A SHORT INTRODUCTION

TO QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT

Mario Ziman
Research Center for Quantum Information, Bratislava

1
 Historical background

entanglement - a relationship or involvement that compromises the participants

quantum entanglement - introduced by E.Schrodinger
(entanglement of predictions)

E. Schrodinger, Die gegenwartige Situation in der Quantenmechanik

Naturwissenschaften 23: pp.807-812; 823-828; 844-849 (1935)
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html
existence of two-particle states AB 6= A B
properties of individual systems seems to be senseless in such cases
strange correlations of predictions between experiments on individual particles

2
 Einstein-Podolski-Rosen problem

realism = ability of deterministic predictions require that the state possess the prop-
erty before the measurement, i.e. even without the measurement
locality = no instantenuous actions, i.e. operations on system A does not affect the
properties of system B instantenuously, and vice versa
EPR requirement every theory must satisfy such conditions
two half-spins in state |i = 1 (| iA | iB | iA | iB )
2
 





 





fact: measuring ~a ~ IB determines outcomes of IA ~b ~ with certainty if ~b = ~a

local realism spin B must possess the property having spin ~a before the mea-
surement, or we must consider existence of instantenuous nonlocal action

3
 Einstein-Podolski-Rosen problem

two half-spins in state |i = 1 (| iA | iB | iA | iB )

2
local realism spin B must possess the property having spin ~a before the mea-
surement, or we must consider existence of instantenuous nonlocal action
1st BUT: choice of ~a is arbitrary and can be decided after the state is created
local realism spin is determined in all directions
2nd BUT: QT description spin can be determined at most in one direction !!!
EPR conclusion quantum state description is incomplete and allows spooky actions
at a distance
alternative: local hidden variables predicting individual outcomes
EPR believed that such theory is possible

4
 Bell inequalities

local realistic model: A(~a, ), B(~b, ) 1 and h~a ~bi = d%()A(~a, )B(~b, )
R

is the hidden parameter, or set of parameters

knowledge of ability to make deterministic predictions for all measurements
local hidden variable model
BLHV = |h~a (~b + ~b0) + ~a0 (~b ~b0)i|
 

=
R
 dA(~

a , )[B( ~
b, ) + B 0
(~b 0
, )] + A 0
(~
a 0
, )[B(~b, ) B 0
(~b 0
, )]






 (1)
d A(~a, )[B(~b, ) + B (~b , )] + A (~a , )[B(~b, ) B (~b , )]
0 0 0 0 0 0
R  


2
quantum theory prediction for singlet
BQM = |h~a (~b + ~b0) + ~a0 (~b ~b0)i| = | ~a (~b + ~b0) ~a (~b ~b0)|
(2)
= 2 2 > 2 BLHV
QM violates the LHV model contraints given by Bell inequality

5
 Outline

1. History and motivation

2. LOCC operations and entanglement
3. Maximally entangled states
4. Applications of maximally entangled states

6
 Pure states entanglement

entanglement: difference between classical and quantum

- feature of quantum state necessary in violation of BI, nonexistence of LHV model
definition: pure state |iAB is entangled if and only if |iAB 6= |iA |iB
Schmidt decomposition: (important tool)
d1
r
|iAB = j=0 j |ej iA |fj iB (3)
where hej |e0j i = jj 0 , hfj |fj0 i = jj 0 and j are positive and sum up to unity. Hence
all states are locally unitary equivalent to states |iAB = a|00i + b|11i = (UA
UB )|iAB .
~ = (0, . . . , d1) is the vector of Schmidt numbers ordered decreasingly, i.e.
0 1 . . . d1.
what about mixed states?

7
 Concept of LOCC operations

central notion describing specific manipulation of physical systems

LOCC = local operations (local measurements, local Hamiltonians) and classical
communication
for classical states:
- all states are closed under LOCC operations, i.e. for all probability distributions
(a, b), 0(a, b): 0 by means of LOCC
- all classical operations are LOCC type
for pure quantum states:
- factorized states are closed under LOCC operations
- entangled pure states can be transformed into factorized states
LOCC-based partial ordering
%  if there exists ELOCC such that ELOCC[%] =

8
 Entanglement for mixed states

LOCC-based partial ordering: %  if there exists ELOCC such that ELOCC[%] =

separable states Ssep
- def 1: set of LOCC-smallest states
- def 2: convex hull of factorized states, i.e. % = j pj |j ihj | |j ihj |.
- closed under LOCC operations
- every state can be transformed into arbitrary separable state
entangled states: complement of the set of separable states, i.e. Sent = S(H) \ Ssep
formal definition: a state % is entangled if and only if it cannot be written in the form
% 6= j pj |j ihj | |j ihj |

9
 Maximally entangled states

definition: states from which all states can be prepared by deterministic LOCC
alternatively, largest element(s) with respect to LOCC ordering
is/are there such state/states? if yes, are they LOCC related?
sufficient to prove for pure states, because mixed states are just classical distributions
over pure states, i.e. can be prepared by means of LOCC

10
 Maximally entangled pure states

definition: states from which all states can be prepared by deterministic LOCC
pure states: |i |i iff ~ ~ (majorization criterion), i.e. Jj=0 J
j j=0 j
for all J = 0, . . . , d 1.
maximally entagled pure state 1 |jiA
j = 1/d for all j, i.e. |+ i = d
|jiB .
preparation of |i = a|00i + b|11i:
1. addition of ancilla |0iA0 |+iAB
2. local unitary operation |00iAA0 a|00iAA0 + b|11iAA0 , |01iAA0 b|01iAA0 +
a|10iAA0 resulting in state 12 [|0iA0 (a|00iAB + b|11iAB ) + |1iA0 (b|10iAB +
a|01iAB )]
0
3. measurement |0ih0|A0 IAB |1ih1|A0 IAB = zA IAB
4. Alice sends result to Bob
5. Bob performs 0 = I, or 1 = x on his qubit to end up with state a|00i + b|11i
deterministically.
11
 Maximally entangled states

solution & definition: state is maximally entangled iff it is pure and its subsystems
are in total mixture state, i.e. TrB AB = TrAAB = 12 I.
LOCC transformations can transform maximally entangled state to arbitrary other
state
All maximally entangled states , 0 are locally unitarily equivalent, i.e.
0 = (UA UB ), in fact 0 = (UA I)
Maximally entangled state cannot be prepared from any other state by mens of LOCC
operations, i.e. % 6 +
if % +, then % is maximally entangled state.

12
 Application: superdense coding

situation: Alice and Bob share |+i = 1 (|00i + |11i)

2
step 1 (encoding): apply operation j IB on state |+i
main trick: orthogonal basis related by local unitary transformations
1
h(k IB )+|(j IB )+i = Tr[j k ] = jk (4)
2
step 2 (qubit transfer): Alice sends her qubit to Bob
step 3 (measurement): Bell measurement in basis |(j I)+i gives j
usual magic note: qubit channel transfers 2 classical bits per one usage, but at most
single bit can be extracted from single qubit alone [classical bound]
transfer is secure, because the transmitted qubit does not contain any information
2cbits=qbit + EPR

13
 Application: quantum teleportation

not a matter transfer and not instantenuous = not StarTrek teleportation

mathematics behind
|iS |+iAB = 12 |iS [| iA| iB + | iA| iB ]
(5)
= 12 3j=0|(IS j )+iSA |j iB
mutually orthogonal states |(j I)+i forming Bell measurement
step 1 (measurement): Alice measures outcome j and Bobs spin is in state |j i
step 2 (communication): transfer of 2 bits of information encoding the value j
step 3 (correction): Bob applies j to recover the original state |iB (j2 = I)
note: teleportation transfers only (quantum) information and it is not instantenu-
ous
qbit=2cbits+EPR

14
 Entanglement theory

decide (theoretically/experimentally) whether a given state is entangled, or not

task: entanglement identification and quantification (entanglement measures)
lacking of operational meaning of entanglement
Bell inequality? there are (mixed) entangled states with LHV models (Werner,1982)
teleportation? existence of bound entangled states
max
superdense coding? entangled states with Cquantum(%) Cclass
correlations? equivalent for pure states, but for mixed states the intrinsic quantum
correlations (entanglement) cannot be separated from classical correlations
nonlocality 6 entanglement 6 correlations

15
 Concluding remarks

state % is entangled if and only if % 6= j pj |j ihj | |j ihj |

main concept: LOCC operations and LOCC-induced ordering
nonlocality 6 entanglement 6 nonclassical correlations
applications: teleportation, superdense coding, cryptography, q-computation
entanglement is still not conceptually understood (lacking of operational definition)
easy for pure states and two qubits
multipartite entanglement (phase transitions, monogamy)

16
 Good references

1. Ryszard Horodecki, Pawel Horodecki, Michal Horodecki and Karol Horodecki: Quan-
tum entanglement, Rev.Mod.Phys, quant-ph/0702225
2. Martin Plenio, Shashank Virmani: An intorduction to entanglement measures, quant-
ph/0504163
3. Aditi Sen(De), Ujjwal Sen, Maciej Lewenstein, Anna Sanpera: Lectures on Quan-
tum Information: Chapter 1 (The separability versus entanglement problem), quant-
ph/0508032
4. Karol Zyczkowski and Ingemar Bengtsson: An introduction to quantum entangle-
ment: a geometric approach, quant-ph/0606228

17
 Entanglement measures - axioms

1. Sharpness E(%) = 0 iff % is not entangled

2. Local unitary invariance E(%) = E(U1 U2%U1U2)
3. Nonincresing under LOCC E(%) j pj E(Mj [%])
4. Normalization E(%) is maximal only for maximally entangled states
5. Convexity E(%) j pj E(%j )
6. Additivity E(% ) = E(%) + S(%)
7. Continuity

18