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