ENTANGLEMENT OF GAUSSIAN STATES Gerardo Adesso

ENTANGLEMENT OF GAUSSIAN STATES Gerardo Adesso ENTANGLEMENT OF GAUSSIAN STATES Gerardo Adesso

maths.nottingham.ac.uk
from maths.nottingham.ac.uk More from this publisher
30.04.2013 Views

114 6. Gaussian entanglement sharing used the fact that the smallest symplectic eigenvalue ˜ν− of the partial transpose of a pure 1 × N Gaussian state σ p i|j is equal to ˜ν− = √ Det σi − √ Det σi − 1, as follows by recalling that the 1 × N entanglement is equivalent to a 1 × 1 entanglement by virtue of the phase-space Schmidt decomposition (see Sec. 2.4.2.1) and by exploiting Eq. (4.13) with ∆ = 2, µ = 1 and µ1 = µ2 ≡ 1/ √ Det σi. The Gaussian contangle Gτ , like all members of the Gaussian entanglement measures family (see Sec. 3.2.2) is completely equivalent to the Gaussian entanglement of formation [270], which quantifies the cost of creating a given mixed Gaussian state out of an ensemble of pure, entangled Gaussian states. Gaussian tangle.— Analogously, for a 1×N bipartition associated to a pure Gaussian state ϱ p A|B = |ψ〉 A|B〈ψ| with SA = S1 (a subsystem of a single mode) and SB = S2 . . . SN , we define the following quantity τG(ϱ p A|B ) = N 2 (ϱ p A|B ). (6.14) Here, N (ϱ) is the negativity, Eq. (1.40), of the Gaussian state ϱ. The functional τG, like the negativity N , vanishes on separable states and does not increase under LOCC, i.e. , it is a proper measure of pure-state bipartite entanglement. It can be naturally extended to mixed Gaussian states ϱA|B via the convex roof construction τG(ϱ A|B) = inf {pi,ϱ (p) i } i piτG(ϱ p i ), (6.15) where the infimum is taken over all convex decompositions of ϱA|B in terms of pure Gaussian states ϱ p i : ϱA|B = p i piϱi . By virtue of the Gaussian convex roof construction, the Gaussian entanglement measure τG Eq. (6.15) is an entanglement monotone under Gaussian LOCC (see Sec. 3.2.2). Henceforth, given an arbitrary N-mode Gaussian state ϱS1|S2...SN , we refer to τG, Eq. (6.15), as the Gaussian tangle [GA15]. Obviously, in terms of CMs, the analogous of the definition (6.11) is valid for the Gaussian tangle as well, yielding it computable like the contangle in Eq. (6.13). Namely, exploiting Eq. (3.7), one finds τG(σi|j) ≡ τG(σ opt i|j ) = w[m2 1 √ √ 2 i|j ], w[x] = x − 1 + x − 1 . (6.16) 4 Refer to the discussion immediately after Eq. (6.13) for the definition of the quantities involved in Eq. (6.16). We will now proceed to investigate the entanglement sharing of Gaussian states and to establish monogamy constraints on its distribution. We remark that, being the (squared) negativity a monotonic and convex function of the (squared) logarithmic negativity, see Eq. (6.7), the validity of any monogamy constraint on distributed Gaussian entanglement using as an entanglement measure the “Gaussian tangle”, is implied by the proof of the corresponding monogamy inequality obtained using the “Gaussian contangle”. For this reasons, when possible, we will always employ as a preferred choice the primitive entanglement monotone, represented by the (Gaussian) contangle [GA10] (which could be generally referred to as a ‘logarithmic’ tangle in quantum systems of arbitrary dimension). 6.2. Monogamy of distributed entanglement in N-mode Gaussian states We are now in the position to prove a collection of results concerning the monogamy of distributed Gaussian entanglement in multimode Gaussian states.

6.2. Monogamy of distributed entanglement in N-mode Gaussian states 115 6.2.1. General monogamy constraints and residual entanglement In the broadest setting we want to investigate whether a monogamy inequality like Ineq. (6.2) holds in the general case of Gaussian states with an arbitrary number N of modes. Considering a Gaussian state distributed among N parties (each owning a single mode), the monogamy constraint on distributed entanglement can be written as E Si|(S1...Si−1Si+1...SN N ) ≥ E Si|Sj (6.17) where the global system is multipartitioned in subsystems Sk (k = 1, . . ., N), each owned by a respective party, and E is a proper measure of bipartite entanglement. The corresponding general monogamy inequality, see Eq. (1.53), is known to hold for qubit systems [169]. The left-hand side of inequality (6.17) quantifies the bipartite entanglement between a probe subsystem Si and the remaining subsystems taken as a whole. The right-hand side quantifies the total bipartite entanglement between Si and each one of the other subsystems Sj=i in the respective reduced states. The nonnegative difference between these two entanglements, minimized over all choices of the probe subsystem, is referred to as the residual multipartite entanglement. It quantifies the purely quantum correlations that are not encoded in pairwise form, so it includes all manifestations of genuine K-partite entanglement, involving K subsystems (modes) at a time, with 2 < K ≤ N. The study of entanglement sharing and monogamy constraints thus offers a natural framework to interpret and quantify entanglement in multipartite quantum systems [GA12] (see Sec. 1.4). To summarize the results we are going to present, it is now known that the (Gaussian) contangle — and the Gaussian tangle, as an implication — is monogamous in fully symmetric Gaussian states of N modes [GA10]. In general, we have proven the Gaussian tangle to be monogamous in all, pure or mixed, Gaussian states of an arbitrary number of modes [GA15]. A full analytical proof of the monogamy inequality for the contangle in all Gaussian states beyond the symmetry, is currently lacking; however, numerical evidence obtained for randomly generated nonsymmetric 4-mode Gaussian states strongly supports the conjecture that the monogamy inequality be true for all multimode Gaussian states, using also the (Gaussian) contangle as a measure of bipartite entanglement [GA10]. Remarkably, for all (generally nonsymmetric) three-mode Gaussian states the (Gaussian) contangle has been proven to be monogamous, leading in particular to a proper measure of tripartite entanglement in terms of the residual contangle: the analysis of distributed entanglement in the special instance of three-mode Gaussian states, with all the resulting implications, is postponed to the next Chapter. j=i 6.2.2. Monogamy inequality for fully symmetric states The analysis of Sec. 5.2 has revealed that in fully permutation-invariant Gaussian states, by comparing the bipartite block entanglement in the various bipartitions of the modes (which is always unitarily localizable into a two-mode one [GA4, GA5]), the presence of genuine multipartite entanglement is revealed. In general, with increasing number of modes, we have evidenced by scaling arguments how the individual pairwise entanglement between any two modes is redistributed into a multipartite entanglement among all the modes.

6.2. Monogamy of distributed entanglement in N-mode Gaussian states 115<br />

6.2.1. General monogamy constraints and residual entanglement<br />

In the broadest setting we want to investigate whether a monogamy inequality like<br />

Ineq. (6.2) holds in the general case of Gaussian states with an arbitrary number<br />

N of modes. Considering a Gaussian state distributed among N parties (each<br />

owning a single mode), the monogamy constraint on distributed entanglement can<br />

be written as<br />

E Si|(S1...Si−1Si+1...SN<br />

N<br />

)<br />

≥ E Si|Sj (6.17)<br />

where the global system is multipartitioned in subsystems Sk (k = 1, . . ., N), each<br />

owned by a respective party, and E is a proper measure of bipartite entanglement.<br />

The corresponding general monogamy inequality, see Eq. (1.53), is known to hold<br />

for qubit systems [169].<br />

The left-hand side of inequality (6.17) quantifies the bipartite entanglement<br />

between a probe subsystem Si and the remaining subsystems taken as a whole.<br />

The right-hand side quantifies the total bipartite entanglement between Si and<br />

each one of the other subsystems Sj=i in the respective reduced states. The nonnegative<br />

difference between these two entanglements, minimized over all choices of<br />

the probe subsystem, is referred to as the residual multipartite entanglement. It<br />

quantifies the purely quantum correlations that are not encoded in pairwise form,<br />

so it includes all manifestations of genuine K-partite entanglement, involving K<br />

subsystems (modes) at a time, with 2 < K ≤ N. The study of entanglement<br />

sharing and monogamy constraints thus offers a natural framework to interpret<br />

and quantify entanglement in multipartite quantum systems [GA12] (see Sec. 1.4).<br />

To summarize the results we are going to present, it is now known that the<br />

(Gaussian) contangle — and the Gaussian tangle, as an implication — is monogamous<br />

in fully symmetric Gaussian states of N modes [GA10]. In general, we<br />

have proven the Gaussian tangle to be monogamous in all, pure or mixed, Gaussian<br />

states of an arbitrary number of modes [GA15]. A full analytical proof of the<br />

monogamy inequality for the contangle in all Gaussian states beyond the symmetry,<br />

is currently lacking; however, numerical evidence obtained for randomly generated<br />

nonsymmetric 4-mode Gaussian states strongly supports the conjecture that the<br />

monogamy inequality be true for all multimode Gaussian states, using also the<br />

(Gaussian) contangle as a measure of bipartite entanglement [GA10]. Remarkably,<br />

for all (generally nonsymmetric) three-mode Gaussian states the (Gaussian) contangle<br />

has been proven to be monogamous, leading in particular to a proper measure<br />

of tripartite entanglement in terms of the residual contangle: the analysis of distributed<br />

entanglement in the special instance of three-mode Gaussian states, with<br />

all the resulting implications, is postponed to the next Chapter.<br />

j=i<br />

6.2.2. Monogamy inequality for fully symmetric states<br />

The analysis of Sec. 5.2 has revealed that in fully permutation-invariant Gaussian<br />

states, by comparing the bipartite block entanglement in the various bipartitions of<br />

the modes (which is always unitarily localizable into a two-mode one [GA4, GA5]),<br />

the presence of genuine multipartite entanglement is revealed. In general, with<br />

increasing number of modes, we have evidenced by scaling arguments how the<br />

individual pairwise entanglement between any two modes is redistributed into a<br />

multipartite entanglement among all the modes.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!