Optimal reference states for maximum accessible entanglement under the local-particle-number superselection rule

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 79, Issue 3, 2009, Pages

  White, G A ^a   Vaccaro, J A ^a   Wiseman, H M ^a  

^a GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LINGUISTICS; OPTIMIZATION; QUANTUM ELECTRONICS; QUANTUM OPTICS;

ANCILLA; CONSERVATION LAWS; LOCAL OPERATIONS AND CLASSICAL COMMUNICATIONS; PARTICLE NUMBERS; PHASE ANGLES; QUANTUM SYSTEMS; REFERENCE STATE; REFERENCE SYSTEMS; SUPERSELECTION;

SEMICONDUCTOR RELAYS;

EID: 63649110420     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.79.032109     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. G. C. Wick, A. S. Wightman, and E. P. Wigner, Phys. Rev. 88, 101 (1952). 10.1103/PhysRev.88.101
2. Y. Aharonov and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. 155, 1428 (1967). 10.1103/PhysRev.155.1428
3. Our definition of finite references differs from the bounded references of Bartlett. In the latter case the bound is on some physical parameter of the reference such as the number of spin-1/2 particles or the mean photon number. In particular, bounded references can have either finite- or infinite-dimensional state spaces. In contrast, a finite reference is associated with a finite-dimensional state space. This state space could be a fixed subspace of an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. The important point in the context of this paper is that a finite reference has a finite number of adjustable parameters.
4. F. Girelli and D. Poulin, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 68, 012025 (2007). 10.1088/1742-6596/68/1/012025
5. F. Girelli and D. Poulin, Phys. Rev. D 77, 104012 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.104012
6. J. A. Vaccaro, F. Anselmi, H. M. Wiseman, and K. Jacobs, Phys. Rev. A 77, 032114 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevA.77.032114
7. S. D. Bartlett and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 097903 (2003). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.097903
8. H. M. Wiseman and J. A. Vaccaro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 097902 (2003). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.097902
9. J. A. Vaccaro, F. Anselmi, and H. M. Wiseman, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 1, 427 (2003). 10.1142/S0219749903000346
10. S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 555 (2007). 10.1103/RevModPhys.79.555
11. S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 027901 (2003). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.027901
12. S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, Phys. Rev. A 70, 032307 (2004). 10.1103/PhysRevA.70.032307
13. S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, Phys. Rev. A 70, 032321 (2004). 10.1103/PhysRevA.70.032321
14. E. Bagan, S. Iblisdir, and R. Munoz-Tapia, Phys. Rev. A 73, 022341 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevA.73.022341
15. N. H. Lindner, P. F. Scudo, and D. Bruß, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 4, 131 (2006). 10.1142/S0219749906001657
16. S. J. van Enk and H. J. Kimble, Quantum Inf. Comput. 2, 1 (2001).
17. J. Gea-Banacloche, Phys. Rev. A 65, 022308 (2002). 10.1103/PhysRevA.65. 022308
18. W. M. Itano, Phys. Rev. A 68, 046301 (2003). 10.1103/PhysRevA.68.046301
19. H. Nha and H. J. Carmichael, Phys. Rev. A 71, 013805 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.013805
20. M. Ozawa, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 1, 569 (2003). 10.1142/S0219749903000437
21. M. Ozawa, in Quantum Communication, Measurement, and Computing, edited by, S. M. Barnett, E. Anderson, J. Jeffers, P. Öhberg, and, O. Hirota, AIP Conf. Proc. No. 734 (AIP, Melville, NY, 2004), p. 95.
22. M. Ozawa, Phys. Lett. A 320, 367 (2004). 10.1016/j.physleta.2003.12.001
23. J. Gea-Banacloche and M. Ozawa, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclassical Opt. 7, S326 (2005). 10.1088/1464-4266/7/10/017
24. S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, S. D. Bartlett, J. A. Vaccaro, and D. T. Pope, Phys. Rev. A 74, 062313 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevA.74.062313
25. M. R. Dowling, A. C. Doherty, and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A 73, 052323 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevA.73.052323
26. We note that Jones use the term extractable entanglement in place of accessible entanglement.
27. Our constraint of a fixed number of particles means that it is not possible to make a direct comparison between the reference states considered in this paper and van Enk's refbit state which is based on an uncertain number of shared particles.
28. In contrast, the state |n is invariant to the group operation T (Φ) in the sense that T (Φ) |n n| T † (Φ) = |n n|, which illustrates the symmetry of |n with respect to U(1).
29. D. T. Pegg and S. M. Barnett, Europhys. Lett. 6, 483 (1988). 10.1209/0295-5075/6/6/002
30. J. A. Vaccaro and D. T. Pegg, J. Mod. Opt. 37, 17 (1990). 10.1080/09500349014550041
31. The Quantum Phase Operator: A Review, edited by, S. M. Barnett, and, J. A. Vaccaro, (Taylor and Francis, London, 2007).
32. G. S. Summy and D. T. Pegg, Opt. Commun. 77, 75 (1990). 10.1016/0030-4018(90)90464-5
33. D. W. Berry and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5098 (2000). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.5098
34. D. Stoler, B. E. A. Saleh, and M. C. Teich, Opt. Acta (London) 32, 345 (1985).
35. S. J. van Enk, Phys. Rev. A 71, 032339 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.032339