On the Simplest Entangled Mixed States

Preprint

Article

On the Simplest Entangled Mixed States

Altmetrics

Downloads

158

Views

Comments

Michel Boyer,

Tal Mor^*

Michel Boyer,

Tal Mor^*

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

03 August 2023

Posted:

07 August 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts

Abstract

Quantum entanglement is a fascinating topic with both theoretical and technological impacts. Yet, even in the simplest scenarios, there are still various open questions involving pure state and mixed state entanglement. Here we present the simplest entangled mixed states. We consider both qubits (quantum bits) and qudits (quantum digits). We first provide our simplest yet most important result for rank-2 bi-partite states, and we then generalize our results to go beyond rank-2 and to go beyond bi-partite states.

Keywords:

Subject: Computer Science and Mathematics - Other

1. Introduction

Quantum entanglement is a fascinating topic, both as a fundamental concept in physics [1,2,3], as well as in quantum information, communication, cryptography and computing [4,5,6,7]. In particular, entangled mixed states are still providing many challenges with both theoretical [4,8,9,10,11,12,13,14] and technological [15] impacts.

Here we present the simplest entangled mixed states. We consider both qubits (quantum bits) and qudits (quantum digits), and we clarify the challenge already in the introduction. We provide a fascinating result for rank-2 bi-partite states, in Section 2: The simplest entangled mixed state is simply any mixture of a single bipartite pure entangled state and a single bipartite pure product state. We provide extensions beyond rank-2, in the next two sections. Finally in Section 5 we generalize our main result from the bipartite to the multi-partite case. Some conclusions and open questions are mentioned in the Discussion.

1.1. A few simple examples/challenges

To clarify the problem, we present here a challenge:

Let two subsystems be of any dimension (quantum digits — qudits), and let

| Ψ^{+} 〉 = \frac{| 01 〉 + | 10 〉}{\sqrt{2}}

, and consider the following mixed states:

ρ = p | 00 〉 〈 00 | + (1 - p) | Ψ^{+} 〉 〈 Ψ^{+} |,

(1)

ρ = p | 01 〉 〈 01 | + (1 - p) | Ψ^{+} 〉 〈 Ψ^{+} |,

(2)

ρ = p_{0} | 00 〉 〈 00 | + p_{1} | 11 〉 〈 11 | + p_{2} | Ψ^{+} 〉 〈 Ψ^{+} |,

(3)

ρ = p_{0} | 00 〉 〈 00 | + p_{1} | 01 〉 〈 01 | + p_{2} | Ψ^{+} 〉 〈 Ψ^{+} |,

(4)

and lastly

ρ = p_{0} | 22 〉 〈 22 | + p_{1} | 23 〉 〈 23 | + p_{2} | Ψ^{+} 〉 〈 Ψ^{+} | .

(5)

Is it easy to see if each is entangled or not, for probabilities p,

1 - p

and

p_{i}

not equal zero? The answer is that one of the above states, and just one, is not entangled, with some choices of its parameters.

In this paper we will solve for these states and various generalizations.

1.2. Near the completely mixed state

First some known examples. If

ρ^{A}

and

ρ^{B}

are the completely mixed state then

ρ^{A} \otimes ρ^{B}

is also the completely mixed state and for p close enough to 1, the state

p ρ^{A} \otimes ρ^{B} + (1 - p) ρ_{1}

will be in a ball of separable states [16] around the completely mixed state for any state

ρ_{1}

, mixed or pure. A similar result was found even earlier [17] for n-qubits.

1.3. Werner state and a simple rank-4 separability-entanglement boundary

Another well known example, of two qubits and rank-4 mixed states, is the Werner states; consider the following states [18] of two qubits — an equal mixture of the four Bell states (i.e., a state identical to the completely mixed state of two qubits), plus some extra amount of one of them, e.g., WLG, an extra amount of the singlet state

| Ψ_{-} 〉

. A Werner state can also be written as

ρ_{W} = λ | Ψ_{-} 〉 〈 Ψ_{-} | + \frac{1 - λ}{3} [| Ψ_{+} 〉 〈 Ψ_{+} | + | Φ_{+} 〉 〈 Φ_{+} | + | Φ_{-} 〉 〈 Φ_{-} |],

(6)

where

| Ψ^{\pm} 〉 = \frac{| 01 〉 \pm | 10 〉}{\sqrt{2}}

and

| Φ^{\pm} 〉 = \frac{| 00 〉 \pm | 11 〉}{\sqrt{2}}

, and

1 / 4 \leq λ < 1

; it is then a rank 4 state. For

λ = 1

the formula gives the pure singlet state, and for

λ = 1 / 4

the state is the completely mixed state. The interesting range, as Werner found, is

1 / 4 < λ \leq 1 / 2

, because at this range it is a state that might seem entangled but is separable. Exactly at

λ = 1 / 2

, the separability is easily proven by writing the state as an equal mixture of the singlet state with each of the other Bell states, and noticing that

| Ψ_{+} 〉 〈 Ψ_{+} | + | Ψ_{-} 〉 〈 Ψ_{-} | = | 01 〉 〈 01 | + | 10 〉 〈 10 |

, and similarly with the other two Bell states when calculating in the x direction and y direction. Namely the state is shown to be separable with

N = 6

product terms:

ρ_{W} = (1 / 6) [| Ψ_{+} 〉 〈 Ψ_{+} | + | Ψ_{-} 〉 〈 Ψ_{-} |] + (1 / 6) [| Φ_{+} 〉 〈 Φ_{+} | + | Ψ_{-} 〉 〈 Ψ_{-} |] + (1 / 6) [| Φ_{-} 〉 〈 Φ_{-} | + | Ψ_{-} 〉 〈 Ψ_{-} |] .

(7)

1.4. Void state and a simple rank-3 counter example

A more complicated rank-3 mixed state example relies on the Werner states, in some sense, and on the notion of void states: Extending the Werner states definition to

λ < 1 / 4

is also of interest; in particular, for

λ = 0

it is a rank 3 state, which is an example of a state named a “void state” [13,19], in which a diagonalized density matrix has exactly one zero term on its diagonal.

Using a similar logic as in the Werner-state example, the void variant of the Werner state with

λ = 0

, namely

ρ_{v} = (1 / 3) [| Ψ_{+} 〉 〈 Ψ_{+} | + | Φ_{-} 〉 〈 Φ_{-} | + | Φ_{+} 〉 〈 Φ_{+} |],

(8)

is separable: each of the three Bell states can be equaly mixed with another of them,

ρ_{v} = (1 / 6) [| Ψ_{+} 〉 〈 Ψ_{+} | + | Φ_{-} 〉 〈 Φ_{-} |] + (1 / 6) [| Φ_{+} 〉 〈 Φ_{+} | + | Ψ_{+} 〉 〈 Ψ_{+} |] + (1 / 6) [| Φ_{-} 〉 〈 Φ_{-} | + | Φ_{+} 〉 〈 Φ_{+} |] .

(9)

Since this state also equal

(1 / 3) | Ψ_{+} 〉 〈 Ψ_{+} | + [(1 / 3) | 00 〉 〈 00 | + | 11 〉 〈 11 |]

, this provides the promised counter example — the state is separable with

N = 6

product terms, solving the challenge presented in the introduction. In the rest of the paper we will clarify why all other examples provided in the challenge are mixed entangled states.

2. The bi-partite rank 2 case

In this section we present our main result — the simplest entangled mixed state. To the best of our knowledge, our result here was never mentioned or noticed or proven.

Theorem 1.

Given a product state

| φ_{0}^{A} φ_{0}^{B} 〉

and a pure entangled state

| Ψ 〉

of a 2 partite

A, B

system, the state

ρ = p | φ_{0}^{A} φ_{0}^{B} 〉 〈 φ_{0}^{A} φ_{0}^{B} | + (1 - p) | Ψ 〉 〈 Ψ |

(10)

is entangled for all p such that

0 < p < 1

(the case

p = 0

is trivial).

Proof.

ρ

were separable then

ρ

could be written as

ρ = \sum_{i = 1}^{N} p_{i} | φ_{i}^{A} φ_{i}^{B} 〉 〈 φ_{i}^{A} φ_{i}^{B} |

(11)

with

p_{i} > 0

\sum_{i} p_{i} = 1

for some product states. We now show stepwise that eq. (10) and (11) cannot both hold without leading to a contradiction.

First, let

| Φ_{i} 〉

denote the state

| φ_{i}^{A} φ_{i}^{B} 〉

for

1 \leq i \leq N

as well as for

i = 0

so that equating (10) and (11) gives, with

p > 0

1 - p > 0

p_{i} > 0

p | Φ_{0} 〉 〈 Φ_{0} | + (1 - p) | Ψ 〉 〈 Ψ | = ρ = \sum_{i = 1}^{N} p_{i} | Φ_{i} 〉 〈 Φ_{i} |

(12)

From Lemma A1 it follows that

Span \{| Φ_{0} 〉, | Ψ 〉\} = Span \{| Φ_{i} 〉 ∣ 1 \leq i \leq N\}

(13)

Let

H = Span \{| Φ_{0} 〉, | Ψ 〉\}

;

dim H = 2

since

| Φ_{0} 〉

is separable and

| Ψ 〉

is not. The span of the states

\{| Φ_{i} 〉 ∣ 0 \leq i \leq N\}

(this time including

i = 0

) being equal to

H

, the set

\{| Φ_{0} 〉\}

can thus be completed to a basis of

H

using one of the states

| Φ_{i} 〉

with

1 \leq i \leq N

, which can be assumed without loss of generality to be with

i = 1

, so as to get

H = Span \{| Φ_{0} 〉, | Φ_{1} 〉\}

(14)

Notice

| Φ_{0} 〉, | Φ_{1} 〉

is only an algebraic basis of

H

. Those two states span

H

but are unlikely orthogonal; we will thus need to rely on properties of linear independent sets in vector spaces.

From

| Φ_{0} 〉 = | φ_{0}^{A} φ_{0}^{B} 〉

| Φ_{1} 〉 = | φ_{1}^{A} φ_{1}^{B} 〉

| Ψ 〉 \in Span \{| φ_{0}^{A} φ_{0}^{B} 〉, | φ_{1}^{A} φ_{1}^{B} 〉\}

and

| Ψ 〉

entangled, it follows that

\{| φ_{0}^{A} 〉, | φ_{1}^{A} 〉\}

and

\{| φ_{0}^{B} 〉, | φ_{1}^{B} 〉\}

are linearly independent sets. Indeed let

| Ψ 〉 = a_{0} | φ_{0}^{A} φ_{0}^{B} 〉 + a_{1} | φ_{1}^{A} φ_{1}^{B} 〉

; if it held that

| φ_{1}^{A} 〉 = c | φ_{0}^{A} 〉

it would follow that

| Ψ 〉 = | φ_{0}^{A} 〉 \otimes (a_{0} | φ_{0}^{B} 〉 + a_{1} c | φ_{1}^{B} 〉)

and

| Ψ 〉

would not be entangled. The same argument prevents

\{| φ_{0}^{B} 〉, | φ_{1}^{B} 〉\}

from being linearly dependent. It then follows that the states

| φ_{0}^{A} φ_{0}^{B} 〉, | φ_{0}^{A} φ_{1}^{B} 〉, | φ_{1}^{A} φ_{0}^{B} 〉, | φ_{1}^{A} φ_{1}^{B} 〉

(15)

are linearly independent.

If a linear combination of

| Φ_{0} 〉

and

| Φ_{1} 〉

is a product state, it must take the form

(a_{10} | φ_{0}^{A} 〉 + a_{11} | φ_{1}^{A} 〉) \otimes (a_{20} | φ_{0}^{B} 〉 + a_{21} | φ_{1}^{B} 〉)

(16)

However, since the states in (15) are linearly independent, for (16) to be in the span of

| Φ_{0} 〉

and

| Φ_{1} 〉

, it is required that

a_{10} a_{21} = 0

and

a_{11} a_{20} = 0

. If

a_{10} a_{20} \neq 0

then

a_{10} \neq 0

and

a_{20} \neq 0

and thus

a_{21} = 0

and

a_{11} = 0

so that (16) is equal to

a_{10} a_{20} | Φ_{0} 〉

; else

a_{11} a_{21} \neq 0

and then (16) is equal to

a_{11} a_{21} | Φ_{1} 〉

. That means that all the product states

| Φ_{i} 〉

are multiples of either

| Φ_{0} 〉

| Φ_{1} 〉

. It then follows that

ρ = \sum_{i = 1}^{N} p_{i} | Φ_{i} 〉 〈 Φ_{i} | = p_{0}^{'} | Φ_{0} 〉 〈 Φ_{0} | + p_{1}^{'} | Φ_{1} 〉 〈 Φ_{1} |

(17)

with two product states,

p_{0}^{'} > 0

p_{1}^{'} > 0

We are thus left with

p | Φ_{0} 〉 〈 Φ_{0} | + (1 - p) | Ψ 〉 〈 Ψ | = p_{0}^{'} | Φ_{0} 〉 〈 Φ_{0} | + p_{1}^{'} | Φ_{1} 〉 〈 Φ_{1} |

(18)

with

| Ψ 〉 = a_{0} | Φ_{0} 〉 + a_{1} | Φ_{1} 〉

for some

a_{0}, a_{1}

so that

| Ψ 〉 〈 Ψ | = | a_{0} |^{2} | Φ_{0} 〉 〈 Φ_{0} | + a_{0} \bar{a_{1}} | Φ_{0} 〉 〈 Φ_{1} | + \bar{a_{0}} a_{1} | Φ_{1} 〉 〈 Φ_{0} | + | a_{1} |^{2} | Φ_{1} 〉 〈 Φ_{1} |

However, by Lemma A4, the operators

| Φ_{0} 〉 〈 Φ_{0} |

| Φ_{0} 〉 〈 Φ_{1} |

| Φ_{1} 〉 〈 Φ_{0} |

and

| Φ_{1} 〉 〈 Φ_{1} |

are linearly independent; for the left hand side of (18) to be equal to its right hand side, the coefficients of

| Φ_{0} 〉 〈 Φ_{1} |

and

| Φ_{1} 〉 〈 Φ_{0} |

must consequently be 0, implying that

a_{0} \bar{a_{1}} = 0

and thus either

a_{0}

a_{1}

is 0, so that

| Ψ 〉

must then be a product state, giving the desired contradiction. □

3. Beyond rank 2 mixed states — the two-qubit case

One might conjecture that a simple extension from Theorem 1, i.e., extending from rank 2 states into rank 3 states (or higher ranks), is possible, and think that:

“Mixing two (or more) pure product states with a single entangled pure state yields a mixed entangled state.”

However, the void-state example in the introduction already provided a counter example. The following two propositions provide interesting generalizations of the above trivial counter example, via two steps, for both rank-3 states and rank-4 states.

3.1. Extending the basic rank 3 void-state counter example

Proposition 1.

The state

ρ = p_{0} | 00 〉 〈 00 | + p_{1} | 11 〉 〈 11 | + p_{2} | Ψ^{+} 〉 〈 Ψ^{+} |

(19)

is entangled if and only if

p_{2} > 2 \cdot \sqrt{p_{0} p_{1}}

(20)

Proof.

The Peres-Horodecki [20,21] criterion states that, in a

2 \times 2

system, a state is separable iff its partial transpose is positive semi-definite. The partial transpose of

| Ψ^{+} 〉 〈 Ψ^{+} | = [| 01 〉 〈 01 | + | 01 〉 〈 10 | + | 10 〉 〈 01 | + | 10 〉 〈 10 |] / 2

\frac{1}{2} [| 01 〉 〈 01 | + | 00 〉 〈 11 | + | 11 〉 〈 00 | + | 10 〉 〈 10 |]

that of

| 00 〉 〈 00 |

| 00 〉 〈 00 |

and that of

| 11 〉 〈 11 |

| 11 〉 〈 11 |

. It follows that the partial transpose of

ρ

in matrix form (with rows and columns in the order 00, 11, 01, 10) is

[\begin{matrix} p_{0} & \frac{p_{2}}{2} & 0 & 0 \\ \frac{p_{2}}{2} & p_{1} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \frac{p_{2}}{2} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{p_{2}}{2} \end{matrix}]

That matrix is block diagonal and it is positive semi definite if and only if the block

[\begin{matrix} p_{0} & p_{2} / 2 \\ p_{2} / 2 & p_{1} \end{matrix}]

has no negative eigenvalue. Those are solution of the characteristic equation

(λ - p_{0}) (λ - p_{1}) - {(p_{2} / 2)}^{2} = 0

i.e.

λ^{2} - (p_{0} + p_{1}) λ + p_{0} p_{1} - {(p_{2} / 2)}^{2} = 0

The roots are

\frac{(p_{0} + p_{1}) \pm \sqrt{{(p_{0} + p_{1})}^{2} - 4 (p_{0} p_{1} - {(p_{2} / 2)}^{2})}}{2}

and they are non negative iff

{(p_{0} + p_{1})}^{2} \geq {(p_{0} + p_{1})}^{2} - 4 (p_{0} p_{1} - {(p_{2} / 2)}^{2})

i.e.

p_{0} p_{1} \geq {(p_{2} / 2)}^{2}

so that

ρ

is separable iff

p_{0} p_{1} \geq {(p_{2} / 2)}^{2}

or equivaletly

ρ

is entangled iff

{(p_{2} / 2)}^{2} > p_{0} p_{1}

. □

The void state example in the introduction is a special case of this one, with

p_{0} = p_{1} = p_{2} = 1 / 3

, hence

{(1 / 6)}^{2} < 1 / 9

proving separability.

3.2. A more general case - beyond void states

Proposition 2.

The state

ρ = \sum_{i = 0}^{1} \sum_{j = 0}^{1} p_{i j} | i j 〉 〈 i j | + p^{'} | Ψ^{+} 〉 〈 Ψ^{+} |

is entangled if and only if

p^{'} > 2 \cdot \sqrt{p_{00} p_{11}}

(21)

Proof.

The partial transpose of

p_{i j} | i j 〉 〈 i j |

p_{i j} | i j 〉 〈 i j |

. The partial transpose of

p^{'} | Ψ^{+} 〉 〈 Ψ^{+} |

\frac{p^{'}}{2} [| 01 〉 〈 01 | + | 00 〉 〈 11 | + | 11 〉 〈 00 | + | 10 〉 〈 10 |]

In matrix form, the partial transpose of ρ with rows and columns in the 00, 11, 01 and 10 order is

[\begin{matrix} p_{00} & \frac{p^{'}}{2} & 0 & 0 \\ \frac{p^{'}}{2} & p_{11} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & p_{01} + \frac{p^{'}}{2} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & p_{10} + \frac{p^{'}}{2} \end{matrix}]

That matrix is block diagonal and it is positive semi definite if and only if the block

[\begin{matrix} p_{00} & p^{'} / 2 \\ p^{'} / 2 & p_{11} \end{matrix}]

has no negative eigenvalue. Those are solution of the characteristic equation

(λ - p_{00}) (λ - p_{11}) - {(p^{'} / 2)}^{2} = 0

i.e.

λ^{2} - (p_{00} + p_{11}) λ + p_{00} p_{11} - {(p^{'} / 2)}^{2} = 0

The roots are

\frac{(p_{00} + p_{11}) \pm \sqrt{{(p_{00} + p_{11})}^{2} - 4 (p_{00} p_{11} - {(p^{'} / 2)}^{2})}}{2}

and they are non negative iff

{(p_{00} + p_{11})}^{2} \geq {(p_{00} + p_{11})}^{2} - 4 (p_{00} p_{11} - {(p^{'} / 2)}^{2})

i.e.

p_{00} p_{11} \geq {(p^{'} / 2)}^{2}

so that, since ρ is in a

2 \times 2

dimensional system, ρ is separable iff

p_{00} p_{11} \geq {(p^{'} / 2)}^{2}

or equivaletly ρ is entangled iff

{(p^{'} / 2)}^{2} > p_{00} p_{11}

□

Corollary 1.

ρ in the preceding proposition is entangled as soon as the coefficient of

| 00 〉 〈 00 |

| 11 〉 〈 11 |

is 0 and

p^{'} > 0

4. The bi-partite case, higher ranks

While we just saw that it is not trivial to find simple mixed entangled state in a bi-partite system when the rank of the mixed state is 3 or 4, here we show a way to find simple mixed entangled states for states of any rank larger than 2. For simplicity we focus on extending the rank of subsystem B only.

4.1. A bipartite case — with any rank on subsystem B

We focus here on extending the previous theorem such that, while subsystem A is still of rank 2, there is no limit on the rank of subsystem B.

Theorem 2.

Given a product state

| φ^{A} 〉 〈 φ^{A} | \otimes ρ^{B}

with

ρ^{B}

a mixed state (of rank

K > 1

) on the B system and a pure entangled state

| Ψ 〉

of a bipartite

A, B

system, the state

ρ = p | φ^{A} 〉 〈 φ^{A} | \otimes ρ^{B} + (1 - p) | Ψ 〉 〈 Ψ |

(22)

is entangled for all p such that

0 < p < 1

(the case

p = 0

is trivial).

Proof.

Let

ρ^{B} = \sum_{k = 1}^{K} λ_{k} | φ_{k}^{B} 〉 〈 φ_{k}^{B} |

be an eigen-decomposition of

ρ^{B}

with

λ_{k} > 0

and the

| φ_{k}^{B} 〉

normalized and orthogonal. The state

ρ

can then be written

ρ = \sum_{k = 1}^{K} p λ_{k} | φ^{A} φ_{k}^{B} 〉 〈 φ^{A} φ_{k}^{B} | + (1 - p) | Ψ 〉 〈 Ψ |

(23)

where the states

| φ^{A} φ_{k}^{B} 〉

are pairwise orthogonal and consequently linearly independent. Also

| Ψ 〉

cannot be in their span else it would take the form

| φ^{A} 〉 \otimes (\sum_{j} α_{j} | φ_{j}^{B} 〉)

and thus be separable. It follows that

dim Span \{| φ^{A} φ_{1}^{B} 〉, \dots, | φ^{A} φ_{K}^{B} 〉, | Ψ 〉\} = K + 1 .

(24)

We now assume that

ρ

is separable, for proving it cannot be. If

ρ

was separable then

ρ

could be written as

ρ = \sum_{i = 1}^{N} p_{i} | ψ_{i}^{A} ψ_{i}^{B} 〉 〈 ψ_{i}^{A} ψ_{i}^{B} |

(25)

with

p_{i} > 0

\sum_{i} p_{i} = 1

for some product states. Note that these product states are not expected to be orthogonal. We now show that if both eq. (23) and (25) hold with

| Ψ 〉

being entangled we reach a contradiction.

Since

ρ

is assumed to be both equal to (23) and (25), Lemma A1 gives

Span \{| φ^{A} φ_{1}^{B} 〉, \dots, | φ^{A} φ_{k}^{B} 〉, | Ψ 〉\} = Span \{| ψ_{i}^{A} ψ_{i}^{B} 〉 ∣ 1 \leq i \leq N\}

(26)

Let

H

be that common span;

dim H = K + 1

;

H

is also the span of the set

\{| φ^{A} φ_{j}^{B} 〉 ∣ 1 \leq j \leq K\} \cup \{| ψ_{i}^{A} ψ_{i}^{B} 〉 ∣ 1 \leq i \leq N\}

where the set on the left side is composed of K linearly independent vectors in

H

; those K vectors can be completed to a basis of

H

using one of the

| ψ_{i}^{A} ψ_{i}^{B} 〉

which we may assume, WLG, to be with

i = 1

so that

\{| ψ_{1}^{A} ψ_{1}^{B} 〉, | φ^{A} φ_{j}^{B} 〉 ∣ 1 \leq j \leq K\}

(27)

is a basis of

H

. We now proceed in two different ways to reach the contradiction:

On the one hand, if the B system is traced out, all remaining pure states are in the span of

\{| φ^{A} 〉, | ψ_{1}^{A} 〉\}

. It thus follows that for all

1 < i \leq N

| ψ_{i}^{A} 〉 = a_{i} | φ^{A} 〉 + b_{i} | ψ_{1}^{A} 〉

for some

a_{i}, b_{i} \in C

so that

| ψ_{i}^{A} ψ_{i}^{B} 〉 = a_{i} | φ^{A} ψ_{i}^{B} 〉 + b_{i} | ψ_{1}^{A} ψ_{i}^{B} 〉

(28)

On the other hand,

| ψ_{i}^{A} ψ_{i}^{B} 〉 \in H

and is thus in the span of (27), i.e. it must hold that

| ψ_{i}^{A} ψ_{i}^{B} 〉 = a_{i}^{'} | φ^{A} η_{i}^{B} 〉 + b_{i}^{'} | ψ_{1}^{A} ψ_{1}^{B} 〉

(29)

for some

a_{i}^{'}, b_{i}^{'} \in C

and

| η_{i}^{B} 〉 \in Span (| φ_{1}^{B} 〉, \dots, | φ_{K}^{B} 〉}

The equality of (28) and (29) means that

\begin{matrix} | φ^{A} 〉 \otimes a_{i} | ψ_{i}^{B} 〉 + | ψ_{1}^{A} 〉 \otimes b_{i} | ψ_{i}^{B} 〉 = \\ | φ^{A} 〉 \otimes a_{i}^{'} | η_{i}^{B} 〉 + | ψ_{1}^{A} 〉 \otimes b_{i}^{'} | ψ_{1}^{B} 〉 \end{matrix}

Since

| φ^{A} 〉

and

| ψ_{1}^{A} 〉

are linearly independent, by Lemma A2, for the equality to hold, it must hold that

a_{i} | ψ_{i}^{B} 〉 = a_{i}^{'} | η_{i}^{B} 〉

but more importantly that

b_{i} | ψ_{i}^{B} 〉 = b_{i}^{'} | ψ_{1}^{B} 〉

. Since both

| ψ_{i}^{B} 〉

and

| ψ_{1}^{B} 〉

are normalized states, this implies that they are equal (up to a phase factor) and, since i was chosen arbitrarily that implies

\begin{matrix} | ψ_{i}^{B} 〉 〈 ψ_{i}^{B} | & = | ψ_{1}^{B} 〉 〈 ψ_{1}^{B} | & 1 < i \leq N \end{matrix}

From this result along with 25, the mixed state is not a complicated separable state but a product state

ρ = [\sum_{i = 1}^{N} p_{i} | ψ_{i}^{A} 〉 〈 ψ_{i}^{A} |] \otimes | ψ_{1}^{B} 〉 〈 ψ_{1}^{B} |

. But now, if we trace-out the A system, we get a state of rank 1 for subsystem B. On the other hand, if we trace out the A subsystem in (23) we get a state of rank at least 2 which gives the desired contradiction. □

We conclude that the state discussed in Theorem 2, see eq.22, is entangled.

4.2. A bipartite case — with any rank — a question for thought

Observing the cases presented in the introduction, we can design similar examples not yet solved by the methods we presented here. E.g., this case, for subsystems of arbitrary dimension

ρ = p_{0} | 22 〉 〈 22 | + p_{1} | 33 〉 〈 33 | + p_{2} | Ψ^{+} 〉 〈 Ψ^{+} |

(30)

(and its extensions) is left as an open problem for future research.

5. The multi-partite rank 2 case

The basic result can be extended to an n partite system with a proof that follows the same lines.

Theorem 3.

Given a product state

| φ_{0}^{A_{1}} φ_{0}^{A_{2}} \dots φ_{0}^{A_{n}} 〉

and a pure entangled state

| Ψ 〉

of a n partite system

(A_{1}, A_{2}, \dots, A_{n})

, the state

ρ = p | φ_{0}^{A_{1}} φ_{0}^{A_{2}} \dots φ_{0}^{A_{n}} 〉 〈 φ_{0}^{A_{1}} φ_{0}^{A_{2}} \dots φ_{0}^{A_{n}} | + (1 - p) | Ψ 〉 〈 Ψ |

(31)

is entangled for all p such that

0 < p < 1

(the case

p = 0

is trivial).

Proof.

ρ

were separable then it could be written as

\sum_{i = 1}^{N} p_{i} | Φ_{i} 〉 〈 Φ_{i} |

with

p_{i} > 0

| Φ_{i} 〉 = | φ_{i}^{A_{1}} φ_{i}^{A_{2}} \dots φ_{i}^{A_{n}} 〉

so that, again, and for the same reasons

\begin{matrix} p | Φ_{0} 〉 〈 Φ_{0} | + (1 - p) | Ψ 〉 〈 Ψ | = ρ = \sum_{i = 1}^{N} p_{i} | Φ_{i} 〉 〈 Φ_{i} | \end{matrix}

(32)

\begin{matrix} H = Span \{| Φ_{0} 〉, | Ψ 〉\} = Span \{| Φ_{i} 〉 ∣ 1 \leq i \leq N\}, \end{matrix}

(33)

and we can still assume

H = Span \{| Φ_{0} 〉, | Φ_{1} 〉\},

(34)

with

| Φ_{0} 〉 = | φ_{0}^{A_{1}} φ_{0}^{A_{2}} \dots φ_{0}^{A_{n}} 〉

and

| Φ_{1} 〉 = | φ_{1}^{A_{1}} φ_{1}^{A_{2}} \dots φ_{1}^{A_{n}} 〉

. Some of the sets

\{| φ_{0}^{A_{j}} 〉, | φ_{1}^{A_{j}} 〉\}

for

1 \leq j \leq n

must be linearly independent else

| Φ_{0} 〉

and

| Φ_{1} 〉

would be linearly dependent. We may assume that this holds for

1 \leq j \leq k

and

| φ_{1}^{A_{j}} 〉 = | φ_{0}^{A_{j}} 〉

for

j > k

(constants can always be moved from one system to another). The states

\begin{matrix} | φ_{i_{1}}^{A_{1}} φ_{i_{2}}^{A_{2}} \dots φ_{i_{k}}^{A_{k}} φ_{0}^{A_{k + 1}} \dots φ_{0}^{A_{n}} 〉 & i_{j} \in {0, 1}, 1 \leq j \leq k \end{matrix}

(35)

are then linearly independent. We first show that

k > 1

. Otherwise

| Ψ 〉

would be in the span of

| φ_{0}^{A_{1}} φ_{0}^{A_{2}} \dots φ_{0}^{A_{n}} 〉

and

| φ_{1}^{A_{1}} φ_{0}^{A_{2}} \dots φ_{0}^{A_{n}} 〉

and would be equal to

(a_{0} | φ_{0}^{A_{1}} 〉 + a_{1} | φ_{1}^{A_{1}} 〉) \otimes | φ_{0}^{A_{2}} \dots φ_{0}^{A_{n}} 〉

for some

a_{0}, a_{1} \in C

and thus be a product state contrary to the hypothesis.

Now, if a linear combination of

| Φ_{0} 〉

and

| Φ_{1} 〉

is a product state, it must take the form

(a_{10} | φ_{0}^{A_{1}} 〉 + a_{11} | φ_{1}^{A_{1}} 〉) \otimes \dots \otimes (a_{k 0} | φ_{0}^{A_{k}} 〉 + a_{k 1} | φ_{1}^{A_{k}} 〉) \otimes | φ_{0}^{A_{k + 1}} \dots φ_{0}^{A_{n}} 〉

(36)

with

k > 1

. The states in (35) being linearly independent, for (36) to be in the span of

| Φ_{0} 〉

and

| Φ_{1} 〉

, the products

a_{1 i_{1}} a_{2 i_{2}} \dots a_{k i_{k}}

must be 0 when the

i_{j}

for

1 \leq j \leq k

are not all equal. Also

a_{10} a_{20} \dots a_{k 0} \neq 0

a_{11} a_{21} \dots a_{k 1} \neq 0

else eq. (36) is equal to 0. If

\begin{matrix} a_{10} a_{20} \dots a_{k 0} \neq 0 & k \geq 2 \end{matrix}

then

a_{10} \dots \hat{a_{i 0}} \dots a_{k 0} \neq 0

where the hat represents removing that given term from the product; since

(a_{10} \dots \hat{a_{i 0}} \dots a_{k 0}) a_{i 1}

(obtained by replacing

a_{i 0}

a_{i 1}

) must be 0, it follows that

a_{i 1} = 0

for

1 \leq i \leq k

. That means that (36) is equal to

a_{10} \dots a_{k 0} | Φ_{0} 〉

a_{11} a_{21} \dots a_{k 1} \neq 0

then (36) must be equal to

a_{11} \dots a_{k 1} | Φ_{1} 〉

. It then follows that all the states

| Φ_{i} 〉

are multiples of either

| Φ_{0} 〉

| Φ_{1} 〉

so that the right-hand side of eq. 32 can be rewritten as

ρ = p_{0}^{'} | Φ_{0} 〉 〈 Φ_{0} | + p_{1}^{'} | Φ_{1} 〉 〈 Φ_{1} |

which is nothing but eq. (17). The rest of the proof is identical to what follows eq. (17) at the end of the proof of Theorem 1. □

6. Discussion

We presented various cases in which is is easy to theoretically build an entangled mixed state. Our results shed some light also on the opposite question which is still open in many cases — given a mixed state, is it entangled or separable? Our result can also be found useful in analysis of experiments and technologies where it is potentially important to know what level of noise and interaction can still leave a state somewhat entangled.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.B. and T.M.; methodology, M.B. and T.M.; initial draft of Theorem 1, M.B.; initial draft of the paper, T.M.; review and editing, M.B. and T.M.; validation M.B. and T.M.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviation is used in this manuscript:

WLG	Without loss of generality

Appendix A

Appendix A.1. Lemmas

Lemma A1.

If in some Hilbert space

\begin{matrix} \sum_{i = 1}^{n} p_{i} | Φ_{i} 〉 〈 Φ_{i} | & = \sum_{j = 1}^{m} q_{j} | Ψ_{j} 〉 〈 Ψ_{j} | & p_{i} > 0, q_{j} > 0 \end{matrix}

(A1)

then

Span \{| Φ_{i} 〉 ∣ 1 \leq i \leq n\} = Span \{| Ψ_{j} 〉 ∣ 1 \leq j \leq m\} .

(A2)

Proof.

Let

H

be the span of the states

| Φ_{i} 〉

and

H^{'}

be that of the

| Ψ_{j} 〉

. For all

| φ 〉 \in H^{⊥}

it holds that

〈 φ | Φ_{i} 〉 〈 Φ_{i} | φ 〉 = 0

for

1 \leq i \leq n

which implies by eq. (A1) that

0 = \sum_{j = 1}^{m} q_{j} 〈 φ | Ψ_{j} 〉 〈 Ψ_{j} | φ 〉 = \sum_{j = 1}^{m} q_{j} {| 〈 φ | Ψ_{j} 〉 |}^{2}

and, since

q_{j} > 0

this implies

〈 φ | Ψ_{j} 〉 = 0

for

1 \leq j \leq m

i.e.

| φ 〉 \in H^{' ⊥}

which implies that

H^{⊥} \subseteq H^{' ⊥}

and thus

H^{'} \subseteq H

. By symmetry

H \subseteq H^{'}

so that

H = H^{'}

. □

Lemma A2.

Let

| φ_{0}^{A} 〉

and

| φ_{1}^{A} 〉

be linearly independent normalized states of subsystem A, and consider two subsystems A and B.

| φ_{0}^{A} 〉 \otimes | ψ_{0}^{B} 〉 + | φ_{1}^{A} 〉 \otimes | ψ_{1}^{B} 〉 = | φ_{0}^{A} 〉 \otimes | ψ_{0}^{' B} 〉 + | φ_{1}^{A} 〉 \otimes | ψ_{1}^{' B} 〉

(A3)

then

| ψ_{0}^{B} 〉 = | ψ_{0}^{' B} 〉

and

| ψ_{1}^{B} 〉 = | ψ_{1}^{' B} 〉

Proof.

Let us write, WLG,

| φ_{0}^{A} 〉

| 0 〉

, and, with nonzero coefficient b (note that a can be zero or nonzero),

| φ_{1}^{A} 〉 = a | 0 〉 + b | 1 〉

, such that

| 0 〉

and

| 1 〉

normalized and orthogonal, and

{| a |}^{2} + {| b |}^{2} = 1

Eq.(A3) can then be rewritten as

| 0 〉 \otimes | ψ_{0}^{B} 〉 + [a | 0 〉 + b | 1 〉] \otimes | ψ_{1}^{B} 〉 = | 0 〉 \otimes | ψ_{0}^{' B} 〉 + [a | 0 〉 + b | 1 〉] \otimes | {ψ^{'}}_{1}^{B} 〉

and, grouping terms

| 0 〉 \otimes [| ψ_{0}^{B} 〉 + a | ψ_{1}^{B} 〉] + | 1 〉 \otimes b | ψ_{1}^{B} 〉 = | 0 〉 \otimes [| ψ_{0}^{' B} 〉 + a | {ψ^{'}}_{1}^{B} 〉] + | 1 〉 \otimes b | ψ_{1}^{' B} 〉 .

It follows from lemma A3 that

b | ψ_{1}^{B} 〉 = b | ψ_{1}^{' B} 〉

, and therefore

| ψ_{1}^{B} 〉 = | ψ_{1}^{' B} 〉

since

b \neq 0

. It also follows from lemma A3 that

| ψ_{0}^{B} 〉 + a | ψ_{1}^{B} 〉 = | ψ_{0}^{' B} 〉 + a | ψ_{1}^{' B} 〉

; Using

| ψ_{1}^{B} 〉 = | ψ_{1}^{' B} 〉

it now follows that

| ψ_{0}^{B} 〉 + a | ψ_{1}^{B} 〉 = | ψ_{0}^{' B} 〉 + a | ψ_{1}^{B} 〉

, hence

| ψ_{0}^{B} 〉 = | ψ_{0}^{' B} 〉

. □

Lemma A3.

Let there be two subsystems with

| 0 〉

and

| 1 〉

the computation basis for the first (the left) subsystem. For clarity and consistency we call the right subsystem B.

| 0 〉 | ψ_{0} 〉 + | 1 〉 | ψ_{1} 〉 = | 0 〉 | ψ_{0}^{'} 〉 + | 1 〉 | ψ_{1}^{'} 〉

then

| ψ_{0} 〉 = | ψ_{0}^{'} 〉

and

| ψ_{1} 〉 = | ψ_{1}^{'} 〉

Proof.

Let

| j 〉

be an orthonormal basis of a subsystem B, and let

| ψ_{i}^{B} 〉 = \sum_{j} a_{i j} | j^{B} 〉

and

| {ψ^{'}}_{i}^{B} 〉 = \sum_{j} a_{i j}^{'} | j^{B} 〉

, for

i = {0, 1}

. Then the equality can be rewritten

\sum_{j} a_{0 j} | 0 j 〉 + \sum_{j} a_{1 j} | 1 j 〉 = \sum_{j} a_{0 j}^{'} | 0 j 〉 + \sum_{j} a_{1 j}^{'} | 1 j 〉

which, due to orthonormaility, implies

a_{0 j} = a_{0 j}^{'}

for all j i.e.

| ψ_{0}^{B} 〉 = | {ψ^{'}}_{0}^{B} 〉

also

a_{1 j} = a_{1 j}^{'}

for all j i.e.

| ψ_{1}^{B} 〉 = | {ψ^{'}}_{1}^{B} 〉

. □

Lemma A4.

{(| Φ_{i} 〉)}_{1 \leq i \leq r}

are linearly independent states of some Hilbert space

H

of dimension N, then the operators

{(| Φ_{i} 〉 〈 Φ_{j} |)}_{1 \leq i, j \leq r}

are linearly independent.

Proof.

\sum_{i j} a_{i j} | Φ_{i} 〉 〈 Φ_{j} | = 0

then

\sum_{i j} a_{i j} | Φ_{i} 〉 〈 Φ_{j} | Ψ 〉 = \sum_{i} (\sum_{j} a_{i j} 〈 Φ_{j} | Ψ 〉) | Φ_{i} 〉 = 0

for all

| Ψ 〉 \in H

and linear independence of the

| Φ_{i} 〉

implies that the coefficient of

| Φ_{i} 〉

is 0 for all i and

| Ψ 〉

i.e.

\sum_{j} a_{i j} 〈 Φ_{j} | Ψ 〉 = 0 = \bar{〈 Ψ | \sum_{j} \bar{a_{i j}} Φ_{j} 〉}

so that, for all i,

\sum_{j} \bar{a_{i j}} | Φ_{j} 〉 = 0

; linear independence of the

| Φ_{j} 〉

implies

\bar{a_{i j}} = 0 = a_{i j}

for all

i, j

. □

References

Einstein, A.; Podolsky, B.; Rosen, N. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 1935, 47, 777–780. [CrossRef]
Bell, J.S. On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics Physique Fizika 1964, 1, 195–200. [CrossRef]
Clauser, J.F.; Horne, M.A.; Shimony, A.; Holt, R.A. Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1969, 23, 880–884. [CrossRef]
Horodecki, R.; Horodecki, P.; Horodecki, M.; Horodecki, K. Quantum entanglement. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2009, 81, 865–942. [CrossRef]
Bennett, C.H.; Brassard, G.; Crépeau, C.; Jozsa, R.; Peres, A.; Wootters, W.K. Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1993, 70, 1895–1899. [CrossRef]
Ekert, A.K. Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s theorem. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1991, 67, 661–663. [CrossRef]
Jozsa, R.; Linden, N. On the role of entanglement in quantum-computational speed-up. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. 2003, 459, 2011–2032. [CrossRef]
Bennett, C.H.; DiVincenzo, D.P.; Smolin, J.A.; Wootters, W.K. Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction. Phys. Rev. A 1996, 54, 3824–3851. [CrossRef]
Wootters, W.K. Entanglement of Formation of an Arbitrary State of Two Qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1998, 80, 2245–2248. [CrossRef]
Horodecki, M.; Horodecki, P.; Horodecki, R. Separability of n-particle mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions in terms of linear maps. Physics Letters A 2001, 283, 1–7. [CrossRef]
Bennett, C.H.; DiVincenzo, D.P.; Mor, T.; Shor, P.W.; Smolin, J.A.; Terhal, B.M. Unextendible Product Bases and Bound Entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1999, 82, 5385–5388. [CrossRef]
Popescu, S.; Short, A.J.; Winter, A. Entanglement and the foundations of statistical mechanics. Nature Physics 2006, 2, 754–758. [CrossRef]
Boyer, M.; Brodutch, A.; Mor, T. Extrapolated quantum states, void states and a huge novel class of distillable entangled states. Soft Computing 2017, 21, 5543–5556. [CrossRef]
Boyer, M.; Liss, R.; Mor, T. Geometry of entanglement in the Bloch sphere. Phys. Rev. A 2017, 95, 032308. [CrossRef]
Preskill, J. Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum 2018, 2, 79. [CrossRef]
Gurvits, L.; Barnum, H. Largest separable balls around the maximally mixed bipartite quantum state. Physical Review A 2002, 66, 062311. [CrossRef]
Braunstein, S.L.; Caves, C.M.; Jozsa, R.; Linden, N.; Popescu, S.; Schack, R. Separability of Very Noisy Mixed States and Implications for NMR Quantum Computing. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1999, 83, 1054–1057. [CrossRef]
Werner, R.F. Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model. Phys. Rev. A 1989, 40, 4277–4281. [CrossRef]
Boyer, M.; Mor, T. Extrapolated States, Void States, and a Huge Novel Class of Distillable Entangled States. In Theory and Practice of Natural Computing; Dediu, A.H.; Lozano, M.; Martín-Vide, C., Eds.; Springer International Publishing, 2014; Vol. 8890, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 107–118. [CrossRef]
Peres, A. Separability Criterion for Density Matrices. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 77, 1413–1415. [CrossRef]
Horodecki, P. Separability criterion and inseparable mixed states with positive partial transposition. Physics Letters A 1997, 232, 333–339. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.

MDPI Initiatives

Important Links

Choose an area of interest and we will send you notifications of new preprints at your preferred frequency.

Disclaimer

On the Simplest Entangled Mixed States

Abstract

1. Introduction

1.1. A few simple examples/challenges

1.2. Near the completely mixed state

1.3. Werner state and a simple rank-4 separability-entanglement boundary

1.4. Void state and a simple rank-3 counter example

2. The bi-partite rank 2 case

3. Beyond rank 2 mixed states — the two-qubit case

3.1. Extending the basic rank 3 void-state counter example

3.2. A more general case - beyond void states

4. The bi-partite case, higher ranks

4.1. A bipartite case — with any rank on subsystem B

4.2. A bipartite case — with any rank — a question for thought

5. The multi-partite rank 2 case

6. Discussion

Author Contributions

Funding

Conflicts of Interest

Abbreviations

Appendix A

Appendix A.1. Lemmas

References

MDPI Initiatives

Important Links

Subscribe