30.04.2013 Views

ENTANGLEMENT OF GAUSSIAN STATES Gerardo Adesso

ENTANGLEMENT OF GAUSSIAN STATES Gerardo Adesso

ENTANGLEMENT OF GAUSSIAN STATES Gerardo Adesso

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

116 6. Gaussian entanglement sharing<br />

How does this entanglement distribution mechanism work? We show here,<br />

based on a simple computation first appeared in [GA10], that it obeys the fundamental<br />

monogamy law.<br />

We will employ the Gaussian contangle Gτ , Eq. (6.13), as a measure of bipartite<br />

entanglement. Due to the convex roof extension involved in the definition of Gτ ,<br />

Eq. (6.9), it will suffice to prove monogamy for pure fully symmetric Gaussian states,<br />

for which the Gaussian contangle Gτ coincides with the true contangle Eτ in every<br />

bipartition thanks to the symmetry of the considered states (see Sec. 6.1.2.1). Such<br />

a proof will also imply the corresponding monogamy property for the (Gaussian)<br />

tangle, Eq. (6.16).<br />

For a pure, fully symmetric Gaussian states of N + 1 modes, we will then prove<br />

the statement<br />

E i|(j1,...,jN )<br />

τ<br />

−<br />

N<br />

l=1<br />

E i|jl<br />

τ ≥ 0 , (6.18)<br />

by induction. Referring to the notation of Eqs. (2.60, 5.13) with L ≡ N, for any N<br />

and for b > 1 (for b = 1 one has a product state), the 1 × N contangle<br />

E i|(j1,...,jN )<br />

τ = log 2 (b − b 2 − 1) (6.19)<br />

is independent of N, while the total two-mode contangle<br />

NE i|jl<br />

τ = N<br />

4 log2<br />

1<br />

N<br />

<br />

b 2 (N + 1) − 1<br />

− (b 2 − 1)(b 2 (N + 1) 2 − (N − 1) 2 )<br />

<br />

, (6.20)<br />

is a monotonically decreasing function of the integer N at fixed b.<br />

Because the sharing inequality trivially holds for N = 1, it is inductively proven<br />

for any N. <br />

Entanglement — specifically measured by any CV extension of the tangle as<br />

introduced in Sec. 6.1.2.1 — in all (pure and mixed) fully symmetric Gaussian<br />

states, defined in Sec. 2.4.3, is indeed monogamous.<br />

We can now study the difference between left-hand and right-hand sides in<br />

Eq. (6.18), quantifying the residual entanglement not stored in bipartite correlations<br />

between any two modes. As apparent from the above proof, this residual entanglement,<br />

for any squeezing b, strictly grows with N. This proves quantitatively<br />

that (as qualitatively clear from the analysis of Sec. 5.2) with increasing number<br />

of modes N, the entanglement is gradually less encoded in pairwise bipartite form,<br />

being conversely more and more increasingly retrieved in multipartite (specifically,<br />

three-partite, four-partite, . . ., N-partite) quantum correlations among all the single<br />

modes. Crucially, we have just proven that this redistribution is always such<br />

that a general monogamy law on the shared CV entanglement is satisfied.<br />

The multipartite entanglement in (generally mixed) fully symmetric Gaussian<br />

states will be operationally interpreted in terms of optimal success of CV N-party<br />

teleportation networks in Sec. 12.2.<br />

6.2.3. Monogamy inequality for all Gaussian states<br />

Following Ref. [GA15], we state here the crucial result which definitely solves the<br />

qualitative problem of entanglement sharing in Gaussian states. Namely, we prove<br />

that the monogamy inequality does hold for all Gaussian states of multimode CV

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!