Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Non-projective Bell state measurements

Published 6 May 2024 in quant-ph | (2405.03872v1)

Abstract: The Bell state measurement (BSM) is the projection of two qubits onto four orthogonal maximally entangled states. Here, we first propose how to appropriately define more general BSMs, that have more than four possible outcomes, and then study whether they exist in quantum theory. We observe that non-projective BSMs can be defined in a systematic way in terms of equiangular tight frames of maximally entangled states, i.e.~a set of maximally entangled states, where every pair is equally, and in a sense maximally, distinguishable. We show that there exists a five-outcome BSM through an explicit construction, and find that it admits a simple geometric representation. Then, we prove that there exists no larger BSM on two qubits by showing that no six-outcome BSM is possible. We also determine the most distinguishable set of six equiangular maximally entangled states and show that it falls only somewhat short of forming a valid quantum measurement. Finally, we study the non-projective BSM in the contexts of both local state discrimination and entanglement-assisted quantum communication. Our results put forward natural forms of non-projective joint measurements and provide insight on the geometry of entangled quantum states.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (22)
  1. G. M. D’Ariano, P. L. Presti, and P. Perinotti, Classical randomness in quantum measurements, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 38, 5979 (2005).
  2. I. D. Ivonovic, Geometrical description of quantal state determination, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 14, 3241 (1981).
  3. C. M. Caves, C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack, Unknown quantum states: The quantum de Finetti representation, Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 4537 (2002), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article-pdf/43/9/4537/19182892/4537_1_online.pdf .
  4. S. Morelli, M. Huber, and A. Tavakoli, Resource-efficient high-dimensional entanglement detection via symmetric projections, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 170201 (2023).
  5. A. Tavakoli and S. Morelli, Enhanced schmidt number criteria based on correlation trace norms (2024), arXiv:2402.09972 [quant-ph] .
  6. I. Bengtsson and K. Zyczkowski, References, in Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement (Cambridge University Press, 2006) p. 437–461.
  7. G. Zauner, Quantum designs: foundations of a noncommutative design theory, International Journal of Quantum Information 09, 445 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219749911006776 .
  8. M. Wieśniak, T. Paterek, and A. Zeilinger, Entanglement in mutually unbiased bases, New Journal of Physics 13, 053047 (2011).
  9. N. Gisin, Entanglement 25 years after quantum teleportation: Testing joint measurements in quantum networks, Entropy 21, 10.3390/e21030325 (2019).
  10. B. C. Stacey, Maximal sets of equiangular lines (2020), arXiv:2008.13288 [quant-ph] .
  11. A. Tavakoli and N. Gisin, The Platonic solids and fundamental tests of quantum mechanics, Quantum 4, 293 (2020).
  12. I. J. Geng, K. Golubeva, and G. Gour, What are the minimal conditions required to define a symmetric informationally complete generalized measurement?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 100401 (2021).
  13. L. Welch, Lower bounds on the maximum cross correlation of signals (corresp.), IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 20, 397 (1974).
  14. P. Lemmens and J. Seidel, Equiangular lines, Journal of Algebra 24, 494 (1973).
  15. P. Horodecki, L. Rudnicki, and K. Życzkowski, Five open problems in quantum information theory, PRX Quantum 3, 010101 (2022).
  16. J. Haantjes, Equilateral point-sets in elliptic two- and three-dimensional spaces, Nieuw Arch. Wisk. 22, 355 (1948).
  17. J. H. van Lint and J. J. Seidel, Equilateral point sets in elliptic geometry, in Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Series A: Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 69 (1966) pp. 335–348.
  18. F. Pimpel, M. J. Renner, and A. Tavakoli, Correspondence between entangled states and entangled bases under local transformations, Phys. Rev. A 108, 022220 (2023).
  19. S. Bandyopadhyay and M. Nathanson, Tight bounds on the distinguishability of quantum states under separable measurements, Phys. Rev. A 88, 052313 (2013).
  20. A. Cosentino, Positive-partial-transpose-indistinguishable states via semidefinite programming, Phys. Rev. A 87, 012321 (2013).
  21. M. Navascués and T. Vértesi, Bounding the set of finite dimensional quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 020501 (2015).
  22. A. Tavakoli, D. Rosset, and M.-O. Renou, Enabling computation of correlation bounds for finite-dimensional quantum systems via symmetrization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 070501 (2019).

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

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

Open Problems

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

Continue Learning

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

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

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