Dual entanglement measures based on no local cloning and no local deleting

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 70, Issue 5 A, 2004, Pages

  Horodecki, Michal ^a   Sen, Aditi ^b   Sen, Ujjwal ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GDA SK   (Poland)

^b LEIBNIZ UNIVERSITY HANNOVER   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLONING; CORRELATION METHODS; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; MACHINING; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROBABILITY; THEOREM PROVING;

BIPARTITE SYSTEMS; ENTANGLEMENT; QUANTUM CHANNELS; QUANTUM CORRELATIONS;

QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 37649032121     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.70.052326     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. W.K. Wootters and W.H. Zurek, Nature (London) 299, 802 (1982).
2. H.P. Yuen, Phys. Lett. 113A, 405 (1986).
3. A.K. Pati and S.L. Braunstein, Nature (London) 404, 164 (2000).
4. A.K. Pati and S.L. Braunstein, e-print quant-ph/0007121.
5. M. Horodecki, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, e-print quant-ph/0310100.
6. P. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A 232, 333 (1997).
7. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5239 (1998).
8. The transformation need be unitary only on the parallel subspace, and not on the whole Hubert space. Let |ψ| belong to the Hubert space H. Then the parallel space P is defined to be the subspace of ℋ⊗ℋ Ji that is spanned by all vectors of the form |ψ|ψ proving the no deleting theorem, that is, to prove the nonexistence of a transformation that achieves (2), we need only assume that the transformation is unitary on the subspace P.
9. R. Josza, e-print quant-ph/0204153.
10. M. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, e-print quant-ph/0306044.
11. M. Horodecki, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, e-print quant-ph/0310142.
12. C.H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crepeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993).
13. C.H. Bennett, D.P. DiVincenzo, J.A. Smolin, and W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1997).
14. V. Vedral, M.B. Plenio, M.A. Rippin, and P.L. Knight, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2275 (1997).
15. V. Vedral and M.B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. A 57, 1619 (1998).
16. G. Vidai, J. Mod. Opt. 47, 355 (2000).
17. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2014 (2000).
18. M. Horodecki, Quantum Inf. Comput. 1, 3 (2001).
19. P.M. Hayden, M. Horodecki, and B.M. Terhal, J. Phys. A 34, 6891 (2001).
20. E.M. Rains, Phys. Rev. A 60, 173 (1999).
21. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A 60, 1888 (1999).
22. L. Hardy. Phys. Rev. A 60, 1912 (1999).
23. D. Jonathan and M.B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1455 (1999).
24. M. Christandl and A. Winter, J. Math. Phys. 45, 829 (2004).
25. R. Alicki and M. Fannes, e-print quant-ph/0312081.
26. D. Bruß, D.P. DiVincenzo, A. Ekert, C.A. Fuchs, C. Macchia vello, and J.A. Smolin, Phys. Rev. A 57, 2368 (1998).
27. V. Bužek and M. Hillery, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1844 (1996).
28. This machine was also considered in Ref. [29] for the purpose of what was called "broadcasting of entanglement." However, note here that the concept of broadcasting of entanglement imposes some separability requirements (see [29]) on the output state at ABA'B'. These separability constraints are not required in our considerations. It is therefore conceivable that better local cloning machines than the one in Eq. (33) can be obtained, at least for mixed entangled states.
29. V. Bužek, V. Vedral, M.B. Plenio, P.L. Knight, and M. Hillery, Phys. Rev. A 55, 3327 (1997).
30. C.H. Bennett, H.J. Bernstein, S. Popescu, and B., Schumacher, Phys. Rev. A 53, 2046 (1996).
31. M.J. Donald, M. Horodecki, and O. Rudolph, J. Math. Phys. 43, 4252 (2002).
32. M.A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 436 (1999).