ENTANGLEMENT OF GAUSSIAN STATES Gerardo Adesso
ENTANGLEMENT OF GAUSSIAN STATES Gerardo Adesso ENTANGLEMENT OF GAUSSIAN STATES Gerardo Adesso
90 4. Two-mode entanglement studied in detail for any value of p. Remarkably, for p ≤ 2, minimally entangled states are minimum-uncertainty states, saturating Ineq. (2.19), while maximally entangled states are nonsymmetric two-mode squeezed thermal states. Interestingly, for p > 2 and in specific ranges of the values of the entropic measures, the role of such states is reversed. In particular, for such quantifications of the global and local entropies, two-mode squeezed thermal states, often referred to as CV analog of maximally entangled states, turn out to be minimally entangled. Moreover, we have introduced the notion of “average logarithmic negativity” for given global and marginal generalized p-entropies, showing that it provides a reliable estimate of CV entanglement in a wide range of physical parameters. Our analysis also clarifies the reasons why the linear entropy is a ‘privileged’ measure of mixedness in continuous variable systems. It is naturally normalized between 0 and 1, it offers an accurate qualification and quantification of entanglement of any mixed state while giving significative information about the state itself and, crucially, is the only entropic measure which could be directly measured in the near future by schemes involving only single-photon detections or the technology of quantum networks, without requiring a full homodyne reconstruction of the state. We have furthermore studied, following Ref. [GA7], the relations existing between different computable measures of entanglement, showing how the negativities (including the standard logarithmic negativity) and the Gaussian convex-roof extended measures (Gaussian EMs, including the Gaussian entanglement of formation) are inequivalent entanglement quantifiers for nonsymmetric two-mode Gaussian states. We have computed Gaussian EMs explicitly for the two classes of twomode Gaussian states having extremal (maximal and minimal) negativities at fixed purities. We have highlighted how, in a certain range of values of the global and local purities, the ordering on the set of entangled states, as induced by the Gaussian EMs, is inverted with respect to that induced by the negativities. The question whether a certain Gaussian state is more entangled than another, thus, has no definite answer, not even when only extremal states are considered, as the answer comes to depend on the measure of entanglement one chooses. Extended comments on the possible meanings and consequences of the existence of inequivalent orderings of entangled states have been provided. Furthermore, we have proven the existence of a lower bound holding for the Gaussian EMs at fixed negativities, and that this bound is saturated by two-mode symmetric Gaussian states. Finally, we have provided some strong numerical evidence, and partial analytical proofs restricted to extremal states, that an upper bound on the Gaussian EMs at fixed negativities exists as well, and is saturated by states of maximal negativity for given marginals, in the limit of infinite average local mixedness. We believe that our results will raise renewed interest in the problem of the quantification of entanglement in CV systems, which seemed fairly well understood in the special instance of two-mode Gaussian states. Moreover, we hope that the present Chapter may constitute a first step toward the solution of more general (open) problems concerning the entanglement of Gaussian states [1], such as the computation of the entanglement of formation for generic two-mode Gaussian states, and the proof (or disproof) of its identity with the Gaussian entanglement of formation in a larger class of Gaussian states beyond the symmetric instance.
4.6. Summary and further remarks 91 We are now going to show, in Chapter 5, how some of the results here derived for two-mode states, can be extended for the investigation of bipartite entanglement in multimode Gaussian states endowed with peculiar symmetric structures. Last but not the least, the results collected in the present Chapter might prove useful as well in the task of quantifying multipartite entanglement of Gaussian states. For instance, we should mention here that any two-mode reduction of a pure three-mode Gaussian state is a GLEMS, as we will show in Chapter 7 (this straightforwardly follows from the phase-space Schmidt decomposition discussed in Sec. 2.4.2.1). Therefore, one has then available the tools and can apply them to investigate the sharing structure of multipartite CV entanglement of three-mode, and, more generally, multimode Gaussian states, as we will do in Chapter 6. Let us moreover mention that the experimental production and manipulation of two-mode Gaussian entanglement will be discussed in Chapter 9.
- Page 53 and 54: 2.3. Degree of information encoded
- Page 55 and 56: 2.4. Standard forms of Gaussian cov
- Page 57 and 58: 2.4. Standard forms of Gaussian cov
- Page 59 and 60: 2.4. Standard forms of Gaussian cov
- Page 61 and 62: 2.4. Standard forms of Gaussian cov
- Page 63: Part II Bipartite entanglement of G
- Page 66 and 67: 52 3. Characterizing entanglement o
- Page 68 and 69: 54 3. Characterizing entanglement o
- Page 71 and 72: CHAPTER 4 Two-mode entanglement Thi
- Page 73 and 74: 4.2. Entanglement and symplectic ei
- Page 75 and 76: 4.3. Entanglement versus Entropic m
- Page 77 and 78: 1 0.75 0.5 SL1 0.25 0 (a) 4.3. Enta
- Page 79 and 80: 4.3. Entanglement versus Entropic m
- Page 81 and 82: Μ Μ1Μ2 3 2 1 1 4.3. Entanglemen
- Page 83 and 84: 4.3. Entanglement versus Entropic m
- Page 85 and 86: 4.3. Entanglement versus Entropic m
- Page 87 and 88: global generalized entropy S3 globa
- Page 89 and 90: 4.4. Quantifying entanglement via p
- Page 91 and 92: 4.4. Quantifying entanglement via p
- Page 93 and 94: 4.5. Gaussian entanglement measures
- Page 95 and 96: 4.5. Gaussian entanglement measures
- Page 97 and 98: 4.5. Gaussian entanglement measures
- Page 99 and 100: 4.5. Gaussian entanglement measures
- Page 101 and 102: Ν p Σopt 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 4.5
- Page 103: GEF GEF 4 3 2 1 0 4.6. Summary and
- Page 108 and 109: 94 5. Multimode entanglement under
- Page 110 and 111: 96 5. Multimode entanglement under
- Page 112 and 113: 98 5. Multimode entanglement under
- Page 114 and 115: 100 5. Multimode entanglement under
- Page 116 and 117: 102 5. Multimode entanglement under
- Page 118 and 119: 104 5. Multimode entanglement under
- Page 121: Part III Multipartite entanglement
- Page 124 and 125: 110 6. Gaussian entanglement sharin
- Page 126 and 127: 112 6. Gaussian entanglement sharin
- Page 128 and 129: 114 6. Gaussian entanglement sharin
- Page 130 and 131: 116 6. Gaussian entanglement sharin
- Page 132 and 133: 118 6. Gaussian entanglement sharin
- Page 134 and 135: 120 6. Gaussian entanglement sharin
- Page 136 and 137: 122 7. Tripartite entanglement in t
- Page 138 and 139: 124 7. Tripartite entanglement in t
- Page 140 and 141: 126 7. Tripartite entanglement in t
- Page 142 and 143: 128 7. Tripartite entanglement in t
- Page 144 and 145: 130 7. Tripartite entanglement in t
- Page 146 and 147: 132 7. Tripartite entanglement in t
- Page 148 and 149: 134 7. Tripartite entanglement in t
- Page 150 and 151: 136 7. Tripartite entanglement in t
- Page 152 and 153: 138 7. Tripartite entanglement in t
90 4. Two-mode entanglement<br />
studied in detail for any value of p. Remarkably, for p ≤ 2, minimally entangled<br />
states are minimum-uncertainty states, saturating Ineq. (2.19), while maximally entangled<br />
states are nonsymmetric two-mode squeezed thermal states. Interestingly,<br />
for p > 2 and in specific ranges of the values of the entropic measures, the role<br />
of such states is reversed. In particular, for such quantifications of the global and<br />
local entropies, two-mode squeezed thermal states, often referred to as CV analog<br />
of maximally entangled states, turn out to be minimally entangled. Moreover, we<br />
have introduced the notion of “average logarithmic negativity” for given global and<br />
marginal generalized p-entropies, showing that it provides a reliable estimate of CV<br />
entanglement in a wide range of physical parameters.<br />
Our analysis also clarifies the reasons why the linear entropy is a ‘privileged’<br />
measure of mixedness in continuous variable systems. It is naturally normalized<br />
between 0 and 1, it offers an accurate qualification and quantification of entanglement<br />
of any mixed state while giving significative information about the state itself<br />
and, crucially, is the only entropic measure which could be directly measured in the<br />
near future by schemes involving only single-photon detections or the technology of<br />
quantum networks, without requiring a full homodyne reconstruction of the state.<br />
We have furthermore studied, following Ref. [GA7], the relations existing between<br />
different computable measures of entanglement, showing how the negativities<br />
(including the standard logarithmic negativity) and the Gaussian convex-roof<br />
extended measures (Gaussian EMs, including the Gaussian entanglement of formation)<br />
are inequivalent entanglement quantifiers for nonsymmetric two-mode Gaussian<br />
states. We have computed Gaussian EMs explicitly for the two classes of twomode<br />
Gaussian states having extremal (maximal and minimal) negativities at fixed<br />
purities. We have highlighted how, in a certain range of values of the global and<br />
local purities, the ordering on the set of entangled states, as induced by the Gaussian<br />
EMs, is inverted with respect to that induced by the negativities. The question<br />
whether a certain Gaussian state is more entangled than another, thus, has no definite<br />
answer, not even when only extremal states are considered, as the answer comes<br />
to depend on the measure of entanglement one chooses. Extended comments on<br />
the possible meanings and consequences of the existence of inequivalent orderings<br />
of entangled states have been provided. Furthermore, we have proven the existence<br />
of a lower bound holding for the Gaussian EMs at fixed negativities, and that this<br />
bound is saturated by two-mode symmetric Gaussian states. Finally, we have provided<br />
some strong numerical evidence, and partial analytical proofs restricted to<br />
extremal states, that an upper bound on the Gaussian EMs at fixed negativities<br />
exists as well, and is saturated by states of maximal negativity for given marginals,<br />
in the limit of infinite average local mixedness.<br />
We believe that our results will raise renewed interest in the problem of the<br />
quantification of entanglement in CV systems, which seemed fairly well understood<br />
in the special instance of two-mode Gaussian states. Moreover, we hope that<br />
the present Chapter may constitute a first step toward the solution of more general<br />
(open) problems concerning the entanglement of Gaussian states [1], such as<br />
the computation of the entanglement of formation for generic two-mode Gaussian<br />
states, and the proof (or disproof) of its identity with the Gaussian entanglement<br />
of formation in a larger class of Gaussian states beyond the symmetric instance.