Entanglement processing and statistical inference: The Jaynes principle can produce fake entanglement

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 59, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 1799-1803

  Horodecki, Ryszard ^a   Horodecki, Michal ^a   Horodecki, Pawet ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GDA SK   (Poland)

^b GDANSK UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Poland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA ACQUISITION; ENTROPY; FUNCTIONS; INFORMATION THEORY; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; VECTORS;

ENTANGLEMENT PROCESSING; JAYNES PRINCIPLE; QUANTUM INFORMATION THEORY; VON NEUMANN ENTROPY;

QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 0000924325     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.59.1799     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. W. Band and J. L. Park, Found. Phys. 1, 133 (1970);
2. Am. J. Phys. 47, 188 (1979).
3. J. W. Gibbs, Elementary Principles in Statistical Mechanics (Yale University.Press, New Haven, CT, 1902).
4. E. Jaynes, Phys. Rev. 108, 171 (1957);
5. E. Jaynes, Phys. Rev. 108, 620 (1957);
6. Am. J. Phys. 31, 66 (1963).
7. W. M. Elsasser, Phys. Rev. 52, 987 (1937);
8. J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1955);
9. R. S. Ingarden, A. Jamiotkowski, and R. Mrugata, Statistical Physics and Thermody nanties (PWN, Warszawa, 1990).
10. See, e.g., V. Bužek, G. Drobný, G. Adam, R. Derka, and P. L. Knight, J. Mod. Opt. 44, 2607 (1997);
11. for an extensive presentation of the use of the Jaynes principle, see W. T. Grandy, Am. J. Phys. 65, 466 (1997).
12. The term "Jaynes principle" is due to the fact that it was Jaynes who interpreted maximization of entropy in terms of information as a primitive notion. Note that the idea of "information without probability" was independently proposed by R. S. Ingarden and K. Urbanik, Bull. Acad. Pol. Sci., Ser. Sci., Math., Astron. Phys. 9, 313 (1961).
13. A. Wehrl, Rev. Mod. Phys. 50, 221 (1978).
14. C. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crepeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993).
15. C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881 (1992).
16. A. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991).
17. i| [11] [see also, P. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A 232, 233 (1997)].
18. R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989).
19. CHSH=a⊗b + a⊗b′+a′⊗b- a′⊗b′ where a,b,a′,b′ are dichotomic observables.
20. J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969).
21. S. L. Braunstein, A. Mann, and M. Revzen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3259 (1992).
22. R. Horodecki and M. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1838 (1996).
23. For a review of entanglement measures and their properties, see Ref. [17] (see also [18]). In particular, entanglement measure is required to have an important property: it cannot increase under the operation consisting of local quantum operation and classical communication. The latter property implies that entanglement measures are convex functions.
24. V. Vedral and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. A 57, 1619 (1998).
25. G. Vidal and R. Tarrach, Phys. Rev. A 59, 141 (1999);
26. G. Vidal, e-print quant-ph/9807077.
27. Since the constraints are linear, and entanglement measures are convex functions, the set of states with minimal entanglement is convex. Consequently, as entropy is a strictly convex function, maximizing entropy over the convex set we obtain a unique state.
28. C. H. Bennett, D. P. Di Vincenzo, J. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3814 (1996).
29. V. Vedral, M. B. Plenio, K. Jacobs, and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2275 (1997).
30. There is an analytical formula for entanglement of the formation of any two spin-1/2 state, see S. Hill and W. K. Wooters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 5022 (1997);
31. W. K. Wooters, ibid. 80, 2245 (1998).
32. S. Popescu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 797 (1994).
33. C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 722 (1996).
34. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 574 (1997).
35. B. Schumacher and M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A 54, 2629 (1996);
36. S. Lloyd, ibid. 55, 1613 (1997).
37. B. Schumacher, Phys. Rev. A 51, 2738 (1995);
38. see also R. Jozsa and B. Schumacher, J. Mod. Opt. 41, 2343 (1994);
39. H. Barnum, Ch. Fuchs, R. Jozsa, and B. Schumacher, Phys. Rev. A 54, 4707 (1996).
40. R. Jozsa, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1714 (1998);
41. see also M. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, and P. Horodecki, Acta Phys. Slov. 48, 133 (1998).
42. S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, Phys. Rev. A 56, 3319 (1997);
43. M. Horodecki and R. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A 244, 473 (1998).
44. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5239 (1998);
45. P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Acta Phys. Slov. 48, 141 (1998).