |1i2 |0i3 + |0i2 |1i3 ).
2

(1.9)

From this it is evident that a single photon incident at one of the input ports
of the beam splitter, the other port containing only the vaccum, will either
transmitted or reflected with equal probability. The state of eq. (1.8) is an
entangled state. Then the density operator for this state can be written as
23 = |i h|
1
1
= (i |1i2 |0i3 + |0i2 |1i3 ) (i 2 h1| 3 h0| + 2 h0| 3 h1|)
2
2
1
= {|1i2 |0i3 2 h1| h0| + |0i2 |1i3 2 h0| 3 h1|
2
+ i |1i2 |0i3 2 h0| 3 h1| i |0i2 |1i3 2 h1| 3 h0|}.
(1.10)
This state is entangled, although one cannot measure the entanglement since
the single photon is entangled along with the vacuum. The full coherence
as described by the eq. (1.10) or the density operator can be measured by
putting detectors in the two output beams. If we measures either mode 2
or mode 3, then measured mode can be described by the reduced density
operator obtained by tracing over the states of unmeasured mode. That is
2 = T r3 23

X
=
23 |ni3
3 hn|
n=0

X
3
n=0

1
hn| ( |1i2 |0i3
2

h1| 3 h0| + |0i2 |1i3 2 h0| 3 h1|

+ i |1i2 |0i3 2 h0| 3 h1| i |0i2 |1i3

1
= (|0i2 2 h0| + |1i2 2 h1|).
2
6

h1| 3 h0|) |ni3

(1.11)

Now let us consider a coherent state with vaccum in the other port, then the
initial state is
1 () |0i |0i ,
|0i0 |i1 = D
0
0
1 () = exp (
where D
a1 a
1 ) is the displacement operator for mode 1.
Then



BS

|0i0 |i1 exp (i

a2 + a
3 ) (i
a2 + a
3 ) |0i2 |0i3
2
2
h 
 
 
  i

i
i

since
a
2
a
2 , 2 a
3
a
3 = 0
2
2
2


 

  

i
i

a
a
= exp
2 a
2 exp
3 a
3 |0i2 |0i3
2
2
2
2
!

 

i
||2
i
2 exp a
2 exp
I2
= exp a
4
2
2
!




i
i
||2
I3 |0i2 |0i3
exp a
3 exp a
3 exp
4
2
2
!  i n
!  m

2
2
|| X
|| X 2
2

= exp
|ni2 exp
|mi3
4
4
n!
m!
m=0

 n=0


 i

= 

.
(1.12)
2
2


Chapter 2
Entanglement Dynamics of
Superposed Coherent State
2.1

Degree of Entanglement of Even Coherent State

Here we are going to inject a superposition of two coherent states, a superposition of |i and |i in to a 50:50 beam splitter . That is the superposed
state incident at one of the input port of the beam splitter with vaccum at
the other port. Then the superposed state is
|, 2, 0i = N (|i + |i) .
On normalising
 1
2 2
1 
N = 1 + e2||
.
2
The fock state representation of this state can be written as
2
e|| X 2n
|, 2, 0i = N
|2ni .
2 n=0 2n!

Since this contain only the even numbered states it is known as even coherent
state. That is the initial state is


1 () + D
2 () |0i |0i ,
|0i0 |, 2, 0i1 = N D
0
1
8

where
1 () = exp (
D
a1 a
1 ).
and
2 () = exp (
1 ).
D
a1 + a
Then we get the output state according to
BS

1 )} |0i2 |0i3
1 ) + exp (
a1 + a
|0i0 |, 2, 0i1 N {exp (
a1 a





i i

= N {exp a
2 + a
2 exp a
3 a
3
2
2
2
2





i i
2 a
2 exp a
3 + a
3 } |0i2 |0i3
+ exp a
2
2
2
2
!




||2
i
i
2 exp a
2 exp
I2 }
= N {exp a
4
2
2
!




i
||2
i
{exp a
3 exp a
3 exp
I3 }
4
2
2
!


 
i
i
||2
+ {exp a
2 exp a
2 exp
I2
4
2
2
!




i
i
||2
{exp a
3 exp a
3 exp
I3 } |0i2 |0i3
4
2
2
!  i n
!  i m

2
2
X
||
|| X 2
2

= N exp
|ni2 exp
|mi2
4
4
n!
m!
n=0
m=0
 n
 m
!
!
i
i

2
2
X
X
||
||
2
2
n
m
|ni2 exp
|mi2 .
(1)
(1)
+ exp
4
4
n!
m!
n=0
m=0








1


 i

1
2
2  i



|i = 1 + exp 2 ||
.
 2  2 +  2  2
2
2
3
2
3
(2.1)
The density operator for this mode can be written as
= |i h|
9






 





i
1

2
1  i
 3 
{

= 1 + exp 2 ||
2
2
2 2
2 3
2
2





 


 i



i 

+ 

2  3
2 2
2
2
2
 3  






 i

i 



 3 

+ 
2
2 2 
2 3
2
2





 

 i

i 



+ 

}.
2  3
2
2
2
2
2

If we make no measurement of mode 2, then the mode 3 can be described by

by a reduced density matrix obtained by tracing over the states of mode 2.
Then
3 = T r2 23





 


X


 i

1

i
2
1

 3 
= 1 + exp 2 ||

2 hn| 
2
2
2 2
2 3
2
2




  n=0 

 i


i 
+ 


2  3
2 2
2
2
2



 3  


 i


i 


 3 
+ 

2
2 2 
2 3
2
2





 




 i

i


 |ni2
+ 
2  3
2 2
2 3
2
2




 
 





1


2 1 
||2 
+e
= 1 + exp 2 ||
{
3
3 
 2
2
2 3
2
2
3
 


 
 




2


 + 
(2.2)
+ e|| 
3
3 }.
2 3
2
2 3
2
similarly for mode 2 the reduced density matrix is derived as
2 = T r3 23



 



1
i 
2
1  i
||2  i
+e
{
= 1 + exp 2 ||
2
 2
2
2 2
2
2

 

 
 



2 

i
i

 + 
+ e|| 
2
2 }.
2 2
2
2 2
2
10


2


i 

2
(2.3)

Von Neumann Entropy

In quantum statistical mechanics, the von Neumann entropy, named after
John von Neumann, is the extension of classical Gibbs entropy concepts to
the field of quantum mechanics. For a quantum mechanical system described
by a density matrix , the von Neumann entropy is
S = T r( ln ),
ie,
S=

i log2 i ,

where
i s
are
eigen
values
of
the
density
matrix
For a pure state = |i h| has S() = 0.[?] For a given density matrix

1 0
0
0
0 2 0
0
.
=
0
0 3 0

Then
S = T r ln

1 ln 1
0
0
0
0

ln

0
0
2
2
=
0
0
3 ln 3 0

(2.4)

The reduced density operator in our case is a square matrix whose mnth
element is obtained as
(3 )nm =

hn| 3 |mi3
 n 

= N 2 e

||2
2

n!

m

m!

1 + (1)n+m + (1)n e|| + (1)m e||

(2.5)
Using the mnth element of the reduced density matrices a numerical programme(see Appendix A) is written to plot entropy versus ||2 . we get the
curve as follows .
11

1
n=2
0.9
0.8
0.7

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Figure 2.1: entropy versus ||2 for n=2,j=0

From the graph it is evident that the degree of entanglement increases
from 0 to 1 with increase in ||2 .

2.2

Degree of Entanglement of Odd Coherent

States

Now we are going to inject an odd coherent state in to a 50:50 beam splitter,
ie
(2)
|, 2, 1i = N,1 (|i |)i .
The fock state representation of this state can be written as
2
e|| X 2n+1
|, 2, 1i = N
|2n+!i .
2 n=0 (2n + 1)!

Since this contain only the odd numbered states it is known as odd coherent
state. On normalising,
(2)
N,1

 12
1 
2||2
.
= 1e
2

Then on injecting this superposed odd coherent state in to the beam splitter
with vaccum in the other port we get the output state as






 12  i 

 i

1 
2||2




|i = 1 + e
.
 2  2  2  2
2
2
3
2
3
(2.6)
12

Then the density operator is given by




 

1  i 

i 
1

2||2


 3 
1e

23 =
{
2
2
2 2  2 3
2
2





 


 i
i 




2  3
2 2
2
2
2

 3  




 i



i

 3 


2
2 2
2 3
2
2





 

 i


i 



+ 

}.
2  3
2 2 
2 3
2
2

(2.7)

Then the reduced density operator for mode 3 can be written as

3 = T r2 23


1    

1
2||2
||2 


e
1+e
{
=
3
 2
2
2 3
2

 
 3
 
 



2 


 + 
e|| 
3
3 }.
2
2
2
2
3




3 
2
(2.8)

Similarly for mode 2

2 = T r3 23


1  i   i 

1
2||2
||2  i


e
1+e
=
{
3
 2
2
2 3
2

 
 3
 
 



2 
i
i
i
i

 + 
e|| 
3
3 }.
2
2
2
2
3



i 
3 
2
(2.9)

The mnth element of the above matrix is given by

(3 )nm =

hn| 3 |mi3
 n 
||2
2

= N 2e

n!

m

m!

1 + (1)n+m (1)n e|| (1)m e||

(2.10)
The the entropy of this odd superposed coherent state is given by the eq.(2.4).
With the eigen values of eq.(2.8) we derive the degree of entanglement as a
function of ||2 . Using the mnth element of the reduced density matrices a
numerical programme is written to plot entropy versus ||2 . we get the curve
as
13

1.01
n=2

1.005

0.995

0.99
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Figure 2.2: entropy versus ||2 for n=2,j=1

(2)

For |, 2, 1i = N,1 (|i |)i, the maximally entangled state |i can

be written as
|i = N (|o1 i2 |e1 i3 + |e2 i2 |o2 i3 ) ,
where
|e2 i =
|e1 i =
|o2 i =
|o1 i =

 21  i   i 
1 
2||2


1+e
.
 2 +  2
2
 21    
1 
2||2

1+e
+ 
.

2
2
2
 12    
1 
2||2


1e
.
 2  2
2
 12  i   i 
1 
2||2


1e
.
 2  2
2

and


N=

2||2

 12

1 1e
.
2 1 + e2||2
12

|ei1 , |ei2 are even coherent states and |oi1 , |oi2 are odd coherent states. The
odd and even coherent states are orthonormal to each other. Here we derive
the degree of entanglement as a function of ||2 . In this case the degree of
entanglement is constantly 1 with increase in ||2 .

14

2.3

Degree of Entanglement of Generalised

Odd and Even Coherent States

The generalised expression for even and odd coherent state is

n1
(n) ||2 X

j  (n) 
N
,j
r .
(n)
|; n, ji =
e 2
r
n
r=0

(2.11)

(n)

Where r = exp i 2
r, r=0,1,2,....n-1, and
n


X
 (n) 2
b,j (h)

(n) =
N
,j

! 12

h=0

where

nh+j
(n)
b,j (h) = p
(nh + j)!

(n) and the normalisation constant is

The relation between N
,j
(n)
N,j

(n) ||2
N
,j
=
e 2
n

The fock state representation of the above state is

(n)

|; n, ji = N
,j

nh+j
p

h=0

(nh + j)!

|nh + ji

Consider that the above coherent state is incident on the beam splitter with
vaccum in the other port.That is the initial state is
n1
(n) ||2 X

j
N
,j
2
|0i0 |; n, ji1 =
e
(n)
D(r(n) ) |0i0 |0i1
r
n
r=0

Then on following the procedures in the case of odd and even coherent states
we get the output state as
n1
(n) ||2 X

j
N
,j
D(r(n) ) |0i2 |0i3
|0i0 |; n, ji1
e 2
(n)
r
n
r=0
BS

15



+
+
n1
 i(n)
 (n)
(n) ||2 X


N
j
r

 r
,j
(n)
|i =
e 2


r
 2
 2
n
r=0
2

(2.12)

Then the density operator is given by

23 = |i h|
(n) ||2
N
,j
e 2
n

!2 n1 n1
XX
r=0





+
+ *
*
(n)
(n) 
(n)
(n) 


2
ip 
p 
 r
 ir
 3

ei n (pr)j 

2
 2
 2

2
2 
p=0
2
3
(2.13)

The reduced density matrix for mode 3 is as follows

3 =

hl| 23 |li2

l=0

l 

+ *
(n)
(n) 

2
||
2
p 
 r

= N2
ei n (pr)j e 2

3
 2
l!
2 
p=0 r=0
l=0
3


+
*
n1 n1
(n)
(n)
(n) (n) 
||2 p
r
||2 X X
p 
 r
2 2
(pr)j
i 2
2

=N e
(2.14)
e
e n


3


2
2
p=0 r=0
3

n1 X
n1
X

(n)

i
r
2

l 

(n)

i p

and for mode 2

2 =

X
3

hl| 23 |li3

l=0

l 

+ *
(n)
(n) 

2
||
2
ip 
 ir

= N2
ei n (pr)j e 2

3
 2
l!
2 
p=0 r=0
l=0
3


+
*
n1 n1
(n)
(n)
(n) (n) 
||2 p
r
||2 X X
ip 
 ir
2 2
i 2
(pr)j
2

e n
=N e
e
(2.15)


2
 2

2
p=0 r=0
2

n1 X
n1
X

(n)

r
2

l 

Where
N2 =

(n) ||2
N
,j
e 2
n
16

!2

(n)

X
||2(nh+j)
h=0

! 12
(2.16)

(nh + j)!

The eigen values of Eq. (2.14) and (2.15) we can derive the degree of entanglement as a function of ||2 . The mnth element of the reduced density
matrix 3 is given by
(3 )lm = hk| 3 |ki
2 ||

=N e

n1 n1
2 XX


e

(pr)j
i 2
n

(pr)j
i 2
n

(n)

r
2

p=0 r=0
2 ||2

=N e

n1 X
n1
X
p=0 r=0

l 

(n)

m

l! m!

(n) (n)
||2 p
r
2

||2
2
2
2
l m
ei n (rlpm) e 2 (cos n (rp)+i sin n (rp))
l+m
2
l! m!
(2.17)

and for 2
(2 )lm = hk| 3 |ki
2 ||2

=N e

n1 X
n1
X


e

i 2
(pr)j
n

(n)

i
r
2

p=0 r=0
2 ||2

=N e

n1 X
n1
X
p=0 r=0

ei n (pr)j

l 

(n)

i p

l! m!

m
e

(n) (n)
||2 p
r
2

(i)l (i )m i 2 (rlpm) ||2 (cos 2 (rp)+i sin 2 (rp))

n
n
e n
e 2
.
2l+m l! m!
(2.18)

Using the lmth element of the reduced density matrices a numerical programme is written to plot entropy versus ||2 . For different n values and a
particular j value we get the graph as

17

For n=2, 3, 4, 5 with j=0

2.5
n=2
n=3
n=4
n=5

1.5

0.5

0
0

10

12

14

16

Figure 2.3: entropy versus ||2 for j=0

For n=2, 3, 4, 5 with j=1
2.4
n=2
n=3
n=4
n=5

2.2
2

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0

10

12

14

16

Figure 2.4: entropy versus ||2 for j=1

For n=3, 4, 5 with j=2
2.4
n=3
n=4
n=5

2.3
2.2
2.1

2
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
0

10

12

14

16

Figure 2.5: entropy versus ||2 for j=2

18

For n=4, 5, 6 with j=3

2.6
n=4
n=5
n=6

2.5
2.4

2.3
2.2
2.1
2
1.9
1.8
0

10

12

14

16

Figure 2.6: entropy versus ||2 for j=0

19

Conclusion
We have generated entangled states using superposed coherent states in the
one of the input modes of beam splitter and and an vacuum state in the
second input mode. We studied the variation of entanglement as a function
of ||2 for various values of n and j. It is found that entropy increases with
increase in ||2 and saturates. In contrast, for n=2 and j=1 case (odd coherent state ) the entropy is unity for all values of ||2 . The resulting entangled
states can be used for quantum information and quantum communication.

20

Appendix A
// Beam s p l i t t i n g o f G e n e r a l i z e d Even and Odd Coherent S t a t e :
\ k e t {\ alpha ; l ,m}
#i n c l u d e <s t d i o . h>
#i n c l u d e <math . h>
#i n c l u d e <s t d l i b . h>
#i n c l u d e f 2 c . h
#i n c l u d e c l a p a c k . h
#i n c l u d e blaswrap . h
#i n c l u d e /home/ d e e p i k a /NumeRecd/ n r u t i l . c
#i n c l u d e /home/ d e e p i k a /NumeRecd/gammln . c
#i n c l u d e /home/ d e e p i k a /NumeRecd/ f a c t l n . c
#d e f i n e s i z e 70
// Dimension o f matrix
#d e f i n e l 2
#d e f i n e t h e t a M PI / 4 . 0
#d e f i n e m 1
// m= 0 , 1 , . . . ( l 1) m i n \ k e t {\ alpha ; l ,m}
#d e f i n e l max 15
#d e f i n e n max 90
i n t main ( )
{
FILE f p ;
doublecomplex rho , b , WORK, DUMMY;
// a v a r i a b l e f o r temporary s t o r a g e
d o u b l e r e a l AT;
// For t r a n s f o r m e d matrix
i n t e g e r i , j , ok , c1 , c2 , c3 ;
c h ar c4 ;
// v a r i a b l e s f o r t h e m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l e n t a n g l e d c o h e r e n t s t a t e
integer n, r , s ;
doublecomplex s1 , sumrho ;
d o u b l e r e a l t1 , t2 , phi , s l , N l , entropy , Tr , nu ;

21

//....................................
f p=f o p e n ( n2m1 . dat , w ) ;
// A l l o c a t i n g memory f o r t h e v a r i a b l e s . . . . . . .
b=( doublecomplex ) m a l l o c ( s i z e s i z e o f ( doublecomplex ) ) ;
DUMMY=( doublecomplex ) m a l l o c (1 s i z e o f ( doublecomplex ) ) ;
f o r ( i =0; i <1; i ++)
{
DUMMY[ i ]=( doublecomplex ) m a l l o c (1 s i z e o f ( doublecomplex ) ) ;
}
WORK = ( doublecomplex ) m a l l o c ( ( 2 s i z e ) s i z e o f ( doublecomplex ) ) ;
rho= ( doublecomplex ) m a l l o c ( s i z e s i z e o f ( doublecomplex ) ) ;
f o r ( i =0; i <s i z e ; i ++)
{
rho [ i ]=( doublecomplex ) m a l l o c ( s i z e s i z e o f ( doublecomplex ) ) ;
}
AT= ( d o u b l e r e a l ) m a l l o c ( ( 2 s i z e s i z e ) s i z e o f ( d o u b l e r e a l ) ) ;
//...................................

f o r ( nu = 0 . 1 ; nu <=5.0;nu=nu +.1) // l i s an i n t e g e r g r e a t e r than 1

{
// I n i t i a l i z i n g a l l th e v a r i a b l e s t o z e r o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DUMMY[ 0 ] [ 0 ] . r=DUMMY[ 0 ] [ 0 ] . i = 0 . 0 ;
f o r ( i =0; i <(2 s i z e ) ; i ++)
{
WORK[ i ] . r = 0 . 0 ;WORK[ i ] . i = 0 . 0 ;
}
f o r ( i =0; i <s i z e ; i ++)
{
b [ i ] . r =0.0;b [ i ] . i =0.0;
}

22

f o r ( i =0; i <(2 s i z e s i z e ) ; i ++)

{
AT[ i ] = 0 . 0 ;
}
f o r ( i =0; i <s i z e ; i ++)
{
f o r ( j =0; j <s i z e ; j ++)
{
rho [ i ] [ j ] . r = 0 . 0 ; rho [ i ] [ j ] . i = 0 . 0 ;
}
}
//.............................................
t1 =0.0; t2 =0.0;
s 1 . r=s1 . i = 0 . 0 ;
entropy =0.0;
// N o r m a l i z a t i o n f a c t o r
f o r ( n=0, s l =0;n<=n max ; n++)
{
s l = s l +exp ( ( l n+m) l o g ( nu) f a c t l n ( ( l n+m) ) ) ;
}
N l=pow ( s l , 0 . 5 ) exp ( 0 . 5 nu ) / l ;
//........................................................
f o r ( i =0; i <s i z e ; i ++)
{
f o r ( j =0; j <s i z e ; j ++)
{
sumrho . r = 0 . 0 ;
sumrho . i = 0 . 0 ; f o r ( r =0; r <=(l 1); r++)
{
f o r ( s =0; s<=(l 1); s++)
{
t 1=exp ( 0 . 5 nu c o s (2 M PI ( rs ) / l ) ) ;
t 2 =2 l o g ( N l )nu +0.5( i+j ) l o g ( nu )
0.5( i+j ) l o g ( 2 . 0 ) 0 . 5 ( f a c t l n ( i )+ f a c t l n ( j ) ) ;
p h i =0.5nu s i n (2 M PI ( rs ) / l )
+(2M PI ( r i s j ) / l )+( i j ) t h e t a (2M PIm( rs ) / l ) ;

23

s 1 . r=t 1 exp ( t 2 ) c o s ( p hi ) ;
s 1 . i=t 1 exp ( t 2 ) s i n ( ph i ) ;
sumrho . r=sumrho . r+s1 . r ;
sumrho . i=sumrho . i+s1 . i ;
}
}
rho [ i ] [ j ] . r=sumrho . r ; rho [ i ] [ j ] . i=sumrho . i ;
}
}
// Transforming matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
f o r ( i =0; i <s i z e ; i ++)
/ t o c a l l a F o r t r a n r o u t i n e from C we /
{
/ have t o t r a n s f o r m th e matrix /
f o r ( j =0; j <s i z e ; j ++)
{
AT[ 2 ( j+s i z e i )]= rho [ j ] [ i ] . r ;
AT[ 2 ( j+s i z e i )+1]= rho [ j ] [ i ] . i ;
}
}
//...............................................................
c1=s i z e ;
/ and put a l l numbers and c h a r a c t e r s /
c2=2 s i z e ;
/ we want t o p a s s /
c3 =1;
/ t o t he r o u t i n e i n v a r i a b l e s /
c4 =N ;
z g e e v (&c4 , &c4 ,& c1 , ( doublecomplex ) AT,
&c1 , b , ( doublecomplex )DUMMY, &c3 ,
( doublecomplex )DUMMY, &c3 , WORK, &c2 , ( d o u b l e r e a l )WORK, &ok ) ;
f o r ( i =0,Tr=0; i <s i z e ; i ++)
{
Tr=Tr+b [ i ] . r ;
i f ( b [ i ] . r >0.000000)
{
24

e n t r o p y=entropyb [ i ] . r ( l o g ( b [ i ] . r ) / l o g ( 2 . 0 ) ) ;
}
else
e n t r o p y=e n t r o p y + 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 ;
// e i g e n v a l u e s o f hermitan matrix must be r e a l
}
f p r i n t f ( fp ,% l f \ t%l f \ t%l f \n , nu , entropy , Tr ) ;
p r i n t f (% l f \ t%l f \ t%l f \n , nu , entropy , Tr ) ;
}
// ending o f f o r l o o p f o r L . . . . . . . . . . . . .
free (b ) ;
f r e e (DUMMY) ;
f r e e (WORK) ;
f r e e ( rho ) ;
f r e e (AT) ;
f c l o s e ( fp ) ;
return 0;
}

25

Bibliography
[1] M.S.Kim, W. Son,V. Buek, P.L. Knight, Entanglement by a beam splitter: nonclassicality as a prerequisite for entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 65,
032323 (2002)
[2] B. C. Sanders, Review of entangled coherent states, Journal of Physics
A: Mathematical and Theoretical 45(24): 244002 (22 pp.),(2012)
[3] John Preskil,Lecture Notes for Ph219/CS219:Quantum Information and
Computation, chapter 4(2001)
[4] J. R. Klauder and B.-S. Skagerstam, Coherent States Applications in
Physics and Mathematical Physics (World Scientific, Singapore, 1985)
[5] Michael Martin Nieto, The Discovery of Squeezed States In 1927
[6] G.J Milburn and C.A Holmes, phys.Rev.Lett 56, 2237(1986).
[7] G.J Milburn, Phy Rev. A 33, 674(1985).
[8] Christopher Gerry, Peter Knight, Introductory Quantum Optics:pp.135142, Cambridge University Press (2005)
[9] B. Yurke and D. Stoler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 13 (1986)
[10] Arend G. Dijkstra and Yoshitaka Tanimura, Non-Markovian entanglement dynamics in the presence of system-bath coherence, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 104, 250401 (2010)
[11] V. Buek, A. Vidiella-Barranco, and P. L. Knight , Superpositions of
coherent states: Squeezing and dissipation, Phys. Rev. A 45, 6570 (1992)

26

[12] Einstein A, Podolsky B, Rosen N (1935), Can Quantum-Mechanical

Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?, Phys. Rev.
47 (10): 777780.
[13] Ekert, Artur K. Quantum cryptography based on Bells theorem, Phy
Rev Lett 67 (6): 661663. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.661 (1991)
[14] B. Yurke and D. Stoler, Phys. Rev. A 35, 4846 (1987)

27