In Section 2.4 we learned that a composite quantum system, composed of two subsystems A and B , is associated with a tensor product space HA ? HB . Composite quantum systems have already played an important role in many instances in this text, especially in open systems and measurement models. In this chapter we dive deeper into tensor product spaces, discovering some strange implications of the quantum theory of composite quantum systems. As a result of its tensor product structure, quantum theory has embedded into it the phenomenon of entanglement , which is often seen as the foremost quantum feature. As early as in 1935 it puzzled Erwin Schrödinger, who introduced the German term Verschränkung [127] and Albert Einstein, who, together with Boris Podolski and Nathan Rosen, used the specific example of an entangled state to argue that quantum theory is incomplete [58]. In the 1960s John Bell demonstrated that the consequences of entanglement are incompatible with the Einstein– Podolsky–Rosen model of local realism [11], [12]. In recent years entanglement has been recognized as the resource for quantum information processing. Nowadays entanglement theory is a highly developed subject, and we can present only the mathematical basics. For the reader with a deeper interest in entanglement we recommend the recent reviews by Horodecki et al . [80] and Plenio et al . [118], which also cover the quantum information aspects of entanglement. To simplify our discussion we will assume that the Hilbert spaces are finite dimensional.
In Section 2.4 we learned that a composite quantum system, composed of two subsystems A and B , is associated with a tensor product space HA ? HB . Composite quantum systems have already played an important role in many instances in this text, especially in open systems and measurement models. In this chapter we dive deeper into tensor product spaces, discovering some strange implications of the quantum theory of composite quantum systems. As a result of its tensor product structure, quantum theory has embedded into it the phenomenon of entanglement , which is often seen as the foremost quantum feature. As early as in 1935 it puzzled Erwin Schrödinger, who introduced the German term Verschränkung [127] and Albert Einstein, who, together with Boris Podolski and Nathan Rosen, used the specific example of an entangled state to argue that quantum theory is incomplete [58]. In the 1960s John Bell demonstrated that the consequences of entanglement are incompatible with the Einstein– Podolsky–Rosen model of local realism [11], [12]. In recent years entanglement has been recognized as the resource for quantum information processing. Nowadays entanglement theory is a highly developed subject, and we can present only the mathematical basics. For the reader with a deeper interest in entanglement we recommend the recent reviews by Horodecki et al . [80] and Plenio et al . [118], which also cover the quantum information aspects of entanglement. To simplify our discussion we will assume that the Hilbert spaces are finite dimensional.
Introduction The first realization that the validity of the quantum superposition principle in the Hilbert space describing a composite quantum system may give rise to fundamentally new correlations between the constituent subsystems came in the landmark 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR), where it was shown how the measurement statistics of observables in certain quantum states could not be reproduced by assigning definite wavefunctions to individual subsystems. It was in response to the EPR paper that Schrödinger, in the same year, coined the term entanglement ( Verschränkung ) to acknowledge the failure of classical intuition in describing the relationship between the “parts” and the “whole” in the quantum world: Whenever one has a complete expectation catalog – a maximum total knowledge – a ψ function – for two completely separated bodies, …then one obviously has it also for the two bodies together. But the converse is not true. The best possible knowledge of a total system does not necessarily include total knowledge of all its parts, not even when these are fully separated from each other and at the moment are not influencing each other at all. While Bell's strengthening of the original EPR-paradox setting and the subsequent experimental verification of Bell inequalities irreversibly changed the perception of entanglement from a property of counterintuitive “spookiness” to (beyond reasonable doubt) an experimental reality, the concept and implications of entanglement continue to be associated with a host of physical, mathematical, and philosophical challenges. In particular, investigation of entanglement in both its qualitative and quantitative aspects has intensified under the impetus of quantum information science (QIS).
We have seen, in Section 2.5, how the superposition principle leads to the existence of entangled states of two or more quantum systems. Such states are characterized by the existence of correlations between the systems, the form of which cannot be satisfactorily accounted for by any classical theory. These have played a central role in the development of quantum theory since early in its development, starting with the famous paradox or dilemma of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR). No less disturbing than the EPR dilemma is the problem of Schrödinger’s cat, an example of the apparent absurdity of following entanglement into the macroscopic world. It was Schrödinger who gave us the name entanglement; he emphasized its fundamental significance when he wrote, ‘I would call this not one but the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces the entire departure from classical thought’. The EPR dilemma represents a profound challenge to classical reasoning in that it seems to present a conflict between the ideas of the reality of physical properties and the locality imposed by the finite velocity of light. This challenge and the developments that followed have served to refine the concept of entanglement and will be described in the first section of this chapter. We start by recalling that a state of two quantum systems is entangled if its density operator cannot be written as a product of density operators for the two systems, or as a probability-weighted sum of such products. For pure states, the condition for entanglement can be stated more simply: a pure state of two quantum systems is not entangled only if the state vector can be written as a product of state vectors for the two systems. In the discipline of quantum information, entanglement is viewed as a resource to be exploited. We shall find, both here and in the subsequent chapters, that our subject owes much of its distinctive flavour to the utilization of entanglement.
Introduction We will now turn to quantum entanglements and their contemporary, possibly practical, interest. Entanglements, first discussed in the E.P.R. paradox (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, 1935) are a perplexing nonlocal feature of quantum mechanics. This was immediately and succinctly discussed by Schrödinger (1935). The long history of this apparent paradox is outlined in the wonderful book of Jammer (1974). We will not focus on the central issue of “hidden variables” and their resolution by the Bell inequalities (Bell, 1964) and the test, nor the failure, of these in experiment (see Fry, 1998). The distinctive quantum nature of entanglements has led to two quantum effects which we will discuss: quantum information teleportation (Zeilenger, 1998) and quantum computation by means of entangled states. A nice, recent, elementary introduction to the latter is in the Los Alamos reports of James and Kwiat (2002). The quantum correlations or entanglements are sensitive to environmental destruction. This was pointed out early by Zurek, who termed this “decoherence.” The loss of coherence may occur on a short time scale. Recent discussions have been given by Zurek (2002, 2003). We have already given a theoretical example early in Chapter 2. It is pertinent to discuss this here, since it is a property of opensystem quantum master equations that is a central part of our study in this book. In a sense, the decoherence of correlations has turned out to be a “practical” application of these theoretical notions. Are there remedies for unwanted decoherence? Quantum error correction is a possibility. This will be mentioned also. Entanglements: foundations Following the reading of the E.P.R. paper, Schrödinger (1935b) quickly repeated the argument from quantum theory, but more generally. He introduced the term “entanglement” to describe what he seemed to agree was a curious, if not unacceptable, property. Let us follow his point of view. Given a state ψ ( x, y ) of a composite system of particles x and y formed in their mutual interaction. ψ ( x , y ) is not a product state.
This document is an extended abstract of [Fri10b]. See [JNP + 10] for closely related results obtained by different methods. Quantum correlations in composite quantum systems. In the study of quantum entanglement and quantum correlations, one usually assumes that the state space of a composite quantum system is a tensor product HA ⊗ HB, so that the correlations take on the form P (a, b | x, y) = 〈ψ, (A a x ⊗ B b y)ψ〉. (1) with POVM observables Ax a and B y b. However, how is this justified from physical principles? Can we really be sure that this tensor product assumption is appropriate? One possible alternative assumption might be to say that a composite system is defined in terms of a joint Hilbert space H together with, for each site, a set of local observables on H, such that each observable located on the first site commutes with each observable located on the second site; in physical terms, this means that the observables located at different sites are compatible, and can in particular be measured jointly. This is the “commutativity assumption”. In the case of finite-dimensional case, this is effectively equivalent to the
The quantum measurement problems are revisited from a new perspective. One of the main ideas of this work is that the basic entities of our world are various types of particles, elementary or composite. It follows that each elementary process, hence each measurement process at its core, is a space–time, pointlike, event. Another key idea is that, when a microsystem [Formula: see text] gets into contact with the experimental device, factorization of [Formula: see text] rapidly fails and entangled mixed states appear. The wave functions for the microsystem-apparatus coupled systems for different measurement outcomes then lack overlapping space–time support. It means that the aftermath of each measurement is a single term in the sum: a “wave function collapse.” Our discussion leading to a diagonal density matrix, [Formula: see text] shows how the information encoded in the wave function [Formula: see text] gets transcribed, via entanglement with the experimental device and environment, into the relative frequencies [Formula: see text] for various experimental results [Formula: see text]. These results represent the first, significant steps towards filling in the logical gaps in the standard interpretation based on Born’s rule, and replacing it with a more natural one. Accepting objective reality of quantum fluctuations, independent of any experiments, and independently of human presence, one renounces the idea that in a fundamental, complete theory of Nature the result of each single experiment must necessarily be predictable. A few well-known puzzles such as the Schrödinger cat conundrum and the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paradox are briefly reviewed: they can all be naturally explained away.
One of the crucial differences between mathematical models of classical and quantum mechanics is the use of the tensor product of the state spaces of subsystems as the state space of the corresponding composite system. (To describe an ensemble of classical composite systems one uses random variables taking values in the Cartesian product of the state spaces of subsystems.) We show that, nevertheless, it is possible to establish a natural correspondence between the classical and quantum probabilistic descriptions of composite systems. Quantum averages for composite systems (including entangled) can be represented as averages with respect to classical random fields. It is essentially what Albert Einstein was dreamed of. Quantum mechanics is represented as classical statistical mechanics with infinite-dimensional phase space. While the mathematical construction is completely rigorous, its physical interpretation is a complicated problem (which will not be discussed in this paper).