1 / 33

Entanglement swapping and quantum teleportation

Entanglement swapping and quantum teleportation. Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics (MPQ) Garching / Munich, Germany. Johannes Kofler. Talk at: Institute of Applied Physics Johannes Kepler University Linz 10 Dec. 2012. Outlook. Quantum entanglement Foundations: Bell’s inequality

fletcher-kent
Download Presentation

Entanglement swapping and quantum teleportation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Entanglement swapping andquantum teleportation Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics (MPQ) Garching / Munich, Germany Johannes Kofler Talk at: Institute of Applied Physics Johannes Kepler University Linz 10 Dec. 2012

  2. Outlook • Quantum entanglement • Foundations: Bell’s inequality • Application: “quantum information” • (quantum cryptography & quantum computation) • Entanglement swapping • Quantum teleportation

  3. Light consists of… Christiaan Huygens (1629–1695) Isaac Newton (1643–1727) James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) Albert Einstein (1879–1955) …electromagnetic waves …waves ….particles …quanta

  4. The double slit experiment Particles Waves Quanta Superposition: | = |left + |right Picture: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/DoubleSlit.shtml

  5. Superposition and entanglement 1 photon in (pure) polarization quantum state: Pick a basis, say: horizontal | and vertical | Examples: | = | | = | | = (| + |) / 2 = | superposition states (in chosen basis) | = (| + i|) / 2 = | 2 photons (A and B): Examples: |AB = |A|B|AB product (separable) states: |A|B |AB= |AB |AB= (|AB + |AB) / 2 entangled states, i.e. not of form |A|B |AB= (|AB + i|AB – 3|AB) / n Example: |AB= (|AB + |AB + |AB + |AB) / 2 = |AB

  6. Quantum entanglement Entanglement: |AB = (|AB + |AB) / 2 = (|AB + |AB) / 2 Alice Bob basis: result basis: result /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  locally: random globally: perfect correlation Picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SPDC_figure.png

  7. Entanglement “Total knowledge of a composite system does not necessarily include maximal 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.” (1935) What is the difference between the entangled state |AB = (|AB + |AB) / 2 and the (trivial, “classical”) fully mixed state Erwin Schrödinger probability ½: |AB probability ½: |AB  = (|AB| + |AB|) / 2 which is also locally random and globally perfectly correlated?

  8. Local Realism Realism: objects possess definite properties prior to and independent of measurement Locality: a measurement at one location does not influence a (simultaneous) measurement at a different location Alice und Bob are in two separated labs A source prepares particle pairs, say dice. They each get one die per pair and measure one of two properties, say color and parity measurement 1: color result: A1 (Alice), B1 (Bob) measurement 2: parity result: A2 (Alice), B2 (Bob) possible values: +1 (even / red) –1 (odd / black) Bob Alice A1 (B1 + B2) + A2 (B1 – B2) = ±2 for all local realistic (= classical) theories A1B1 + A1B2 + A2B1 – A2B2 = ±2 CHSH version (1969) of Bell’s inequality (1964) A1B1 + A1B2 + A2B1 – A2B2≤ 2

  9. Quantum violation of Bell’s inequality With the entangled quantum state |AB = (|AB + |AB) / 2 and for certain measurement directions a1,a2 and b1,b2, the left hand side of Bell’s inequality A1B1 + A1B2 + A2B1 – A2B2≤ 2 becomes 22 2.83. John S. Bell B2 A2 B1 A1 Conclusion: entangled states violate Bell’s inequality (fully mixed states cannot do that) they cannot be described by local realism (Einstein: „Spooky action at a distance“) experimentally demonstrated for photons, atoms, etc. (first experiment: 1978)

  10. Interpretations Copenhagen interpretation quantum state (wave function) only describes probabilities objects do not possess all properties prior to and independent of measurements (violating realism) individual events are irreducibly random Bohmian mechanics quantum state is a real physical object and leads to an additional “force” particles move deterministically on trajectories position is a hidden variable & there is a non-local influence (violating locality) individual events are only subjectively random Many-worlds interpretation all possibilities are realized parallel worlds

  11. Einstein vs. Bohr Albert Einstein (1879–1955) Niels Bohr (1885–1962) What can be said about nature? What is nature?

  12. Cryptography Symmetric encryption techniques plain text encryption cipher text decryption plain text Asymmetric („public key“) techniques: eg. RSA

  13. Secure cryptography One-time pad Idea: Gilbert Vernam (1917) Security proof: Claude Shannon (1949) [only known secure scheme] • Criteria for the key: • random and secret • (at least) of length of the plain text • is used only once („one-time pad“) Gilbert Vernam Claude Shannon Quantum physics can precisely achieve that:  Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) Idea: Wiesner 1969 & Bennett et al. 1984, first experiment 1991 With entanglement: Idea: Ekert 1991, first experiment 2000

  14. Quantum key distribution (QKD) 0 0   1  1   1 1    0 0 Basis: /////// … Result: 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 … Basis: /////// … Result: 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 … • Alice and Bob announce their basis choices (not the results) • if basis was the same, they use the (locally random) result • the rest is discarded • perfect correlation yields secret key: 0110… • in intermediate measurements, Bob chooses also other bases (22.5°,67.5°) and they test Bell’s inequality • violation of Bell’s inequality guarantees that there is no eavesdropping • security guaranteed by quantum mechanics

  15. First experimental realization (2000) First quantum cryptography with entangled photons Key length: 51840 bit Bit error rate: 0,4% T. Jennewein et al., PRL 84, 4729 (2000)

  16. 8 km free space above Vienna (2005) Twin Tower Millennium Tower Kuffner Sternwarte K. Resch et al., Opt. Express 13, 202 (2005)

  17. Tokyo QKD network (2010) Partners: Japan: NEC, Mitsubishi Electric, NTT NICT Europe: Toshiba Research Europe Ltd. (UK), ID Quantique (Switzerland) and “All Vienna” (Austria). Toshiba-Link (BB84): 300 kbit/s over 45 km http://www.uqcc2010.org/highlights/index.html

  18. The next step ISS (350 km Höhe)

  19. Moore’s law (1965) Gordon Moore Transistor size 2000  200 nm 2010  20 nm 2020  2 nm (?)

  20. Computer and quantum mechanics 1981: Nature can be simulated best by quantum mechanics Richard Feynman 1985: Formulation of the concept of a quantum Turing machine David Deutsch

  21. Quantum computer 0 |Q = (|0 + |1) 1 Bit: 0 or 1 Qubit: 0 “and” 1 Classical input 01101… Classical Output 00110… preparation of qubits measurement on qubits evolution

  22. Qubits Bloch sphere: General qubit state: P(„0“) = cos2/2, P(„1“) = sin2/2  … phase (interference) • Physical realizations: • photon polarization: |0 = ||1 = | • electron/atom/nuclear spin: |0 = |up|1 = |down • atomic energy levels: |0 = |ground|1 = |excited • superconducting flux: |0 = |left|1 = |right • etc… | = |0+ |1 |R = |0+ i|1 Gates: Operations on one ore more qubits

  23. Quantum algorithms • Deutsch algorithm (1985) • checks whether a bit-to-bit function is constant, i.e. f(0) = f(1), or balanced, • i.e. f(0) f(1) • cl: 2 evaluations, qm: 1 evaluation • Shor algorithm (1994) • factorization of a b-bit integer • cl: super-poly. O{exp[(64b/9)1/3(logb)2/3]}, qm: sub-poly. O(b3) [“exp. speed-up”] • b = 1000 (301 digits) on THz speed: cl: 100000 years, qm: 1 second • Grover algorithm (1996) • search in unsorted database with N elements • cl: O(N), qm: O(N) [„quadratic speed-up“]

  24. Possible implementations NMR Trapped ions Photons SQUIDs NV centers Quantum dots Spintronics

  25. Quantum teleportation Idea: Bennett et al. (1992/1993) First realization: Zeilinger group (1997) teleported state Bell-state measurement C classical channel Alice Bob entangled pair C A B initial state (Charlie) source

  26. Quantum teleportation Entangled pair (AB): Bell states: |–AB= (|HVAB – |VHAB) / 2 |–AB= (|HVAB – |VHAB) / 2 |+AB= (|HVAB + |VHAB) / 2 Unknown input state (C): |–AB= (|HHAB – |VVAB) / 2 |C=|HC + |VC |+AB= (|HHAB + |VVAB) / 2 Total state (ABC): |–AB|C= (1/2) (|HVAB – |VHAB) (|HC + |VC) if A and C are found in |–AC then B is in input state = [ |–AC (|HB + |VB) + |+AC (–|HB + |VB) + |–AC (|HB + |VB) + |+AC (–|HB + |VB) ] if A and C are found in another Bell state, then a simple trans-formation has to be performed

  27. Bell-state measurement H1 H2 PBS PBS BS V1 V2 C A singlet state, anti-bunching: H1V2 or V1H2 |–AC= (|HVAC – |VHAC) / 2 triplet state, bunching: H1V1 or H2V2 |+AC= (|HVAC + |VHAC) / 2 |–AC= (|HHAC – |VVAC) / 2 cannot be distinguished with linear optics |+AC= (|HHAC + |VVAC) / 2

  28. Entanglement swapping Idea: Zukowskiet al. (1993) First realization: Zeilinger group (1998) … … … “quantum repeater” initial state factorizes into 1,2 x 3,4 if 2,3 are projected onto a Bell state, then 1,4 are left in a Bell state Picture: PRL 80, 2891 (1998)

  29. Delayed-choice entanglement swapping Mach-Zehnder interferometer and QRNG as tuneable beam splitter Bell-state measurement (BSM): Entanglement swapping Separable-state measurement (SSM): No entanglement swapping X. Ma et al., Nature Phys. 8, 479 (2012)

  30. Delayed-choice entanglement swapping A later measurement on photons 2 & 3 decides whether photons 1 & 4 were in a separable or an entangled state If one viewed the quantum state as a real physical object, one would get the seemingly paradoxical situation that future actions appear as having an influence on past events X. Ma et al., Nature Phys. 8, 479 (2012)

  31. Quantum teleportation over 143 km Towards a world-wide “quantum internet” X. Ma et al., Nature 489, 269 (2012)

  32. Quantum teleportation over 143 km • State-of-the-art technology: • frequency-uncorrelated polarization-entangled photon-pair source • ultra-low-noise single-photon detectors • entanglement-assisted clock synchronization 605 teleportation events in 6.5 hours X. Ma et al., Nature 489, 269 (2012)

  33. Acknowledgments A. Zeilinger X. Ma R. Ursin B. Wittmann T. Herbst S. Kropascheck

More Related