Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Dalton, B J; Goold, J; Garraway, B M; Reid, M D (2017)
Publisher: Institute of Physics
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: QC0170

Classified by OpenAIRE into

arxiv: Quantum Physics
These two accompanying papers are concerned with entanglement for systems of identical massive bosons and the relationship to spin squeezing and other quantum correlation effects. The main focus is on two mode entanglement, but multi-mode entanglement is also considered. The bosons may be atoms or molecules as in cold quantum gases. The previous paper I dealt with the general features of quantum entanglement and its specific definition in the case of systems of identical bosons. Entanglement is a property shared between two (or more) quantum sub-systems. In defining entanglement for systems of identical massive particles, it was concluded that the single particle states or modes are the most appropriate choice for sub-systems that are distinguishable, that the general quantum states must comply both with the symmetrization principle and the super-selection rules (SSR) that forbid quantum superpositions of states with differing total particle number (global SSR compliance). Further, it was concluded that (in the separable states) quantum superpositions of sub-system states with differing sub-system particle number (local SSR compliance) also do not occur. The present paper II determines possible tests for entanglement based on the treatment of entanglement set out in paper I. Several inequalities involving variances and mean values of operators have been previously proposed as tests for entanglement between two sub-systems. These inequalities generally involve mode annihilation and creation operators and include the inequalities that define spin squeezing. In this paper, spin squeezing criteria for two mode systems are examined, and spin squeezing is also considered for principle spin operator components where the covariance matrix is diagonal. The proof, which is based on our SSR compliant approach shows that the presence of spin squeezing in any one of the spin components requires entanglement of the relevant pair of modes. A simple Bloch vector test for entanglement is also derived. Thus we show that spin squeezing becomes a rigorous test for entanglement in a system of massive bosons, when viewed as a test for entanglement between two modes. In addition, other previously proposed tests for entanglement involving spin operators are considered, including those based on the sum of the variances for two spin components. All of the tests are still valid when the present concept of entanglement based on the symmetrization and SSR criteria is applied. These tests also apply in cases of multi-mode entanglement, though with restrictions in the case of sub-systems each consisting of pairs of modes. Tests involving quantum correlation functions are also considered and for global SSR compliant states these are shown to be equivalent to tests involving spin operators. A new weak correlation test is derived for entanglement based on local SSR compliance for separable states, complementing the stronger correlation test obtained previously when this is ignored. The Bloch vector test is equivalent to one case of this weak correlation test. Quadrature squeezing for single modes is also examined but not found to yield a useful entanglement test, whereas two mode quadrature squeezing proves to be a valid entanglement test, though not as useful as the Bloch vector test. The various entanglement tests are considered for well-known entangled states, such as binomial states, relative phase eigenstates and NOON states—sometimes the new tests are satisfied while than those obtained in other papers are not. The present paper II then outlines the theory for a simple two mode interferometer showing that such an interferometer can be used to measure the mean values and covariance matrix for the spin operators involved in entanglement tests for the two mode bosonic system. The treatment is also generalized to cover multi-mode interferometry. The interferometer involves a pulsed classical field characterized by a phase variable and an area variable defined by the time integral of the field amplitude, and leads to a coupling between the two modes. For simplicity the center frequency was chosen to be resonant with the inter-mode transition frequency. Measuring the mean and variance of the population difference between the two modes for the output state of the interferometer for various choices of interferometer variables is shown to enable the mean values and covariance matrix for the spin operators for the input quantum state of the two mode system to be determined. The paper concludes with a discussion of several key experimental papers on spin squeezing.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [1] Dalton B J, Goold J, Garraway B M and Reid M D Quantum entanglement for systems of identical bosons: I. General features Phys. Scr. 92 023004
    • [2] Dalton B J, Heaney L, Goold J, Garraway B M and Busch T 2014 New J. Phys. 16 013026
    • [3] Peres A 1993 Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods (Dortrecht: Kluwer)
    • [4] Verstraete F and Cirac J I 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 010404
    • [5] Bartlett S D, Rudolph T and Spekkens R W 2006 Int. J. Quant. Infn. 4 17
    • [6] Leggett A J 2001 Rev. Mod. Phys. 73 307
    • [7] Dalton B J and Ghanbari S 2012 J. Mod. Opt. 59 287 Dalton B J and Ghanbari S 2013 J. Mod. Opt. 60 602
    • [8] Caves C M 1981 Phys. Rev. D 23 1693
    • [9] Kitagawa M and Ueda M 1993 Phys. Rev. A 47 5138
    • [10] Pezze L and Smerzi A 2009 Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 100401
    • [11] Berry D W and Wiseman H W 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 5098
    • [12] Braunstein S L and Caves C M 1994 Phys. Rev. Lett. 72 3439
    • [13] Helstrom C W 1976 Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory (New York: Academic)
    • [14] Sørensen A, Duan L-M, Cirac J I and Zoller P 2001 Nature 409 63
    • [15] Jaaskelainen M and Meystre P 2006 Phys. Rev. A 73 013602
    • [16] Rose M E 1957 Elementary Theory of Angular Momentum (New York: Wiley)
    • [17] Wineland D J, Bollinger J J, Itano W M and Heinzen D J 1994 [33] Duan L-M, Giedke G, Cirac J I and Zoller P 2000 Phys. Rev. Phys. Rev. A 50 67 Lett. 84 2722
    • [18] He Q Y, Peng S-G, Drummond P D and Reid M D 2011 Phys. [34] Toth G, Simon C and Cirac J I 2003 Phys. Rev. A 68 062310 Rev. A 84 022107 [35] Reid M D 1989 Phys. Rev. A 40 913
    • [19] Hoffmann H F and Takeuchi S 2003 Phys. Rev. A 68 032103 [36] Yurke B, McCall S L and Klauder J R 1986 Phys. Rev. A
    • [20] Amico L, Fazio R, Osterloh A and Vedral V 2008 Rev. Mod. 33 4033 Phys. 80 517 [37] Ferris A J, Olsen M K, Cavalcanti E and Davis M J 2008 Phys.
    • [21] Barnett S M and Pegg D T 1989 Phys. Rev. A 39 1665 Rev. A 78 060104
    • [22] Hillery M and Zubairy M S 2006 Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 [38] Chianca C V and Olsen M K 2015 Phys. Rev. A 92 043626 050503 [39] Gross C, Strobel H, Nicklas E, Zibold T, Bar-Gill N,
    • [23] He Q Y, Drummond P D, Olsen M K and Reid M D 2012 Kurizki G and Oberthaler M K 2011 Nature 480 219 Phys. Rev. A 86 023626 [40] Gross C, Zibold T, Nicklas E, Estève J and Oberthaler M K
    • [24] He Q Y, Vaughan T G, Drummond P D and Reid M D 2012 2010 Nature 464 1165 New J. Phys. 14 093012 [41] Estève J, Gross C, Weller A, Giovanazzi S and Oberthaler M K
    • [25] He Q Y, Reid M D, Vaughan T G, Gross C, Oberthaler M and 2008 Nature 455 1216 Drummond P D 2011 Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 120405 [42] Riedel M F, Böhi P, Li Y, Hänsch T W, Sinatra A and
    • [26] Raymer M G, Funk A C, Sanders B C and de Guise H 2003 Treutlein P 2010 Nature 464 1170 Phys. Rev. A 67 052104 [43] Li Y, Treutlein P, Reichel J and Sinatra A 2009 Eur. Phys. J. B
    • [27] Hyllus P, Pezze L, Smerzi A and Toth G 2012 Phys. Rev. A 86 68 365 012237 [44] Schuch N, Verstraete F and Cirac J I 2004 Phys. Rev. A 70
    • [28] Toth G, Knapp C, Guhne O and Briegel H J 2009 Phys. Rev. A 042310 79 042334 [45] Gupta B C and Guttmann I 2013 Statistics and Probability with
    • [29] Benatti F, Floreanini R and Marzolino U 2011 J. Phys. B: At. Applications (New Jersey, USA: Wiley) Mol. Opt. Phys. 44 091001 [46] Dalton B J 2015 Relative phase states in quantum optics (in
    • [30] Sørensen A and Mølmer K 2001 Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 4431 preparation)
    • [31] Dalton B J and Reid M D 2016 Quantum theory and local [47] Wiseman H M and Vaccaro J A 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 hidden variable theory: general features and tests for EPR 097902 steering and Bell non-locality arXiv:1611.09101 [48] Dowling M R, Bartlett S D, Rudolph T and Spekkens R W
    • [32] Hillery M, Dung H T and Niset J 2009 Phys. Rev. A 80 052335 2006 Phys. Rev. A 74 052113
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article