Physical model for the generation of ideal resources in multipartite quantum networking

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 82, Issue 3, 2010, Pages

  Ciccarello, F ^a   Paternostro, M ^b   Bose, S ^c   Browne, D E ^c   Palma, G M ^a   Zarcone, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PALERMO   (Italy)

^b QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENTANGLED STATE; GREENBERGER-HORNE-ZEILINGER STATE; PHYSICAL MODEL; QUANTUM NETWORKING; QUANTUM-INFORMATION PROCESSING; REMOTE SCATTERING; TELECLONING;

DATA PROCESSING; QUANTUM ELECTRONICS; QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT; TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORKS;

QUANTUM OPTICS;

EID: 77957328566     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.030302     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. M. Piani and J. Watrous, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.250501 102, 250501 (2009);
2. Ll. Masanes, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96. 150501 96, 150501 (2006).
3. D. Gross, S. T. Flammia, and J. Eisert, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.190501 102, 190501 (2009);
4. M. J. Bremner, C. Mora, and A. Winter, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.190502 102, 190502 (2009).
5. D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, in Bell Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by, M. Kafatos, (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1989), p. 69.
6. H. J. Briegel, Nature Phys. PRLTAO 1745-2473 10.1038/nphys1157 5, 19 (2009).
7. F. Ciccarello, M. Paternostro, M. S. Kim, and G. M. Palma, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.150501 100, 150501 (2008).
8. F. Ciccarello, M. Paternostro, G. M. Palma, and M. Zarcone, New J. Phys. NJOPFM 1367-2630 10.1088/1367-2630/11/11/113053 11, 113053 (2009).
9. M. Fitzi, N. Gisin, and U. Maurer, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.217901 87, 217901 (2001).
10. M. Hillery, V. Bužek, and A. Berthiaume, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.59.1829 59, 1829 (1999).
11. M. Murao, D. Jonathan, M. B. Plenio, and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.59.156 59, 156 (1999).
12. S. Gaertner, C. Kurtsiefer, M. Bourennane, and H. Weinfurter, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.020503 98, 020503 (2007).
13. W. Wieczorek, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101. 010503 101, 010503 (2008).
14. R. Prevedel, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103. 020503 103, 020503 (2009);
15. W. Wieczorek, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103. 020504 103, 020504 (2009).
16. As proposed in Ref. [5], it can be experimentally advantageous to have the mobile particles (scattering centers) as embodied by photons (quantum dots). A rigorous formal analysis shows that V thus takes the form ' i = 1 N J (σ x S ix + σ y S iy) δ (x - x i) [5]. Under RCs and for unpolarized spin states of e 's, we get the effective representation V RC = J δ RC (x) (σ x S x + σ y S y) with S x (y) = ' i = 1 N S ix (y). Notwithstanding the differences in the form of the spin-spin interactions, the considerations drawn for the case of Eq. (1) are in excellent agreement with the results gathered through photonic polarizations.
17. F. Ciccarello, New J. Phys. NJOPFM 1367-2630 10.1088/1367-2630/8/9/214 8, 214 (2006);
18. F. Ciccarello, J. Phys. A NJOPFM 1751-8113 10.1088/1751-8113/40/28/S09 40, 7993 (2007).
19. In Refs. [6,14] this property is proved for the case N = 2. The generalization to arbitrary N is straightforward.
20. F. Ciccarello, J. Phys. A NJOPFM 1751-8113 10.1088/1751-8113/40/28/S09 40, 7993 (2007).
21. K. Yuasa, J. Phys. A NJOPFM 1751-8113 10.1088/1751-8113/43/9/095304 43, 095304 (2010).
22. F. Ciccarello, Laser Phys. LAPHEJ 1054-660X 10.1134/S1054660X07060175 17, 889 (2007);
23. F. Ciccarello, M. Paternostro, M. S. Kim, and G. M. Palma, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 0219-7499 10.1142/S0219749908004079 6, 759 (2008).
24. B. H. Bransden and C. J. Joachain, Physics of Atoms and Molecules, 2nd ed. (Prentice-Hall, London, 2003).
25. In general, when s 1... n and s n + 1... N are added and s 1... n = s n + 1... N < n / 2, many singlet states may arise. For instance, for N = 6, when s 12 = 0, 1 is added to s 3 = 1 / 2 we obtain s 123 = 1 / 2, 3 / 2 with the quantum number s 123 = 1 / 2 being twofold degenerate. As a similar argument holds for s 456, it turns out that within the subspace s 123 = s 456 = 1 / 2 four orthogonal singlet states exist. This does not occur with s 123 = s 456 = 3 / 2 as these quantum numbers are not degenerate.
26. See supplementary material at [http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/ PhysRevA.82.030302].
27. H.-J. Lee, S. D. Oh, and D. Ahn, e-print arXiv: quant-ph/0212136v1.
28. N. Gisin and S. Massar, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.2153 79, 2153 (1997).
29. F. Ciccarello, S. Bose, and M. Zarcone, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.81.042318 81, 042318 (2010).
30. W. Dür, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.62.062314 62, 062314 (2000).
31. A pseudospin with s = 1 can be implemented using a quantum dot in an M configuration of energy levels [5].
32. K. Yuasa, D. Burgarth, V. Giovannetti, and H. Nakazato, New J. Phys. NJOPFM 1367-2630 10.1088/1367-2630/11/12/123027 11, 123027 (2009).