Experimental quantum coin tossing

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 94, Issue 4, 2005, Pages

  Molina Terriza, G ^a   Vaziri, A ^a,c   Ursin, R ^a   Zeilinger, A ^a,b  

^a INSTITUT FÜR EXPERIMENTALPHYSIK   (Austria)

^b ERICH SCHMID INSTITUTE OF MATERIALS SCIENCE   (Austria)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Barcelona; ICFO; Spain

Indexed keywords

COIN TOSSING; QUANTUM COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS; QUANTUM INFORMATION; QUANTUM KEY DISTRIBUTION;

ANGLE MEASUREMENT; BARIUM COMPOUNDS; ELECTRON ENERGY LEVELS; PHOTONS; POLARIZATION; PROBABILITY; PROBLEM SOLVING; QUANTUM THEORY;

QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY;

EID: 18044387397     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: 10797114     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.040501     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. M. Blum, in Coin Flipping by Phone (CRYPTO Report No. 1981, p. 11, 1981).
2. For a review on cryptographic protocols and their relation to quantum mechanics, see D. Gottesman and J.-K. Lo, Phys. Today 53, 22 (2000).
3. H.-K. Lo, and H. F. Chau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3410 (1997); D. Mayers, ibid. 78, 3414 (1997).
4. H.-K. Lo, and H. F. Chau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3410 (1997); D. Mayers, ibid. 78, 3414 (1997).
5. R. Clifton, J. Bub, and H. Halvorson, Found. Phys. 33, 1561 (2001).
6. For the sake of simplicity we explain a weak coin tossing (WCT), but we actually implemented strong coin tossing (SCT). In SCT, Alice locks in the box a bit b. After receiving the box, Bob sends to Alice a bit b′. The toss of the coin results from the operation b ⊕ b′. A WCT can be produced trivially from a SCT and as shown, a SCT can be implemented from bit commitment. For definitions and properties of WCT and SCT, see Ref. [7]. For a review on quantum bit commitment see I. Bub, Found. Phys. 31, 735 (2001).
7. A. Ambainis, in Proceedings of 33rd Annual Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2001 (ACM, New York, 2001), p. 134.
8. R. W. Spekkens and T. Rudolph, Phys. Rev. A 65, 012310 (2001); Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 227901 (2002).
9. R. W. Spekkens and T. Rudolph, Phys. Rev. A 65, 012310 (2001); Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 227901 (2002).
10. C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing (IEEE, Bangalore, India, 1984), p. 175.
11. H.-K. Lo and H.F. Chau, Physica D (Amsterdam) 120, 177 (1998).
12. D. Aharonov, A. Ta-Shma, U. Vazirani, and A. Yao, in Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Symposium on Theory of Computing 2000 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 2000), p. 705.
13. N. K. Langford et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 053601 (2004).
14. A.D. Greentree et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 097901 (2004).
15. A. Mair et al., Nature (London) 412, 313 (2001).
16. G. Molina-Terriza, J.P. Torres, and L. Torner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 013601 (2002).
17. G. Molina-Terriza et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 167903 (2004).
18. A. E. Siegman, Lasers, (University Science, Sausalito, 1986).
19. A. Vaziri, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, J. Opt. B 4, S47 (2002).
20. A better cheating strategy for Alice was sent to us by T. Rudolph, after the submission of the paper. Alice should prepare the state (2|0) + |1> + |2>)/√6 and tell Bob that she sends either (|0> + |1>)/√2 or (|0) + |2>)/√2.
21. J. Leach, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 257901 (2002).
22. J. Barrett et al., Phys. Rev. A 69, 022322 (2004).