1: %\documentstyle[preprint,aps,english]{revtex}
2: \documentstyle[prl,twocolumn,aps,english]{revtex}
3:
4: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
5: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
6: \def\6{\langle}
7: \def\9{\rangle}
8: \def\half{\mbox{$1\over2$}}
9: \def\bn{\mbox{\boldmath$n$}}
10: \def\nJ{\mbox{\boldmath$n\cdot J$}}
11: \def\dtp{d_{\theta\phi}}
12:
13: \begin{document}
14: \draft
15:
16: \title{Entangled Quantum States as Direction Indicators}
17:
18: \author{Asher Peres and Petra F. Scudo}
19: \address{Department of Physics, Technion---Israel Institute of
20: Technology, 32000 Haifa, Israel}
21:
22: \maketitle
23: \begin{abstract}
24: We consider the use of $N$ spin-\half\ particles for indicating a
25: direction in space. If $N>2$, their optimal state is entangled. For large
26: $N$, the mean square error decreases as $N^{-2}$ (rather than $N^{-1}$
27: for parallel spins).
28: \end{abstract}
29:
30: \bigskip
31: \pacs{PACS numbers: 03.67.Hk, 03.65.Ta}
32:
33: Information theory usually deals with the transmission of a sequence
34: of discrete symbols, such as 0 and 1. Even if the information to
35: be transmitted is of continuous nature, such as the position of a
36: particle, it can be represented with arbitrary accuracy by a string
37: of bits. However, there are situations where information cannot be
38: encoded in such a way. For example, the emitter (conventionally called
39: Alice) wants to indicate to the receiver (Bob) a direction in space.
40: If they have a common coordinate system to which they can refer, or
41: if they can create one by observing distant fixed stars, Alice simply
42: communicates to Bob the components of a unit vector \bn\ along
43: that direction, or its spherical coordinates $\theta$ and $\phi$. But
44: if no common coordinate system has been established, all she can do is
45: to send a real physical object, such as a gyroscope, whose orientation
46: is deemed stable.
47:
48: In the quantum world, the role of the gyroscope is played by a system
49: with large spin. For example, Alice can send angular momentum eigenstates
50: satisfying $\nJ|\psi\9=j|\psi\9$. This is essentially the solution
51: proposed by Massar and Popescu~\cite{mp} who took $N$ parallel spins,
52: polarized along~\bn. The fidelity of the transmission is usually defined
53: as
54:
55: \beq F=\6\cos^2(\chi/2)\9=(1+\6\cos\chi\9)/2, \eeq
56: where $\chi$ is the angle between the true \bn\ and the direction
57: indicated by Bob's measurement. The physical meaning of $F$ is that
58: $1-F=\6\sin^2(\chi/2)\9$ is the mean square error of the measurement,
59: if the error is defined as $\sin(\chi/2)$. The experimenter's aim,
60: minimizing the mean square error, is the same as maximizing fidelity. We
61: can of course define ``error'' in a different way, and then fidelity
62: becomes a different function of~$\chi$ and optimization leads to
63: different results~\cite{m}. Here, we shall take Eq.~(1) as the
64: definition of fidelity.
65:
66: Massar and Popescu showed that for parallel spins, $1-F=1/(N+2)$. It then
67: came as a surprise that for $N=2$, parallel spins were not the optimal
68: signal, and a slightly higher fidelity resulted from the use of opposite
69: spins~\cite{gp}. The intuitive reason given for this result was the use
70: of a larger Hilbert space (four dimensions instead of three). This raises
71: the question what is the most efficient signal state for $N$ spins, whose
72: Hilbert space has $2^N$ dimensions. Will $F$ approach~1 exponentially? In
73: this Letter, we show that the optimal result is a quadratic approach,
74: as illustrated in Fig.~1.
75:
76: Our first task is to devise Bob's measuring method, whose mathematical
77: representation is a positive operator-valued measure (POVM)~\cite{qt}.
78: For any unit vector \bn, not necessarily Alice's direction, let
79: $|j,m(\bn)\9\equiv|j,m(\theta,\phi)\9$ denote the coherent angular
80: momentum state~\cite{perel} that satisfies
81:
82: \beq \mbox{\boldmath$J$}^2\,|j,m(\bn)\9=j(j+1)\,|j,m(\bn)\9, \eeq
83: and
84: \beq \nJ\,|j,m(\bn)\9= m\,|j,m(\bn)\9. \eeq
85: We then have~\cite{perel}
86:
87: \beq (2j+1)\int\dtp\,|j,m(\theta,\phi)\9\6j,m(\theta,\phi)|
88: ={\bf1}_j, \label{1j}\eeq
89: where
90:
91: \beq \dtp:=\sin\theta d\theta\,d\phi/4\pi, \eeq
92: and ${\bf1}_j$ is the projection operator over the $(2j+1)$-dimensional
93: subspace spanned by the vectors $|j,m(\theta,\phi)\9$. If $N=2$, so that
94: $j$ is 0 or 1, the two resulting subspaces span the whole 4-dimensional
95: Hilbert space. For higher $N$, all the rotation group representations
96: with $j<N/2$ occur more than once. We then have, if we take each $j$
97: only once, from 0 or \half\ to $N/2$,
98:
99: \beq \sum(2j+1)={(N+2)^2\over4}\quad\mbox{or}
100: \quad {(N+1)(N+3)\over4},\eeq
101: for even or odd $N$, respectively. For large $N$, the dimensionality of
102: the accessible Hilbert space tends to $N^2/4$, and this appears to be
103: the reason that the optimal result for $1-F$ is quadratic in $N$, not
104: exponential. An intuitive argument for this quadratic behavior was given
105: by Aharonov and Popescu~\cite{ap}. No improvement results if we endow
106: the particles with internal quantum numbers such as charge or
107: strangeness, so that the entire Hilbert space can be spanned by states
108: with distinguishable properties, because any additional information
109: that Alice could send to Bob would refer to these new quantum numbers,
110: not to the direction of \bn.
111:
112: We now turn to the construction of Bob's POVM~\cite{qt}. Let $\rho$
113: denote the initial state of the physical system that is measured. All
114: these input states span a subspace of Hilbert space. Let {\bf1} denote
115: the projection operator on that subspace. A POVM is a set of positive
116: operators $E_\mu$ which sum up to {\bf1}. The index $\mu$ is just a
117: label for the outcome of the measuring process. The probability of
118: outcome $\mu$ is $\mbox{tr}(\rho E_\mu)$. In the present case, $\mu$
119: stands for the pair of angles $\theta\phi$ that are indicated by Bob's
120: measurement. If we want a high accuracy, these output angles should have
121: many different values, spread over the unit sphere~\cite{polyhed}. For
122: example, the components of a continuous POVM, as in Eq.~(\ref{1j}), are
123: given by
124:
125: \beq E_{\theta\phi}=(2j+1)\,\dtp\,|j,m(\theta,\phi)\9\6j,m(\theta,\phi)|.
126: \eeq
127: Such a POVM with $m=j$ corresponds to the method of Ref.~\cite{mp}. The
128: choice $m=j$ is not optimal. As shown in~\cite{gp} for the case $N=2$,
129: signal states with opposite spins give a higher fidelity. With our
130: present notations, these states are $(|0,0\9+|1,0(\bn)\9)/\sqrt2$. They
131: involve two values of $j$, but a single value of $m$, namely~0.
132:
133: One possibility to include several values of $j$ in a POVM is to take a
134: sum of expressions like (\ref{1j}). This brings no advantage, because a
135: convex combination of POVMs cannot yield more information than the best
136: one of them~\cite{cnvx}. Optimal POVM components can always be assumed
137: to have rank one. Therefore each one of them should include all relevant
138: $j$:
139:
140: \beq E_{\theta\phi}:=\dtp\,|\theta,\phi\9\6\theta,\phi|, \eeq
141: where
142: \beq |\theta,\phi\9:=\sum_{j=m}^{N/2}\sqrt{2j+1}\;|j,m(\theta,\phi)\9.
143: \label{thphi}\eeq
144:
145: To verify that this is indeed a POVM, we note that in
146: $\int\!E_{\theta\phi}$ there are diagonal terms $(2j+1)|j,m(\theta,\phi)\9
147: \6j,m(\theta,\phi)|$, which give ${\bf1}_j$, owing to Eq.~(\ref{1j}).
148: The off-diagonal terms with $j_1\neq j_2$ vanish, as can be seen by
149: taking their matrix elements between $\6j_1,m_1|$ and $|j_2,m_2\9$
150: in the standard basis where $J_z$ is diagonal. We have~\cite{edm}
151:
152: \beq \6j_2,m(\theta,\phi)|j_2,m_2\9=
153: {\cal D}^{(j_2)}_{mm_2}(\psi\theta\phi), \eeq
154: with a similar (complex conjugate) expression for
155: $\6j_1,m_1|j_1,m(\theta,\phi)\9$. The rotation matrices $\cal D$ are
156: explicitly given by
157:
158: \beq {\cal D}^{(j_2)}_{mm_2}(\psi\theta\phi)=
159: e^{im\psi}\,d^{(j_2)}_{mm_2}(\theta)\,e^{im_2\phi}, \eeq
160: where the Euler angle $\psi$ is related to an arbitrary phase which is
161: implicit in the definition of $|j,m(\theta,\phi)\9$. It is crucial that
162: a single value of $m$ occurs in all the components of the vectors
163: $|\theta,\phi\9$ in Eq.~(\ref{thphi}), so that the undefined phases
164: $e^{\pm im\psi}$ mutually cancel. It then follows from Eq.~(4.6.1) of
165: Ref.~\cite{edm} that all the off-diagonal matrix elements of
166: $\int\!E_{\theta\phi}$ vanish, so that we indeed have a POVM.
167:
168: While Bob's optimal POVM is essentially unique in the
169: Hilbert space that we have chosen, Alice's signal state, which is
170:
171: \beq |A\9=\sum_{j=m}^{N/2} c_j\,|j,m(\bn)\9, \eeq
172: contains unknown coefficients $c_j$. The latter are normalized,
173:
174: \beq \sum_{j=m}^{N/2} |c_j|^2 = 1, \label{norm} \eeq
175: but still have to be optimized.
176:
177: The probability of detection of the pair of angles $\theta\phi$,
178: indicated by the POVM component $E_{\theta\phi}$, is
179:
180: \beq \6A|E_{\theta\phi}|A\9=\dtp\left|\sum_{j=m}^{N/2}c_j\sqrt{2j+1}\,
181: \6j,m(\theta,\phi)|j,m(\bn)\9\right|^2. \label{AEA} \eeq
182: We have~\cite{perel}
183:
184: \beq \6j,m(\theta,\phi)|j,m(\bn)\9=e^{i\eta}\,d^{(j)}_{mm}(\chi), \eeq
185: where $\chi$ is the angle between the directions \bn\ and
186: $\theta\phi$, and the phase $e^{i\eta}$ is related to the arbitrary
187: phases which are implicit in the definitions of the state vectors in
188: (\theequation). The important point is that $e^{i\eta}$ does not depend
189: on $j$ and therefore is eliminated when we take the absolute value of
190: the sum in Eq.~(\ref{AEA}). Explicitly, we have
191:
192: \beq d^{(j)}_{mm}(\chi)=\cos^{2m}(\chi/2)\,P^{(0,2m)}_{j-m}(\cos\chi),\eeq
193: where $P^{(a,b)}_n(x)$ is a Jacobi polynomial~\cite{perel,edm}. We
194: shall write $x=\cos\chi$ for brevity, so that the fidelity is
195:
196: \beq F=(1+\6x\9)/2. \eeq
197: Our problem is to find the coefficients $c_j$ that maximize $\6x\9$.
198: Owing to rotational symmetry, we can assume that Alice's
199: direction \bn\ points toward the $z$-axis, so that $\dtp$ can be
200: replaced by $dx/2$ after having performed the integration over $\phi$. We
201: thus obtain
202:
203: \beq \6x\9=\half\int^1_{-1}xdx\left|\sum_{j=m}^{N/2}c_j\sqrt{2j+1}
204: \left({1+x\over2}\right)^mP^{(0,2m)}_{j-m}(x)\right|^2. \eeq
205:
206: This integral can be evaluated explicitly by using the orthogonality and
207: recurrence relations for Jacobi polynomials \cite{ortho,recur}. The
208: result is
209:
210: \beq \6x\9=\sum_{j,k} c^*_j\,c_k\,A_{jk}, \eeq
211: where $A_{jk}$ is a real symmetric matrix, whose only nonvanishing
212: elements are
213:
214: \beq A_{jj}=m^2/[j(j+1)], \eeq
215: and
216: \beq A_{j,j-1}=A_{j-1,j}=(j^2-m^2)/j\sqrt{4j^2-1}. \eeq
217: The optimal coefficients $c_j$ are the components of the eigenvector
218: of $A_{jk}$ that corresponds to the largest eigenvalue, and the latter
219: is $\6x\9$ itself. The result of the calculation is displayed in Fig.~1
220: for $m=0$ (which is best) and $m=j$ (which is the method investigated in
221: Ref.~\cite{mp}). For $m=0$ and large $N$, we find that
222:
223: \beq 1-F\to5.78317/(N+3)^2. \eeq
224: This ought to be compared to the result of~\cite{mp}, which was
225: $1/(N+2)$. For $N=2$ and $m=0$, our result coincides with Ref.~\cite{gp}.
226: For $N=3$, we obtain $F=0.84495$ with $c_{3/2}=0.60362$ and
227: $c_{1/2}=0.79755$. The results for larger $N$ and intermediate values
228: of $m$ gradually fall between those displayed in Fig.~1. Had we chosen a
229: definition of fidelity other than Eq.~(1), these results would of course
230: be different, but the method for solving the problem is in principle the
231: same.
232:
233: It thus appears that it is advantageous to take the lowest possible $m$
234: (namely $m=0$ for even $N$ and $m={1\over2}$ for odd $N$). This is
235: intuitively quite plausible~\cite{ap}. It would be interesting and
236: instructive to find a direct proof of Eq.~(\theequation) that does
237: not rely on a numerical analysis as in the present work.
238:
239: \bigskip Work by AP was supported by the Gerard Swope Fund and the Fund
240: for Encouragement of Research. PFS was supported by a grant from the
241: Technion Graduate School.
242:
243: \begin{thebibliography}{99} % \itemsep 0pt
244: \bibitem{mp}S. Massar and S. Popescu, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf74}, 1259
245: (1995).
246:
247: \bibitem{m}S. Massar, Phys. Rev. A {\bf62}, 040101(R) (2000).
248:
249: \bibitem{gp}N. Gisin and S. Popescu, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf83}, 432
250: (1999).
251:
252: \bibitem{qt}A. Peres, {\it Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods\/}
253: (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1995), p.~283.
254:
255: \bibitem{perel}A. M. Perelomov, Comm. Math. Phys. {\bf26}, 222 (1972).
256:
257: \bibitem{ap}Y. Aharonov and S. Popescu, private communication.
258:
259: \bibitem{polyhed}If $N\leq4$, an optimal POVM can have a finite number
260: of components, corresponding to the vertices of regular polyhedra.
261:
262: \bibitem{cnvx}A convex combination of POVMs, such as $E_\mu=\sum
263: w_kE_{k\mu}$, with $w_k>0$ and $\sum w_k=1$, has the physical meaning
264: that each one of the sets $\{E_{k\mu}\}$ is chosen by the experimenter
265: with probability $w_k$.
266:
267: \bibitem{edm}A. R. Edmonds, {\it Angular Momentum in Quantum
268: Mechanics\/}, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1957).
269:
270: \bibitem{ortho}G. E. Andrews, R. Askey, and R. Roy, {\it Special
271: Functions\/}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999) p.~99.
272:
273: \bibitem{recur}A. Erd\'elyi, ed.\ {\it Higher Transcendental
274: Functions\/}, (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953) vol.~2, p.~169.
275: \end{thebibliography}\vfill
276:
277: \noindent FIG. 1. \ $(1-F)$ as a function of $N$. Open circles are for
278: $m=j$ (Ref.~\cite{mp}), closed circles are for $m=0$ (this work).
279:
280: \end{document}
281:
282: