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

Cambridge University Press eBooks

Measurement and entanglement

Jonathan A. Jones, Dieter Jaksch

Published Jul 19, 2012• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We now have all the basic tools we need to describe systems of one and two qubits. In this final chapter of Part I we look at some of the consequences of the peculiar properties of qubits when they are used to encode information. Many of these results can be traced to the properties of quantum measurement. Measuring a single qubit A key result in quantum information theory is that it is impossible to accurately characterize a single qubit. In other words, there is no experiment, or sequence of experiments, which allows us to find out the state of a single quantum bit. The reason for this problem is twofold. Firstly, we have to make some sort of decision about the basis we will use for the measurement. For example, when measuring a single qubit the most popular choice is to make a measurement in the computational basis. This is equivalent to asking the qubit whether it is in state |0⧽ or state |1⧽. If the qubit is indeed in one of the basis states the measurement process is simple, and we will get the obvious answer of 0 if it is in |0⧽ and 1 if it is in |1⧽. If, however, the qubit is in a superposition, such as α|0⧽+β|1⧽, then the situation is more difficult. Characterizing the state now means determining the values of the two complex numbers α and β, but the measurement can only return the answer 0 or 1, and for a superposition state one of these two answers will be returned at random, with probabilities |α| 2 and |β| 2 , respectively.

DOI
10.1017/cbo9781139028509.007

Related papers

Quantum information processing

Stephen Mark Barnett

We have seen how information can be encoded onto a quantum system by selecting the state in which it is prepared. Retrieving the information is achieved by performing a measurement, and the optimal measurement in any given situation is usually a generalized measurement. In between preparation and measurement, the information resides in the quantum state of the system, which evolves in a manner determined by the Hamiltonian. The associated unitary transformation may usefully be viewed as quantum information processing; if we can engineer an appropriate Hamiltonian then we can use the quantum evolution to assist in performing computational tasks. Our objective in quantum information processing is to implement a desired unitary transformation. Typically this will mean coupling together a number, perhaps a large number, of qubits and thereby generating highly entangled states. It is fortunate, although by no means obvious, that we can realize any desired multiqubit unitary transformation as a product of a small selection of simple transformations and, moreover, that each of these need only act on a single qubit or on a pair of qubits. The situation is reminiscent of digital electronics, in which logic operations are decomposed into actions on a small number of bits. If we can realize and control a very large number of such operations in a single device then we have a computer. Similar control of a large number of qubits will constitute a quantum computer. It is the revolutionary potential of quantum computers, more than any other single factor, that has fuelled the recent explosion of interest in our subject. We shall examine the remarkable properties of quantum computers in the next chapter. In digital electronics, we represent bit values by voltages: the logical value 1 is a high voltage (typically +5 V) and 0 is the ground voltage (0 V). The voltage bits are coupled and manipulated by transistor-based devices, or gates. The simplest gates act on only one bit or combine two bits to generate a single new bit, the value of which is determined by the two input bits. For a single bit, with value 0 or 1, the only possible operations are the identity (which does not require a gate) and the bit flip.

Oxford University Press eBooks•May 28, 2009•7 citations

Quantum Information with Meaning Inside and Outside the Quantum

Alastair A. Abbott, Cristian S. Calude, Karl Svozil

The ability to transfer information securely is essential in the modern world we live in. While the field of cryptography has long researched ways to do this, events over the last couple of years have brought the issues of secure information transfer squarely into the public eye. As a consequence, security and cryptography have quickly become issues of social and political importance, sparking debates about the values of privacy and the role of government. An essential ingredient of modern cryptography is the generation of randomness: cryptographic techniques are built on the premise that one has access to random bits. It is well known, however, that computers cannot produce algorithmically random sequences – that is, sequences with maximal algorithmic information content – but are doomed to produce ‘pseudorandomness’. This lack of randomness can be, and has been, exploited to compromise security, see [4]. The active field of quantum information theory has proposed approaches to provide supposedly ‘unbreakable’ security by exploiting various quantum phenomena. This security unfortunately relies on assumptions about the nature of quantum measurements and their ability to generate random bits. Anton Zeilinger summarises this by postulating that the simplest quantum systems, qubit, can hold only one bit of classical information [6]. This foundational principle is in line with a wider paradigm shift to view quantum information as an extension of classical information, but it is nonetheless unsatisfying to simply postulate this principle, given its importance in determining the practical advantages of quantum information theory. In order to understand better how quantum mechanics can help generate meaningful information, we instead look to relate the outcomes of quantum measurements to formal properties of the system based on more fundamental assumptions. Indeed, we have shown that a) some of the postulated properties of quantum information follow from the formal structure of the theory and b) a purely formal notion of information within a quantum world can generate, via measurement, meaningful and useful information in the macroscopic world (for example, in cryptography). The indeterminism of quantum measurements can be formalised via the notion of value indefiniteness. To explain this concept, let us consider an arbitrary quantum system and ask whether the outcome of a measurement of any observable quantity A (such as the energy of the system, its angular momentum (spin), etc.) is determined prior to the measurement. If this is the case, then we say the observable is value definite with value v(A); otherwise, the observable is value indefinite and v(A) is undefined. Mathematically, one can reduce all observable quantities to so-called projection observables, which can only take the values 0 or 1. Thus, the question of whether the outcome of several measurements can be simultaneously determined in advance can be rephrased in terms of the information ‘carried’ by a particular system in a definite quantum state. Classically, one expects that all quantities are determined in advance, and hence all observables are value definite. Quantum mechanically, however, the belief is that this is not the case, and the information content of quantum systems is limited. Formulating carefully the notion of value indefiniteness allows us to formalise the notion of (quantum) indeterminism; however, this doesn’t help clarify whether quantum systems are indeed value indefinite or not. Staying in this formal framework, the Kochen-Specker theorem [5] provides a first positive result, showing that at least some observables must be value indefinite if one makes the assumption known as non-contextuality, which states that any definite values that exist must be independent of other compatible measurements that may or may not be performed on the system. Under the same assumption, this theorem can be strengthened to show that only one single observable can have the definite value 1 (see [2]). Furthermore, only observables that can be measured simultaneously with this single one can have the definite value 0; the rest must all be value indefinite. Since the preparation of a system involves precisely ensuring that, usually via measurement, the system is in a definite state with respect to some desired observable, this result shows that no other incompatible observable can be value definite. That is, preparing a system in a definite state by making the ‘preparation’ observable value definite specifies completely the information content of the quantum system. This is an example of syntactical quantum information acquiring meaning at the level of the quantum itself. Can the syntactical information at the level of the quantum generate meaning outside the quantum, that is, at the macroscopic level? The results cited above hold in the Hilbert-space framework of quantum mechanics and are formulated only in terms of a syntactical notion of information. Their real importance becomes evident when one interprets them in the context of quantum measurements. Specifically, if we prepare a quantum system in a known state, they allow us to ‘locate’ observables which we can measure, but which are value indefinite; that is, observables whose measurement results are not specified by any pre-existing property of the quantum system. Furthermore, with respect to a mathematical model of unpredictability which we developed in [3], the results of these measurements can be shown to be absolutely unpredictable. In this way we get a mathematical explanation and justification of the largely accepted intuition that quantum mechanics is inherently unpredictable, and that this unpredictability arises from the phenomenon of indefiniteness within the quantum world. Furthermore, if one considers a hypothetical infinite sequence generated by the repeated measurement of a quantum value indefinite observable, one can prove that these sequences must be strongly incomputable, technically ‘bi-immune’ [1]. Such sequences cannot be generated by any Turing machine or classical computer, showing that value indefiniteness leads to a clear classical/quantum split in a purely algorithmic context. Importantly, bi-immunity is a property of observed, macroscopic quantities, quite separate from the quantum framework in which the value indefiniteness is formalised. This form of macroscopic meaning created from the lack of syntactic information is precisely the scenario that quantum random number generators try to create, and which is essential for the development and certification of quantum cryptographic systems. The fact that the macroscopic information created goes beyond anything classically obtainable serves as a valuable practical resource, outside of and removed from the quantum formalism. To conclude, quantum information creates meaning within the quantum and via measure- ment, the lack of information within the quantum, creates meaning and valuable information at the macroscopic level. Acknowledgments The second author thanks Prof. S. Marcus for useful conversations on quantum information theory. This work was supported in part by Marie Curie FP7-PEOPLE-2010-IRSES Grant RANPHYS. References and Notes Abbott, A.A.; Calude, C.S.; Svozil, K. Strong Kochen-Specker theorem and incomputability of quantum randomness. Physical Review A 2012, 86, 062109. Abbott, A.A.; Calude, C.S.; Svozil, K. Value-indefinite observables are almost everywhere. Physical Review A 2013, 89, 032109. Abbott, A.A.; Calude, C.S.; Svozil, K. On the unpredictability of individual quantum measurement outcomes. CDMTCS Research Report 2014, 458. Calude, C.S. Quantum randomness & cryptology. CyberTalk 2013, 3, 42–43. Kochen, S.; Specker, E. The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 1967, 17, 59–87. Zeilinger, A. A foundational principle for quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics 1999, 29(4),631–643.

ISIS Summit: The Information Society at the Crossroads•Jun 23, 2015•0 citations

Measurements in Quantum Optics

U. Schilling

This thesis fathoms the possibilities and limitations of measurements in quantum optics. After a short introduction to the general aspects of measurements in quantum mechanics, it presents three examples of a measurement process in concrete applications to quantum optics. For one, while operators describing quantities of interest might have a simple theoretical form, it is often hard to actually implement a measurement of their expectation values experimentally. This situation is encountered in the first part which is devoted to the measurement of quantum statistical properties of a light beam. In contrast to classical optics, these statistics are not fully determined by first- and second-order correlations. Instead, higher-order correlations, usually described by non-Hermitian operators, are necessary to characterize the quantum state completely. A particular example is the N-photon Fock state, for which only a measurement of the Nth-order correlations allows for a full characterization. Here, we present a new method how to measure an important class of Nth-order correlations for arbitrary N in a single spatial mode with two polarizations with limited experimental resources. The second part is again centered around the realization of specific measurement operators for photon correlation measurements. However, in contrast to the previous chapter, these measurements are not an end in their own, but are designed to create specific quantum states as a consequence of the measurement process: A suitable measurement of photons emitted by a number of atoms allows to transfer the atoms into long-lived entangled states. We find that with this method it is possible to entangle two remote atomic qubits to an arbitrary and well-defined degree. Furthermore, we show how to generate two families of quantum states in an arbitrary number of remote atomic qubits: one family consists of all -- symmetric and non-symmetric -- total angular momentum eigenstates in N remote qubits, the other is a family of cluster states. It is also systematically investigated whether the technique of quantum state engineering by projective measurements allows for the creation of any arbitrary state. We find explicit solutions for the case of two and three qubits, while it is shown that no solution exist for N > 6. We conclude the section by proving that with some changes in the setup, this measurement-based quantum state engineering technique allows to create the same states among the scattered photons themselves rather than among the emitting atoms. The last part is devoted to the amount of information one is able to gain about a given system when performing a measurement. The corresponding limits of information are investigated at the example of the duality that arises in a two-way interferometer between the visibility of the interference pattern and the knowledge about the path of the interfering object. We show that there exist correlations between the phase difference the interfering object acquires on its way through the interferometer and the amount of which-way information retrievable from certain observables of the which-way detector. In this way, the which-way information becomes a phase-dependent quantity. In particular, we find that for certain values of the phase shift, the amount of extractable which-way information can be larger than allowed by phase-independent measurement. This property is put to use to find the optimal observable for the which-way detector readout in dependence on the phase of the interfering object. Following this strategy, we are able to gain more which-way information than previously thought possible.

•Oct 24, 2011•0 citations

Multi-Qubit Systems, Entanglement, and Quantum Weirdness

Alice Flarend, Bob Hilborn

Abstract Quantum state entanglement is a crucial ingredient in many quantum algorithms. This chapter introduces the description of multiqubit quantum systems and then explains what it means to say the state of that system is entangled. If the quantum state of the system is an entangled state, none of the constituents of the system are described by their own individual states. For a two-qubit entangled state, measurements on one of the qubits apparently affects the measurement results of the other even though the two qubits may be far apart. Entanglement is explained using both joint and conditional probabilities of measurement results.

•Apr 15, 2022•0 citations

Quantum Typicality

Mark M. Wilde

This chapter marks the beginning of our study of the asymptotic theory of quantum information, where we develop the technical tools underpinning this theory. The intuition for it is similar to the intuition we developed in the previous chapter on typical sequences, but we will find some important differences between the classical and quantum cases. So far, there is not a single known information-processing task in quantum Shannon theory where the tools from this chapter are not helpful in proving the achievability part of a coding theorem. For the most part, we can straightforwardly import many of the ideas from the previous chapter about typical sequences for use in the asymptotic theory of quantum information. However, one might initially think that there are some obstacles to doing so. For example, what is the analogy of a quantum information source? Once we have established this notion, how would we determine if a state emitted from a quantum information source is a typical state? In the classical case, a simple way of determining typicality is to inspect all of the bits in the sequence. But there is a problem with this approach in the quantum domain—“looking at quantum bits” is equivalent to performing a measurement and doing so destroys delicate superpositions that we would want to preserve in any subsequent quantum information-processing task. So how can we get around the aforementioned problem and construct a useful notion of quantum typicality? Well, we should not be so destructive in determining the answer to a question when it has only two possible answers. After all, we are only asking “Is the state typical or not?”, and we can be a bit more delicate in the way that we ask this question. As an analogy, suppose Bob is curious to determine whether Alice could join him for dinner at a nice restaurant on the beach. He would likely just phone her and politely ask, “Sweet Alice, are you available for a lovely oceanside dinner?”, as opposed to barging into her apartment, probing through all of her belongings in search of her calendar, and demanding that she join him if she is available.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 2, 2016•0 citations

Related Properties of Quantum Measurements

Qi Han, Ziqiang Lu, Yanan Han

In this article, we elaborate the mathematical framework of quantum mechanics, we obtaine relevant results about quantum measurements, and find that for an arbitrary 2-qubit state, the order of the partial measurement in computational basis only affects the probability of obtaining the measurement result.

Scholars Journal of Physics Mathematics and Statistics•Nov 11, 2020•0 citations
We now have all the basic tools we need to describe systems of one and two qubits. In this final chapter of Part I we look at some of the consequences of the peculiar properties of qubits when they are used to encode information. Many of these results can be traced to the properties of quantum measurement. Measuring a single qubit A key result in quantum information theory is that it is impossible to accurately characterize a single qubit. In other words, there is no experiment, or sequence of experiments, which allows us to find out the state of a single quantum bit. The reason for this problem is twofold. Firstly, we have to make some sort of decision about the basis we will use for the measurement. For example, when measuring a single qubit the most popular choice is to make a measurement in the computational basis. This is equivalent to asking the qubit whether it is in state |0⧽ or state |1⧽. If the qubit is indeed in one of the basis states the measurement process is simple, and we will get the obvious answer of 0 if it is in |0⧽ and 1 if it is in |1⧽. If, however, the qubit is in a superposition, such as α|0⧽+β|1⧽, then the situation is more difficult. Characterizing the state now means determining the values of the two complex numbers α and β, but the measurement can only return the answer 0 or 1, and for a superposition state one of these two answers will be returned at random, with probabilities |α| 2 and |β| 2 , respectively.
We have seen how information can be encoded onto a quantum system by selecting the state in which it is prepared. Retrieving the information is achieved by performing a measurement, and the optimal measurement in any given situation is usually a generalized measurement. In between preparation and measurement, the information resides in the quantum state of the system, which evolves in a manner determined by the Hamiltonian. The associated unitary transformation may usefully be viewed as quantum information processing; if we can engineer an appropriate Hamiltonian then we can use the quantum evolution to assist in performing computational tasks. Our objective in quantum information processing is to implement a desired unitary transformation. Typically this will mean coupling together a number, perhaps a large number, of qubits and thereby generating highly entangled states. It is fortunate, although by no means obvious, that we can realize any desired multiqubit unitary transformation as a product of a small selection of simple transformations and, moreover, that each of these need only act on a single qubit or on a pair of qubits. The situation is reminiscent of digital electronics, in which logic operations are decomposed into actions on a small number of bits. If we can realize and control a very large number of such operations in a single device then we have a computer. Similar control of a large number of qubits will constitute a quantum computer. It is the revolutionary potential of quantum computers, more than any other single factor, that has fuelled the recent explosion of interest in our subject. We shall examine the remarkable properties of quantum computers in the next chapter. In digital electronics, we represent bit values by voltages: the logical value 1 is a high voltage (typically +5 V) and 0 is the ground voltage (0 V). The voltage bits are coupled and manipulated by transistor-based devices, or gates. The simplest gates act on only one bit or combine two bits to generate a single new bit, the value of which is determined by the two input bits. For a single bit, with value 0 or 1, the only possible operations are the identity (which does not require a gate) and the bit flip.
The ability to transfer information securely is essential in the modern world we live in. While the field of cryptography has long researched ways to do this, events over the last couple of years have brought the issues of secure information transfer squarely into the public eye. As a consequence, security and cryptography have quickly become issues of social and political importance, sparking debates about the values of privacy and the role of government. An essential ingredient of modern cryptography is the generation of randomness: cryptographic techniques are built on the premise that one has access to random bits. It is well known, however, that computers cannot produce algorithmically random sequences – that is, sequences with maximal algorithmic information content – but are doomed to produce ‘pseudorandomness’. This lack of randomness can be, and has been, exploited to compromise security, see [4]. The active field of quantum information theory has proposed approaches to provide supposedly ‘unbreakable’ security by exploiting various quantum phenomena. This security unfortunately relies on assumptions about the nature of quantum measurements and their ability to generate random bits. Anton Zeilinger summarises this by postulating that the simplest quantum systems, qubit, can hold only one bit of classical information [6]. This foundational principle is in line with a wider paradigm shift to view quantum information as an extension of classical information, but it is nonetheless unsatisfying to simply postulate this principle, given its importance in determining the practical advantages of quantum information theory. In order to understand better how quantum mechanics can help generate meaningful information, we instead look to relate the outcomes of quantum measurements to formal properties of the system based on more fundamental assumptions. Indeed, we have shown that a) some of the postulated properties of quantum information follow from the formal structure of the theory and b) a purely formal notion of information within a quantum world can generate, via measurement, meaningful and useful information in the macroscopic world (for example, in cryptography). The indeterminism of quantum measurements can be formalised via the notion of value indefiniteness. To explain this concept, let us consider an arbitrary quantum system and ask whether the outcome of a measurement of any observable quantity A (such as the energy of the system, its angular momentum (spin), etc.) is determined prior to the measurement. If this is the case, then we say the observable is value definite with value v(A); otherwise, the observable is value indefinite and v(A) is undefined. Mathematically, one can reduce all observable quantities to so-called projection observables, which can only take the values 0 or 1. Thus, the question of whether the outcome of several measurements can be simultaneously determined in advance can be rephrased in terms of the information ‘carried’ by a particular system in a definite quantum state. Classically, one expects that all quantities are determined in advance, and hence all observables are value definite. Quantum mechanically, however, the belief is that this is not the case, and the information content of quantum systems is limited. Formulating carefully the notion of value indefiniteness allows us to formalise the notion of (quantum) indeterminism; however, this doesn’t help clarify whether quantum systems are indeed value indefinite or not. Staying in this formal framework, the Kochen-Specker theorem [5] provides a first positive result, showing that at least some observables must be value indefinite if one makes the assumption known as non-contextuality, which states that any definite values that exist must be independent of other compatible measurements that may or may not be performed on the system. Under the same assumption, this theorem can be strengthened to show that only one single observable can have the definite value 1 (see [2]). Furthermore, only observables that can be measured simultaneously with this single one can have the definite value 0; the rest must all be value indefinite. Since the preparation of a system involves precisely ensuring that, usually via measurement, the system is in a definite state with respect to some desired observable, this result shows that no other incompatible observable can be value definite. That is, preparing a system in a definite state by making the ‘preparation’ observable value definite specifies completely the information content of the quantum system. This is an example of syntactical quantum information acquiring meaning at the level of the quantum itself. Can the syntactical information at the level of the quantum generate meaning outside the quantum, that is, at the macroscopic level? The results cited above hold in the Hilbert-space framework of quantum mechanics and are formulated only in terms of a syntactical notion of information. Their real importance becomes evident when one interprets them in the context of quantum measurements. Specifically, if we prepare a quantum system in a known state, they allow us to ‘locate’ observables which we can measure, but which are value indefinite; that is, observables whose measurement results are not specified by any pre-existing property of the quantum system. Furthermore, with respect to a mathematical model of unpredictability which we developed in [3], the results of these measurements can be shown to be absolutely unpredictable. In this way we get a mathematical explanation and justification of the largely accepted intuition that quantum mechanics is inherently unpredictable, and that this unpredictability arises from the phenomenon of indefiniteness within the quantum world. Furthermore, if one considers a hypothetical infinite sequence generated by the repeated measurement of a quantum value indefinite observable, one can prove that these sequences must be strongly incomputable, technically ‘bi-immune’ [1]. Such sequences cannot be generated by any Turing machine or classical computer, showing that value indefiniteness leads to a clear classical/quantum split in a purely algorithmic context. Importantly, bi-immunity is a property of observed, macroscopic quantities, quite separate from the quantum framework in which the value indefiniteness is formalised. This form of macroscopic meaning created from the lack of syntactic information is precisely the scenario that quantum random number generators try to create, and which is essential for the development and certification of quantum cryptographic systems. The fact that the macroscopic information created goes beyond anything classically obtainable serves as a valuable practical resource, outside of and removed from the quantum formalism. To conclude, quantum information creates meaning within the quantum and via measure- ment, the lack of information within the quantum, creates meaning and valuable information at the macroscopic level. Acknowledgments The second author thanks Prof. S. Marcus for useful conversations on quantum information theory. This work was supported in part by Marie Curie FP7-PEOPLE-2010-IRSES Grant RANPHYS. References and Notes Abbott, A.A.; Calude, C.S.; Svozil, K. Strong Kochen-Specker theorem and incomputability of quantum randomness. Physical Review A 2012, 86, 062109. Abbott, A.A.; Calude, C.S.; Svozil, K. Value-indefinite observables are almost everywhere. Physical Review A 2013, 89, 032109. Abbott, A.A.; Calude, C.S.; Svozil, K. On the unpredictability of individual quantum measurement outcomes. CDMTCS Research Report 2014, 458. Calude, C.S. Quantum randomness & cryptology. CyberTalk 2013, 3, 42–43. Kochen, S.; Specker, E. The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 1967, 17, 59–87. Zeilinger, A. A foundational principle for quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics 1999, 29(4),631–643.
This thesis fathoms the possibilities and limitations of measurements in quantum optics. After a short introduction to the general aspects of measurements in quantum mechanics, it presents three examples of a measurement process in concrete applications to quantum optics. For one, while operators describing quantities of interest might have a simple theoretical form, it is often hard to actually implement a measurement of their expectation values experimentally. This situation is encountered in the first part which is devoted to the measurement of quantum statistical properties of a light beam. In contrast to classical optics, these statistics are not fully determined by first- and second-order correlations. Instead, higher-order correlations, usually described by non-Hermitian operators, are necessary to characterize the quantum state completely. A particular example is the N-photon Fock state, for which only a measurement of the Nth-order correlations allows for a full characterization. Here, we present a new method how to measure an important class of Nth-order correlations for arbitrary N in a single spatial mode with two polarizations with limited experimental resources. The second part is again centered around the realization of specific measurement operators for photon correlation measurements. However, in contrast to the previous chapter, these measurements are not an end in their own, but are designed to create specific quantum states as a consequence of the measurement process: A suitable measurement of photons emitted by a number of atoms allows to transfer the atoms into long-lived entangled states. We find that with this method it is possible to entangle two remote atomic qubits to an arbitrary and well-defined degree. Furthermore, we show how to generate two families of quantum states in an arbitrary number of remote atomic qubits: one family consists of all -- symmetric and non-symmetric -- total angular momentum eigenstates in N remote qubits, the other is a family of cluster states. It is also systematically investigated whether the technique of quantum state engineering by projective measurements allows for the creation of any arbitrary state. We find explicit solutions for the case of two and three qubits, while it is shown that no solution exist for N > 6. We conclude the section by proving that with some changes in the setup, this measurement-based quantum state engineering technique allows to create the same states among the scattered photons themselves rather than among the emitting atoms. The last part is devoted to the amount of information one is able to gain about a given system when performing a measurement. The corresponding limits of information are investigated at the example of the duality that arises in a two-way interferometer between the visibility of the interference pattern and the knowledge about the path of the interfering object. We show that there exist correlations between the phase difference the interfering object acquires on its way through the interferometer and the amount of which-way information retrievable from certain observables of the which-way detector. In this way, the which-way information becomes a phase-dependent quantity. In particular, we find that for certain values of the phase shift, the amount of extractable which-way information can be larger than allowed by phase-independent measurement. This property is put to use to find the optimal observable for the which-way detector readout in dependence on the phase of the interfering object. Following this strategy, we are able to gain more which-way information than previously thought possible.
Abstract Quantum state entanglement is a crucial ingredient in many quantum algorithms. This chapter introduces the description of multiqubit quantum systems and then explains what it means to say the state of that system is entangled. If the quantum state of the system is an entangled state, none of the constituents of the system are described by their own individual states. For a two-qubit entangled state, measurements on one of the qubits apparently affects the measurement results of the other even though the two qubits may be far apart. Entanglement is explained using both joint and conditional probabilities of measurement results.
This chapter marks the beginning of our study of the asymptotic theory of quantum information, where we develop the technical tools underpinning this theory. The intuition for it is similar to the intuition we developed in the previous chapter on typical sequences, but we will find some important differences between the classical and quantum cases. So far, there is not a single known information-processing task in quantum Shannon theory where the tools from this chapter are not helpful in proving the achievability part of a coding theorem. For the most part, we can straightforwardly import many of the ideas from the previous chapter about typical sequences for use in the asymptotic theory of quantum information. However, one might initially think that there are some obstacles to doing so. For example, what is the analogy of a quantum information source? Once we have established this notion, how would we determine if a state emitted from a quantum information source is a typical state? In the classical case, a simple way of determining typicality is to inspect all of the bits in the sequence. But there is a problem with this approach in the quantum domain—“looking at quantum bits” is equivalent to performing a measurement and doing so destroys delicate superpositions that we would want to preserve in any subsequent quantum information-processing task. So how can we get around the aforementioned problem and construct a useful notion of quantum typicality? Well, we should not be so destructive in determining the answer to a question when it has only two possible answers. After all, we are only asking “Is the state typical or not?”, and we can be a bit more delicate in the way that we ask this question. As an analogy, suppose Bob is curious to determine whether Alice could join him for dinner at a nice restaurant on the beach. He would likely just phone her and politely ask, “Sweet Alice, are you available for a lovely oceanside dinner?”, as opposed to barging into her apartment, probing through all of her belongings in search of her calendar, and demanding that she join him if she is available.