Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1002.2893 · European Journal of Physics

Entanglement for all quantum states

A C de la Torre, D Goyeneche, L Leitao

Published Jan 8, 2010• 31 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

It is shown that a state that is factorizable in the Hilbert space corresponding to some choice of degrees of freedom becomes entangled for a different choice of degrees of freedom. Therefore, entanglement is not a special case but is ubiquitous in quantum systems. Simple examples are calculated and a general proof is provided. The physical relevance of the change of tensor product structure is mentioned.

DOI
10.1088/0143-0807/31/2/010

Related papers

Entanglement for all quantum states

de la Torre, Alberto Clemente, Dardo Goyeneche, Leitao, Leonardo

It is shown that a state that is factorizable in the Hilbert space corresponding to some choice of degrees of freedom becomes entangled for a different choice of degrees of freedom. Therefore, entanglement is not a special case but is ubiquitous in quantum systems. Simple examples are calculated and a general proof is provided. The physical relevance of the change of tensor product structure is mentioned.

•Mar 1, 2010•25 citations

Quantum entanglement

Ingemar Bengtsson, Karol Życzkowski

Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics. Erwin Schrödinger Introducing entanglement So far, when working in a Hilbert space that is a tensor product of the form H = H A ⊗ H B , we were really interested in only one of the factors; the other factor played the role of an ancilla describing an environment outside our control. Now the perspective changes: we are interested in a situation where there are two masters. The fate of both subsystems are of equal importance, although they may be sitting in two different laboratories. The operations performed independently in the two laboratories are described using operators of the form Φ A ⊗ 1 and 1 ⊗ Φ B , respectively, but due perhaps to past history, the global state of the system may not be a product state. In general, it may be described by an arbitrary density operator ρ acting on the composite Hilbert space H . The peculiarities of this situation were highlighted in 1935 by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (1935). Their basic observation was that if the global state of the system is chosen suitably then it is possible to change, and to some extent to choose, the state assignment in laboratory A by performing operations in laboratory B . The physicists in laboratory A will be unaware of this until they are told, but they can check in retrospect that the experiments they performed were consistent with the state assignment arrived at from afar – even though there was an element of choice in arriving at that state assignment.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•May 11, 2006•1 citation

Epistemic vs Ontic Classification of quantum entangled states

Enrico Giannetto

In this brief paper, starting from recent works, we analyze from a conceptual point of view this basic question: can the nature of quantum entangled states be interpreted ontologically or epistemologically? According to some works, the degrees of freedom (and the tool of quantum partitions) of quantum systems permit us to establish a possible classification between factorizable and entangled states. We suggest, that the ”choice” of degree of freedom (or quantum partitions), even if mathematically justified introduces an epistemic element, not only in the systems but also in their classification. We retain, instead, that there are not two classes of quantum states, entangled and factorizable, but only a single class of states: the entangled states. In fact, the factorizable states become entangled for a different choice of their degrees of freedom (i.e. they are entangled with respect to other observables). In the same way, there are no partitions of quantum systems which have an ontologically superior status with respect to any other. For all these reasons, both mathematical tools utilize(i.e quantum partitions or degrees of freedom) are responsible for creating an improper classification of quantum systems. Finally, we argue that we cannot speak about a classification of quantum systems: all quantum states exhibit a uniquely objective nature, they are all entangled states

•Jul 30, 2012•0 citations

Entangled states : Classical versus Quantum

S. Kanmani

Quantum mechanics of composite systems, gives rise to certain special states called entangled states. A physical system, that is in an entangled state displays an intricate correlation between its subsystems. There are also some composite quantum states (classically correlated states or separable states) that are not entangled. It is generally claimed, often without a rigorous proof to support, that these intricate correlations of an entangled state cannot occur in a classical system. This expository article, provides an elementary proof that entangled states cannot arise in the setting of classical mechanics. In addition, a detailed description of the origin of entanglement in quantum systems is included. The mathematical concepts that are necessary for this purpose are presented. The absence of entanglement in the classical setting is due to the fact that every pure classical state of a composite system is a product state, that is, a tensor product of two pure states of the subsystems. In contrast, there are pure composite quantum states that cannot be expressed in the form of a product state or even by a convex sum of product states. Roughly speaking, this is because classical states are positive valued functions on the phase-space while quantum states are positive linear operators. The structure of the tensor product between two commutative spaces of scalar valued functions is drastically different from that of the tensor product between two non-commutative spaces of linear operators. In other words, entanglement is a non-commutative phenomenon.

arXiv:0907.1784•Jul 10, 2009•0 citations

Wigner functional theory for quantum optics

Filippus Stefanus Roux, Nicolas Fabre

Using the quadrature bases that incorporate the spatiotemporal degrees of freedom, we develop a Wigner functional theory for quantum optics, as an extension of the Moyal formalism. Since the spatiotemporal quadrature bases span the complete Hilbert space of all quantum optical states, it does not require factorization as a tensor product of discrete Hilbert spaces. The Wigner functions associated with such a space become functionals and operations are expressed by functional integrals -- the functional version of the star product. The resulting formalism enables tractable calculations for scenarios where both spatiotemporal degrees of freedom and particle-number degrees of freedom are relevant. To demonstrate the approach, we compute examples of Wigner functionals for a few well-known states and operators.

arXiv:1901.07782•Jan 23, 2019•2 citations

Factorization and entanglement in quantum systems

Jon Eakins, George Jaroszkiewicz

We discuss the question of entanglement versus separability of pure quantum states in direct product Hilbert spaces, and the relevance of the issue to physics. Different types of separability may be possible, depending on the particular factorization of the Hilbert space. A given orthonormal basis set for a Hilbert space is defined to be of type ( p , q ) if p elements of the basis are entangled and q are separable, relative to a given bi-partite factorization of that space. We conjecture that not all basis types exist for a given Hilbert space.

arXiv:quant-ph/0210041•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Dec 17, 2002•6 citations
It is shown that a state that is factorizable in the Hilbert space corresponding to some choice of degrees of freedom becomes entangled for a different choice of degrees of freedom. Therefore, entanglement is not a special case but is ubiquitous in quantum systems. Simple examples are calculated and a general proof is provided. The physical relevance of the change of tensor product structure is mentioned.
Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics. Erwin Schrödinger Introducing entanglement So far, when working in a Hilbert space that is a tensor product of the form H = H A ⊗ H B , we were really interested in only one of the factors; the other factor played the role of an ancilla describing an environment outside our control. Now the perspective changes: we are interested in a situation where there are two masters. The fate of both subsystems are of equal importance, although they may be sitting in two different laboratories. The operations performed independently in the two laboratories are described using operators of the form Φ A ⊗ 1 and 1 ⊗ Φ B , respectively, but due perhaps to past history, the global state of the system may not be a product state. In general, it may be described by an arbitrary density operator ρ acting on the composite Hilbert space H . The peculiarities of this situation were highlighted in 1935 by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (1935). Their basic observation was that if the global state of the system is chosen suitably then it is possible to change, and to some extent to choose, the state assignment in laboratory A by performing operations in laboratory B . The physicists in laboratory A will be unaware of this until they are told, but they can check in retrospect that the experiments they performed were consistent with the state assignment arrived at from afar – even though there was an element of choice in arriving at that state assignment.
In this brief paper, starting from recent works, we analyze from a conceptual point of view this basic question: can the nature of quantum entangled states be interpreted ontologically or epistemologically? According to some works, the degrees of freedom (and the tool of quantum partitions) of quantum systems permit us to establish a possible classification between factorizable and entangled states. We suggest, that the ”choice” of degree of freedom (or quantum partitions), even if mathematically justified introduces an epistemic element, not only in the systems but also in their classification. We retain, instead, that there are not two classes of quantum states, entangled and factorizable, but only a single class of states: the entangled states. In fact, the factorizable states become entangled for a different choice of their degrees of freedom (i.e. they are entangled with respect to other observables). In the same way, there are no partitions of quantum systems which have an ontologically superior status with respect to any other. For all these reasons, both mathematical tools utilize(i.e quantum partitions or degrees of freedom) are responsible for creating an improper classification of quantum systems. Finally, we argue that we cannot speak about a classification of quantum systems: all quantum states exhibit a uniquely objective nature, they are all entangled states
Quantum mechanics of composite systems, gives rise to certain special states called entangled states. A physical system, that is in an entangled state displays an intricate correlation between its subsystems. There are also some composite quantum states (classically correlated states or separable states) that are not entangled. It is generally claimed, often without a rigorous proof to support, that these intricate correlations of an entangled state cannot occur in a classical system. This expository article, provides an elementary proof that entangled states cannot arise in the setting of classical mechanics. In addition, a detailed description of the origin of entanglement in quantum systems is included. The mathematical concepts that are necessary for this purpose are presented. The absence of entanglement in the classical setting is due to the fact that every pure classical state of a composite system is a product state, that is, a tensor product of two pure states of the subsystems. In contrast, there are pure composite quantum states that cannot be expressed in the form of a product state or even by a convex sum of product states. Roughly speaking, this is because classical states are positive valued functions on the phase-space while quantum states are positive linear operators. The structure of the tensor product between two commutative spaces of scalar valued functions is drastically different from that of the tensor product between two non-commutative spaces of linear operators. In other words, entanglement is a non-commutative phenomenon.
Using the quadrature bases that incorporate the spatiotemporal degrees of freedom, we develop a Wigner functional theory for quantum optics, as an extension of the Moyal formalism. Since the spatiotemporal quadrature bases span the complete Hilbert space of all quantum optical states, it does not require factorization as a tensor product of discrete Hilbert spaces. The Wigner functions associated with such a space become functionals and operations are expressed by functional integrals -- the functional version of the star product. The resulting formalism enables tractable calculations for scenarios where both spatiotemporal degrees of freedom and particle-number degrees of freedom are relevant. To demonstrate the approach, we compute examples of Wigner functionals for a few well-known states and operators.
We discuss the question of entanglement versus separability of pure quantum states in direct product Hilbert spaces, and the relevance of the issue to physics. Different types of separability may be possible, depending on the particular factorization of the Hilbert space. A given orthonormal basis set for a Hilbert space is defined to be of type ( p , q ) if p elements of the basis are entangled and q are separable, relative to a given bi-partite factorization of that space. We conjecture that not all basis types exist for a given Hilbert space.