- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review A

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Entanglement of particles versus entanglement of fields: Independent quantum resources

Jan Sperling1,* and Elizabeth Agudelo2,3,†

  • 1Theoretical Quantum Science, Institute for Photonic Quantum Systems, Paderborn University, Warburger Straße 100, 33098 Paderborn, Germany
  • 2Atominstitut, Technische Universität Wien, Stadionallee 2, 1020 Vienna, Austria
  • 3Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information Vienna, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Boltzmanngasse 3, 1090 Vienna, Austria

  • *jan.sperling@uni-paderborn.de
  • †elizabeth.agudelo@tuwien.ac.at
PDF

Phys. Rev. A 107, 042420 – Published 17 April, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.042420

Abstract

Nature allows one to explore a manifold of remarkable quantum effects. Most prominently, quantum entanglement can be observed in many-particle systems, between multiple quantized fields, and in hybrid combinations thereof. This diversity, however, also leads to contradicting conclusions about what truly constitutes entanglement in any given physical scenario. By explicitly allowing various perspectives, we rigorously consider different notions of entanglement in the context of first and second quantization. By providing instructive examples, we show that particle entanglement and field entanglement are actually distinct phenomena that can occur and be observed independently of each other. This conclusion not only affects our fundamental understanding but has direct implications for quantum technology which can harness those independent forms of entanglement in practical scenarios.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (81)

  1. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
  2. J. P. Dowling and G. J. Milburn, Quantum technology: The second quantum revolution, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 361, 1655 (2003).
  3. R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009).
  4. M. B. Plenio and S. Virmani, An introduction to entanglement measures, Quantum Inf. Comput. 7, 1 (2007).
  5. O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Entanglement detection, Phys. Rep. 474, 1 (2009).
  6. N. Friis, G. Vitagliano, M. Malik, and M. Huber, Entanglement certification from theory to experiment, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 72 (2019).
  7. A. Ferraro and M. G. A. Paris, Nonclassicality Criteria from Phase-Space Representations and Information-Theoretical Constraints Are Maximally Inequivalent, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 260403 (2012).
  8. E. Agudelo, J. Sperling, and W. Vogel, Quasiprobabilities for multipartite quantum correlations of light, Phys. Rev. A 87, 033811 (2013).
  9. S. Köhnke, E. Agudelo, M. Schünemann, O. Schlettwein, W. Vogel, J. Sperling, and B. Hage, Quantum Correlations beyond Entanglement and Discord, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 170404 (2021).
  10. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
  11. E. Schrödinger, Discussion of probability relations between separated systems, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 31, 555 (1935).
  12. E. Schrödinger, Probability relations between separated systems, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 32, 446 (1936).
  13. S. Azzini, S. Mazzucchi, V. Moretti, D. Pastorello, and L. Pavesi, Single-particle entanglement, Adv. Quantum Technol. 3, 2000014 (2020).
  14. C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an Unknown Quantum State via Dual Classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993).
  15. C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Communication via One- and Two-Particle Operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881 (1992).
  16. S. P. Neumann, A. Buchner, L. Bulla, M. Bohmann, and R. Ursin, Continuous entanglement distribution over a transnational 248 km fibre link, Nat Commun 13, 6134 (2022).
  17. J. G. Ren et al., Ground-to-satellite quantum teleportation, Nature (London) 549, 70 (2017).
  18. L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Entanglement in many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 517 (2008).
  19. C. Simon, Natural entanglement in Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A 66, 052323 (2002).
  20. H. Häffner, W. Hänsel, C. F. Roos, J. Benhelm, D. Chek-al-kar, M. Chwalla, T. Körber, U. D. Rapol, M. Riebe, P. O. Schmidt, C. Becher, O. Gühne, W. Dür, and R. Blatt, Scalable multiparticle entanglement of trapped ions, Nature (London) 438, 643 (2005).
  21. R. A. Thomas, M. Parniak, C. Østfeldt, C. B. Møller, C. Bærentsen, Y. Tsaturyan, A. Schliesser, J. Appel, E. Zeuthen, and E. S. Polzik, Entanglement between distant macroscopic mechanical and spin systems, Nat. Phys. 17, 228 (2021).
  22. P. Zanardi, Quantum entanglement in fermionic lattices, Phys. Rev. A 65, 042101 (2002).
  23. V. Vedral, Entanglement in the second quantization formalism, Open Phys. 1, 289 (2003).
  24. S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Quantum information with continuous variables, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 513 (2005).
  25. M. Erhard, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Advances in high-dimensional quantum entanglement, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 365 (2020).
  26. M. Huber and J. I. de Vicente, Structure of Multidimensional Entanglement in Multipartite Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 030501 (2013).
  27. J. I. de Vicente, C. Spee, and B. Kraus, Maximally Entangled Set of Multipartite Quantum States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 110502 (2013).
  28. F. Levi and F. Mintert, Hierarchies of Multipartite Entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 150402 (2013).
  29. G. Adesso, A. Serafini, and F. Illuminati, Quantification and Scaling of Multipartite Entanglement in Continuous Variable Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 220504 (2004).
  30. S. Yokoyama, R. Ukai, S. C. Armstrong, C. Sornphiphatphong, T. Kaji, S. Suzuki, J.-I. Yoshikawa, H. Yonezawa, N. C. Menicucci, and A. Furusawa, Ultra-large-scale continuous-variable cluster states multiplexed in the time domain, Nat. Photonics 7, 982 (2013).
  31. M. Chen, N. C. Menicucci, and O. Pfister, Experimental Realization of Multipartite Entanglement of 60 Modes of a Quantum Optical Frequency Comb, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 120505 (2014).
  32. S. Gerke, J. Sperling, W. Vogel, Y. Cai, J. Roslund, N. Treps, and C. Fabre, Full Multipartite Entanglement of Frequency-Comb Gaussian States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 050501 (2015).
  33. S. Gerke, J. Sperling, W. Vogel, Y. Cai, J. Roslund, N. Treps, and C. Fabre, Multipartite Entanglement of a Two-Separable State, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 110502 (2016).
  34. W. Dür, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways, Phys. Rev. A 62, 062314 (2000).
  35. M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H. J. Briegel, Multiparty entanglement in graph states, Phys. Rev. A 69, 062311 (2004).
  36. M. Rossi, M. Huber, D. Bruß, and C. Macchiavello, Quantum hypergraph states, New J. Phys. 15, 113022 (2013).
  37. V. Vedral, Quantifying entanglement in macroscopic systems, Nature (London) 453, 1004 (2008).
  38. M. C. Tichy, C.-Y. Park, M. Kang, H. Jeong, and K. Mølmer, Macroscopic entanglement in many-particle quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 93, 042314 (2016).
  39. J. Sperling and I. A. Walmsley, Entanglement in macroscopic systems, Phys. Rev. A 95, 062116 (2017).
  40. H. Müller-Ebhardt, H. Rehbein, R. Schnabel, K. Danzmann, and Y. Chen, Entanglement of Macroscopic Test Masses and the Standard Quantum Limit in Laser Interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 013601 (2008).
  41. S. Raeisi, P. Sekatski, and C. Simon, Coarse Graining Makes It Hard to See Micro-Macro Entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 250401 (2011).
  42. E. Chitambar and M.-H. Hsieh, Relating the Resource Theories of Entanglement and Quantum Coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 020402 (2016).
  43. H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones, and A. C. Doherty, Steering, Entanglement, Nonlocality, and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 140402 (2007).
  44. L. Pezzé and A. Smerzi, Entanglement, Nonlinear Dynamics, and the Heisenberg Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 100401 (2009).
  45. G. Tóth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrology, Phys. Rev. A 85, 022322 (2012).
  46. P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezzé, and A. Smerzi, Fisher information and multiparticle entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 85, 022321 (2012).
  47. L. Maccone, Intuitive reason for the usefulness of entanglement in quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. A 88, 042109 (2013).
  48. D. Braun, G. Adesso, F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, U. Marzolino, M. W. Mitchell, and S. Pirandola, Quantum-enhanced measurements without entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035006 (2018).
  49. R. J. C. Spreeuw, A classical analogy of entanglement, Found. Phys. 28, 361 (1998).
  50. E. Karimi and R. W. Boyd, Classical entanglement? Science 350, 1172 (2015).
  51. J. Sperling, A. Perez-Leija, K. Busch, and C. Silberhorn, Mode-independent quantum entanglement for light, Phys. Rev. A 100, 062129 (2019).
  52. M. Fadel and M. Gessner, Relating spin squeezing to multipartite entanglement criteria for particles and modes, Phys. Rev. A 102, 012412 (2020).
  53. S. M. Tan, D. F. Walls, and M. J. Collett, Nonlocality of a Single Photon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 252 (1991).
  54. G. Ghirardi, L. Marinatto, and T. Weber, Entanglement and properties of composite quantum systems: A conceptual and mathematical analysis, J. Stat. Phys. 108, 49 (2002).
  55. F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, and K. Titimbo, Entanglement of identical particles, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 21, 1440003 (2014).
  56. G. Compagno, A. Castellini, and R. Lo Franco, Dealing with indistinguishable particles and their entanglement, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A. 376, 20170317 (2018).
  57. F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, F. Franchini, and U. Marzolino, Entanglement in indistinguishable particle systems, Phys. Rep. 878, 1 (2020).
  58. D. Cavalcanti, L. M. Malard, F. M. Matinaga, M. O. Terra Cunha, and M. França Santos, Useful entanglement from the Pauli principle, Phys. Rev. B 76, 113304 (2007).
  59. N. Killoran, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Extracting Entanglement from Identical Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 150501 (2014).
  60. B. Morris, B. Yadin, M. Fadel, T. Zibold, P. Treutlein, and G. Adesso, Entanglement between Identical Particles Is a Useful and Consistent Resource, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041012 (2020).
  61. K. Lange, J. Peise, B. Lücke, I. Kruse, G. Vitagliano, I. Apellaniz, M. Kleinmann, G. Tóth, and C. Klempt, Entanglement between two spatially separated atomic modes, Science 360, 416 (2018).
  62. M. Fadel, T. Zibold, B. Dècamps, and P. Treutlein, Spatial entanglement patterns and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering in Bose-Einstein condensates, Science 360, 409 (2018).
  63. P. Kunkel, M. Prufer, H. Strobel, D. Linnemann, A. Frolian, T. Gasenzer, M. Garttner, and M. K. Oberthaler, Spatially distributed multipartite entanglement enables EPR steering of atomic clouds, Science 360, 413 (2018).
  64. J. Sperling, A. Perez-Leija, K. Busch, and I. A. Walmsley, Quantum coherences of indistinguishable particles, Phys. Rev. A 96, 032334 (2017).
  65. K. Eckert, J. Schliemann, D. Bruß, and M. Lewenstein, Quantum correlations in systems of indistinguishable particles, Ann. Phys. (NY) 299, 88 (2002).
  66. J. Grabowski, M. Kuś, and G. Marmo, Entanglement for multipartite systems of indistinguishable particles, J. Phys. A 44, 175302 (2011).
  67. M. Oszmaniec and M. Kuś, Universal framework for entanglement detection, Phys. Rev. A 88, 052328 (2013).
  68. N. Friis, A. R. Lee, and D. E. Bruschi, Fermionic-mode entanglement in quantum information, Phys. Rev. A 87, 022338 (2013).
  69. A. Reusch, J. Sperling, and W. Vogel, Entanglement witnesses for indistinguishable particles, Phys. Rev. A 91, 042324 (2015).
  70. R. F. Werner, Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989).
  71. A. Sanpera, R. Tarrach, and G. Vidal, Local description of quantum inseparability, Phys. Rev. A 58, 826 (1998).
  72. J. Sperling and I. A. Walmsley, Quasiprobability representation of quantum coherence, Phys. Rev. A 97, 062327 (2018).
  73. J. Sperling, E. Meyer-Scott, S. Barkhofen, B. Brecht, and C. Silberhorn, Experimental Reconstruction of Entanglement Quasiprobabilities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 053602 (2019).
  74. A. M. L. Messiah and O. W. Greenberg, Symmetrization postulate and its experimental foundation, Phys. Rev. 136, B248 (1964).
  75. V. Fock, Konfigurationsraum und zweite Quantelung, Z. Phys. 75, 622 (1932).
  76. B. J. Smith and M. G. Raymer, Photon wave functions, wave-packet quantization of light, and coherence theory, New J. Phys. 9, 414 (2007).
  77. L. Susskind and J. Glogower, Quantum mechanical phase and time operator, Phys. Phys. Fiz. 1, 49 (1964).
  78. S. S. Mizrahi and V. V. Dodonov, Creating quanta with an ‘annihilation’ operator, J. Phys. A 35, 8847 (2002).
  79. P. Kok, H. Lee, and J. P. Dowling, Creation of large-photon-number path entanglement conditioned on photodetection, Phys. Rev. A 65, 052104 (2002).
  80. L. Ding and C. Schilling, Correlation paradox of the dissociation limit: A quantum information perspective, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 4159 (2020).
  81. L. Ding, S. Mardazad, S. Das, S. Szalay, U. Schollwöck, Z. Zimborás, and C. Schilling, Concept of orbital entanglement and correlation in quantum chemistry, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 17, 79 (2021).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 107, 042420– Published 17 April, 2023
  • Received 3 November 2022
  • Accepted 31 March 2023
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2023 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation