Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Experimental Verification of Many-Body Entanglement Using Thermodynamic Quantities

Published 24 May 2023 in quant-ph and cond-mat.other | (2305.15012v2)

Abstract: The phenomenon of quantum entanglement underlies several important protocols that enable emerging quantum technologies. Entangled states, however, are extremely delicate and often get perturbed by tiny fluctuations in their external environment. Certification of entanglement is therefore immensely crucial for the successful implementation of protocols involving this resource. In this work, we propose a set of entanglement criteria for multi-qubit systems that can be easily verified by measuring certain thermodynamic quantities. In particular, the criteria depend on the difference in optimal global and local works extractable from an isolated quantum system under global and local interactions, respectively. As a proof of principle, we demonstrate the proposed scheme on nuclear spin registers of up to 10 qubits using the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance architecture. We prepare noisy Bell-diagonal state and noisy Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger class of states in star-topology systems and certify their entanglement through our thermodynamic criteria. Along the same line, we also propose an entanglement certification scheme in many-body systems when only partial or even no knowledge about the state is available.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (50)
  1. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
  2. N. Bohr, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).
  3. E. Schrödinger, Probability relations between separated systems, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 32, 446 (1936).
  4. J. S. Bell, On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447 (1966).
  5. A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991).
  6. C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Communication via one- and two-particle operators on einstein-podolsky-rosen states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881 (1992).
  7. D. Deutsch, Quantum theory, the church–turing principle and the universal quantum computer, Proc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 400, 97 (1985).
  8. B. Yurke, Input states for enhancement of fermion interferometer sensitivity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1515 (1986).
  9. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum-enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit, Science 306, 1330 (2004).
  10. W. Dür, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways, Phys. Rev. A 62, 062314 (2000).
  11. R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A one-way quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001).
  12. P. Arrighi and L. Salvail, Blind quantum computation, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 04, 883 (2006).
  13. H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature 453, 1023 (2008).
  14. S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead, Science 362, eaam9288 (2018).
  15. S. Agrawal, S. Halder, and M. Banik, Genuinely entangled subspace with all-encompassing distillable entanglement across every bipartition, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032335 (2019).
  16. L. Gurvits, Classical deterministic complexity of edmonds' problem and quantum entanglement, in Proceedings of the thirty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (ACM, 2003).
  17. A. Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413 (1996).
  18. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Separability of mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions, Physics Letters A 223, 1 (1996).
  19. I. Devetak and A. Winter, Distillation of secret key and entanglement from quantum states, Proc. R. Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sc. 461, 207 (2005).
  20. M. Alimuddin, T. Guha, and P. Parashar, Bound on ergotropic gap for bipartite separable states, Phys. Rev. A 99, 052320 (2019).
  21. M. Alimuddin, T. Guha, and P. Parashar, Independence of work and entropy for equal-energetic finite quantum systems: Passive-state energy as an entanglement quantifier, Phys. Rev. E 102, 012145 (2020a).
  22. M. Alimuddin, T. Guha, and P. Parashar, Structure of passive states and its implication in charging quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 102, 022106 (2020b).
  23. S. Puliyil, M. Banik, and M. Alimuddin, Thermodynamic signatures of genuinely multipartite entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 070601 (2022).
  24. A. E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian, and T. M. Nieuwenhuizen, Maximal work extraction from finite quantum systems, Europhysics Letters (EPL) 67, 565 (2004).
  25. A. Shukla, M. Sharma, and T. Mahesh, NOON states in star-topology spin-systems: Applications in diffusion studies and RF inhomogeneity mapping, Chem. Phys. Lett. 592, 227 (2014).
  26. W. Pusz and S. L. Woronowicz, Passive states and KMS states for general quantum systems, Commun. Math. Phys. 58, 273 (1978).
  27. A. Lenard, Thermodynamical proof of the gibbs formula for elementary quantum systems, J. Stat. Phys. 19, 575 (1978).
  28. J. Åberg, Truly work-like work extraction via a single-shot analysis, Nat. Commun. 4, 1925 (2013).
  29. P. Skrzypczyk, A. J. Short, and S. Popescu, Work extraction and thermodynamics for individual quantum systems, Nat. Commun. 5, 10.1038/ncomms5185 (2014).
  30. J. Joshi and T. S. Mahesh, Experimental investigation of a quantum battery using star-topology nmr spin systems, Phys. Rev. A 106, 042601 (2022).
  31. M. A. Nielsen and J. Kempe, Separable states are more disordered globally than locally, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5184 (2001).
  32. D. G. Cory, A. F. Fahmy, and T. F. Havel, Ensemble quantum computing by NMR spectroscopy, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 94, 1634 (1997).
  33. J. M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Haroche, Manipulating quantum entanglement with atoms and photons in a cavity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 565 (2001).
  34. G. Wendin, Quantum information processing with superconducting circuits: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 106001 (2017).
  35. A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Experimental tests of realistic local theories via bell’s theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 460 (1981).
  36. A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Experimental test of bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982a).
  37. A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Experimental realization of einstein-podolsky-rosen-bohm gedankenexperiment: A new violation of bell’s inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91 (1982b).
  38. A. Singh, K. Dorai, and Arvind, Experimentally identifying the entanglement class of pure tripartite states, Quan. Inf. Process. 17, 10.1007/s11128-018-2105-5 (2018).
  39. S. Tirone, R. Salvia, and V. Giovannetti, Quantum energy lines and the optimal output ergotropy problem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 210601 (2021).
  40. D. Šafránek, D. Rosa, and F. C. Binder, Work extraction from unknown quantum sources, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 210401 (2023).
  41. M. Frey, K. Funo, and M. Hotta, Strong local passivity in finite quantum systems, Phys. Rev. E 90, 012127 (2014).
  42. A. W. Marshall, I. Olkin, and B. C. Arnold, Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and its Applications, 2nd ed., Vol. 143 (Springer, 2011).
  43. M. A. Nielsen, Conditions for a class of entanglement transformations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 436 (1999).
  44. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and J. Oppenheim, Reversible transformations from pure to mixed states and the unique measure of information, Phys. Rev. A 67, 062104 (2003).
  45. A. Winter and D. Yang, Operational resource theory of coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 120404 (2016).
  46. M. Horodecki and J. Oppenheim, Fundamental limitations for quantum and nanoscale thermodynamics, Nature communications 4, 2059 (2013).
  47. W. Dür and J. I. Cirac, Classification of multiqubit mixed states: Separability and distillability properties, Phys. Rev. A 61, 042314 (2000).
  48. O. Gühne and M. Seevinck, Separability criteria for genuine multiparticle entanglement, New J. Phys. 12, 053002 (2010).
  49. S. S. Roy and T. Mahesh, Density matrix tomography of singlet states, J. Magn. Reson. 206, 127 (2010).
  50. M. Carravetta and M. H. Levitt, Long-lived nuclear spin states in high-field solution NMR, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 126, 6228 (2004).
Citations (5)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Sign Up to Summarize

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate All Videos Subscribe on YouTube

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Generate Now

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Generate Now

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.

Sign Up for Free