1: \documentstyle[tighten,prl,aps,multicol,epsfig]{revtex}
2:
3: \begin{document}%======= TITLE =========================================
4:
5: \title{Entanglement Manipulation and Concentration}
6: \author{R.~T.~Thew\cite{RTT} and W. J. Munro\cite{WJM}}
7: \address{Special Research Centre for Quantum Computer Technology,\\
8: University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia}
9: \date{\today}
10:
11: \maketitle
12: %=======ABSTRACT=========================================
13: \begin{abstract}
14: We introduce a simple, experimentally realisable, entanglement
15: manipulation protocol for exploring mixed state entanglement. We show
16: that for both non-maximally entangled pure, and mixed
17: polarisation-entangled two qubit states, an increase in the degree of
18: entanglement and purity, which we define as concentration, is achievable.
19:
20: \end{abstract}
21:
22: \pacs{03.67.-a, 42.50.-p,03.65.Bz}
23:
24: %======INTRODUCTION======================================
25: %\section{Introduction}
26: \label{INTRO}
27:
28: The increasing interest in quantum information and computing as well as
29: other quantum mechanical dependent operations such as teleportation
30: \cite{Bennett2:96} and cryptography \cite{Deutsch:96} have as their
31: cornerstone a reliance on entanglement. There has been a great deal of
32: discussion of measures and manipulation of entanglement in recent years with
33: respect to purification \cite{Bennett1:96}, concentration
34: \cite{Bennett3:96}, and distillable entanglement
35: \cite{Rains1:99,Vedral:97} especially concerning states
36: subject to environmental noise. It is this noise that takes the initially
37: pure maximally entangled resource and leaves us with, at best, a non maximally
38: entangled state, or at worst a mixed state, both less pure and less entangled.
39: We introduce a simple, experimentally realisable \cite{Kwiat:00}, protocol to
40: manipulate and explore both pure and mixed-state entanglement. While
41: the scheme will have limitations, in part due to its simplicity, it
42: will allow experimental investigation of the large Hilbert space
43: associated with mixed states.
44:
45: The motivation for this scheme comes from focusing ideas and
46: proposals of several groups from the past few years into a
47: simple realisation of mixed state entanglement
48: manipulation. It was proposed that quantum correlations on mixed
49: states could be enhanced by positive operator valued measurements
50: \cite{Popescu1:95}. A more specific example by Gisin\cite{Gisin1:96}
51: considered the manipulation of a $ 2\times 2 $ system using local
52: filters. The scheme we propose here combines these ideas and uses
53: an arrangement similar to the original Procrustean method \cite{Bennett3:96}
54: which dealt solely with pure states. The primary motivation here is in
55: proposing a scheme that can be easily realised experimentally.
56: With the recent advances in the preparation of nonmaximally entangled
57: pure\cite{White:99} and mixed\cite{White:00} polarisation-entangled
58: quantum states we now have a source for which there is a high
59: degree of control over the degree of entanglement and purity of the
60: state. This allows us to consider a wide variety of states and
61: examine what operations can be performed so as to make the
62: state more useful in the context of an entanglement resource.
63:
64: For the purposes of describing the possible manipulation of a state
65: we will define the following three concepts of distillation,
66: purification and concentration (illustrated schematically in
67: Figure (\ref{fig:ent-pur})) as follows,
68: \begin{itemize}
69: \item \it Distillation\rm: Increasing the entanglement of a state.
70:
71: \item\it Purification\rm: Increasing the purity of a state
72: (decreasing its entropy). This is not
73: purification with respect to some particular state, for example obtaining a
74: singlet state from a mixed state.
75:
76: \item \it Concentration\rm: Increasing both the entanglement and the
77: purity of a mixed state.
78: \end{itemize}
79: These concepts have been used almost interchangeable in the literature
80: but we will follow our primitive definitions to avoid potential confusion.
81: In this letter it is the concentration of a state that is the main aim
82: for the maintenance or recovery of an entanglement resource.
83: \begin{center}
84: \begin{figure}
85: \epsfig{figure=ent-pur.eps,width=60mm}
86: \caption{\label{fig:ent-pur} A schematic representation of the
87: entanglement manipulation processes in terms of the degree of
88: Entanglement and Entropy of a state. We propose this distinction between
89: distillation, purification and concentration in an attempt to clarify
90: terminology in the mixed state domain.}
91: \end{figure}
92: \end{center}
93:
94: Let us now specify the measures which we will be using
95: to characterise the degree of entanglement and purity of a state.
96: The entanglement and purity of a state can be determined using distinct
97: measures. Here we will restrict our attention to $2 \times 2$ systems
98: and hence will use analytic expressions for
99: The Entanglement of Formation and Entropy as our respective
100: measures. The Entanglement of formation as introduced by Wootters
101: \cite{Wooters1:98} is found by considering that for a general two
102: qubit state, $ \rho $, the "spin-flipped state" $\tilde{\rho}$ is given by
103: \begin{eqnarray}
104: \tilde{\rho} = (\sigma _y \otimes \sigma _y) \rho^{*} (\sigma _y \otimes
105: \sigma _y)
106: \end{eqnarray}
107: where $\sigma_y$ is the Pauli operator in the computational basis. We
108: calculate the square root of the eigenvalues $ \tilde{\lambda}_{i} $ of
109: $\rho \tilde \rho$, in descending order, to determine the
110: ``Concurrence'',
111: \begin{eqnarray}
112: C(\rho) = max\{\tilde{\lambda}_1 - \tilde{\lambda}_2 -\tilde{\lambda}_3
113: -\tilde{\lambda}_4,0 \}
114: \end{eqnarray}
115: The Entanglement of Formation (EOF) is then given by
116: \begin{eqnarray}
117: E(C(\rho)) = h\left(\frac{1 + \sqrt{1 - C(\rho)^2}}{2} \right)
118: \end{eqnarray}
119: where $ h $ is the binary entropy function
120: \begin{eqnarray}
121: h(x) = -x\log(x) - (1 - x)\log(1 - x)
122: \end{eqnarray}
123: The entropy of the density matrix $ \rho $ (our purity measure)
124: is given by
125: \begin{eqnarray}
126: S = -\sum_{i=1}^{4} \lambda_i \log_{4} \lambda_i
127: \end{eqnarray}
128: where $ \lambda_i $ are the eigenvalues of $ \rho $.
129:
130: %===========FORMALISM===================================
131:
132: We will now describe our entanglement manipulation protocol and emphasise its
133: simplicity. The experimental arrangement for our
134: protocol is described by the schematic in figure(\ref{fig:exp2}).
135: The aim of our protocol is to manipulate mixed states and
136: enhance their degree of entanglement. Let us consider an initial
137: state composed of two subsystems, A and B,
138: each represented by a general $2 \times 2$
139: matrix. We will describe the joint state of the system, $AB$,
140: in the polarisation basis, $\{|VV\rangle,|VH\rangle, |HV\rangle,
141: |HH\rangle\}$, as
142: \begin{eqnarray}
143: \hat{\rho}_{ABin} &=& \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
144: \rho_{11} & \rho_{12} & \rho_{13} & \rho_{14} \\
145: \rho_{12}^* & \rho_{22} & \rho_{23} & \rho_{24} \\
146: \rho_{13}^* & \rho_{23}^* & \rho_{33} & \rho_{34} \\
147: \rho_{14}^* & \rho_{24}^* & \rho_{34}^* & \rho_{44} \\ \end{array} \right)
148: \end{eqnarray}
149: with the $\hat{\rho}_{ij}$ satisfying the requirements for a legitimate
150: density matrix. From our source (see figure(\ref{fig:exp2}))
151: we have four polarisation modes (two for A and two for
152: B). These polarisation modes are spatially separated and
153: input onto beam splitters (BS), with independent and variable
154: transmission coefficients. The second input port of each of these
155: beam splitters are assumed to be vacuums. With perfectly efficient
156: photodetectors it would be possible to monitor the second output mode
157: of each of these beamsplitter and use the results to conditionally
158: select the concentrated state we wish to produce. We know that if the detection
159: of a photon is made in any of the second output ports then the preparation
160: process is considered to have failed. Non-detection (with perfectly
161: efficient detectors) at all the second output ports is required to
162: prepare our state and here is the problem with current single photon detection
163: efficiencies. Photon detectors have a finite efficiency and it
164: possible that a photon present at these second output ports will not
165: be detected. Hence we will not get the conditioned state we desire.
166: Instead we will examine the transmitted modes of the beamsplitter
167: and consider the situations where joint
168: coincidences are registered at the photodetectors
169: of the two subsystems A and B, or Alice and Bob if you prefer. While
170: this is a post selective process it has the advantage that poor
171: detection efficiency only decreases the coincidence count rate. As we
172: discard any information present at the second output of the
173: beamsplitters, the protocol we describe is not unitary.
174: \begin{center}
175: \begin{figure}
176: \epsfig{figure=exp2.eps,width=50mm}\\
177: \caption{\label{fig:exp2} The schematic model of the BS concentration
178: protocol. The source produces an initial state that can be controlled
179: in terms of the entanglement and purity and is thus able to provide a
180: range of initial states for manipulation. This state is then spatially
181: separated with respect to its polarisation modes and then incident on
182: separate beam splitters, BSs, with a different variable reflectivity.
183: By \it tuning \rm the variable BS it is possible to obtain the desired output
184: state with the corresponding
185: coincidence detections for A and B.}
186: \end{figure}
187: \end{center}
188:
189:
190: If we consider that having each mode incident on a BS has the
191: effect of expanding the Hilbert space of the system, then in the
192: expanded Hilbert space we can manipulate the state and then project
193: it back onto the polarisation coincidence basis. The BSs transform each mode in
194: the following way
195: \begin{eqnarray}
196: |V,H \rangle |0 \rangle \rightarrow \eta_{v,h}|V,H \rangle |0 \rangle +
197: \sqrt{(1-\eta_{v,h}^2)}|0\rangle |1\rangle
198: \end{eqnarray}
199: and hence we obtain an output density matrix for this reduced system of the form
200: \begin{eqnarray}
201: \hat{\rho}_{ABout} &=&{\cal N} \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
202: \rho_{11}\eta_{va}^2\eta_{vb}^2&\rho_{12}\eta_{va}^2\eta_{vb}\eta_{hb}& \rho_{13}\eta_{va}\eta_{ha}\eta_{vb}^2 & \rho_{14}\eta \\
203: \rho_{12}^*\eta_{va}^2\eta_{vb}\eta_{hb}&\rho_{22}\eta_{va}^2\eta_{hb}^2&\rho_{23}\eta&\rho_{24}\eta_{va}\eta_{ha}\eta_{hb}^2 \\
204: \rho_{13}^*\eta_{va}\eta_{ha}&\rho_{23}^*\eta&\rho_{33}\eta_{ha}^2\eta_{vb}^2&\rho_{34}\eta_{ha}^2\eta_{vb}\eta_{hb} \\
205: \rho_{14}^*\eta&\rho_{24}^*\eta_{va}\eta_{ha}\eta_{hb}^2&\rho_{34}^*\eta_{ha}^2\eta_{vb}\eta_{hb} &\rho_{44}\eta_{ha}^2\eta_{hb}^2 \\
206: \end{array}
207: \right)
208: \end{eqnarray}
209: where $\eta = \eta_{va}\eta_{ha}\eta_{vb}\eta_{hb}$ and
210: $\eta_{v,h|a,b} $ are the vertical and horizontal polarisation
211: transmission coefficients for subsystems A and B. The normalisation is given by
212: \begin{eqnarray}
213: {\cal N} = [\rho_{11}\eta_{va}^2\eta_{vb}^2 + \rho_{22}\eta_{va}^2\eta_{hb}^2 + \rho_{33}\eta_{ha}^2\eta_{vb}^2 + \rho_{44}\eta_{ha}^2\eta_{hb}^2]^{-1}
214: \end{eqnarray}
215: and the probability of obtaining the desired output state is determined from
216: the trace of the unnormalized BS-transformed density matrix, ${\cal
217: N}^{-1}$, and thus is dependent on the transmission coefficients. This is the probability of obtaining the output state
218: once the BS parameters have been determined.
219:
220: This scheme is more easily understood by considering the behaviour
221: of pure states under the protocol. As such we now illustrate the
222: distillation process with a specific example. We will examine a non-maximally
223: entangled pure state and show how to recover a maximally entangled
224: state via our protocol. Consider an initial state produced by our source of the form
225: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:nmeps1}
226: |\varphi_{in} \rangle_{ab} = {\cal N}_{1}[\epsilon_1|VV\rangle_{ab} + \epsilon_2e^{i\phi}|HH\rangle_{ab}]
227: \end{eqnarray}
228: or alternatively
229: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:nmeps2}
230: |\varphi_{in} \rangle_{ab} = {\cal N}_{1}[\epsilon_1|VH\rangle_{ab} + \epsilon_2e^{i\phi}|HV\rangle_{ab}]
231: \end{eqnarray}
232: where
233: \begin{eqnarray}
234: {\cal N}_{1}^2=[|\epsilon_1|^2 + |\epsilon_2|^2]^{-1}
235: \end{eqnarray}
236: %
237: Assuming the polarisation modes are all spatially separated we input
238: them onto separate BSs (see figure (\ref{fig:exp2})). We can choose
239: to manipulate the BSs at A and B independently to find the optimal
240: output for a given state. For convenience we consider a state of the form of
241: (\ref{eq:nmeps1}) which allows us to simplify the analysis. With
242: this in mind we can set $\eta_{va} = \eta_{vb} = \eta_v$ and
243: $\eta_{ha} = \eta_{hb} = \eta_b$.
244:
245: The state of our system after the BSs (assuming vacuum
246: inputs to the second BS ports) is
247: \begin{eqnarray}
248: |\varphi_{total} \rangle_{AB} &=&{\cal N}_{1} \left[
249: \epsilon_1\eta_v^2|VV\rangle_{AB}|00\rangle +
250: \epsilon_2e^{i\phi}\eta_h^2|HH\rangle_{AB} |00\rangle \right. \nonumber \\
251: &\;&\;\;\;+\epsilon_1\eta_v \sqrt{(1-\eta_{v}^2)}\left\{
252: |V0\rangle_{AB}|01\rangle+
253: |0V\rangle_{AB}|10\rangle \right\} \nonumber \\
254: &\;&\;\;\;+\epsilon_2e^{i\phi}\eta_h \sqrt{(1-\eta_{h}^2)}\left\{
255: |H0\rangle_{AB}|01\rangle+
256: |0H\rangle_{AB}|10\rangle \right\} \nonumber \\
257: &\;&\;\;\; + \epsilon_1 \left(1-\eta_v^2\right)|00\rangle_{AB}|11\rangle
258: \nonumber \\
259: &\;&\;\;\;\left. + \epsilon_2e^{i\phi}\left(1-\eta_h^2\right)|00\rangle_{AB}
260: |11\rangle\right]
261: \end{eqnarray}
262: The outcomes we are interested in are in the joint coincidence basis of A,B and
263: hence the vacuum state components are removed from consideration
264: leaving an effective output state of the form
265: \begin{eqnarray}
266: |\varphi_{out} \rangle_{AB} = {\cal
267: N}_{2}[\epsilon_1\eta_v^2|VV\rangle_{AB} +
268: \epsilon_2e^{i\phi}\eta_h^2|HH\rangle_{AB}]
269: \end{eqnarray}
270: where the normalisation in this coincidence basis is
271: \begin{eqnarray}
272: {\cal N}_{2}^2 = [|\epsilon_1|^2\eta_v^4 + |\epsilon_2|^2\eta_h^4]^{-1}
273: \end{eqnarray}
274: For maximal entanglement we have the following simple relationship
275: \begin{eqnarray}
276: |\epsilon_1| \eta_v^2 = |\epsilon_2| \eta_h^2
277: \end{eqnarray}
278: We observe that the entanglement of the output state is dependent
279: on the transmission coefficients of the BSs. Further, this protocol
280: can always take a non-maximally entangled state and obtain a pure
281: maximally entangled one. This protocol can also incorporate a phase
282: adjuster at either A or B to tune any relative phase difference for
283: the state. If we had considered states of the form of
284: (\ref{eq:nmeps2}) then we would need to consider the tuning
285: parameters independently such that the requirement for a pure
286: maximally entangled state is then
287: \begin{eqnarray}
288: |\epsilon_1| \eta_{va}\eta_{hb} = |\epsilon_2| \eta_{vb}\eta_{ha}
289: \end{eqnarray}
290: This is where the protocol differs from the Procrustean method of
291: Bennett \it et.al \rm \cite{Bennett3:96}. We have introduced individual
292: depolarising channels, thus obtaining more degrees of freedom, and
293: so allowing the protocol to be extended to mixed states. It is
294: important to mention again that with perfect single photon detection
295: it is possible to monitor the discarded ports for each of the modes,
296: thus preparing the desired state by conditioned measurements.
297:
298: Let us now turn our attention to the concentration of mixed
299: states. As an extension to the distillation process we take the
300: density matrix $\hat{\rho}_{ABin}$ to be a mixture of the density
301: matrices of two of the Bell-type states, (\ref{eq:nmeps1}) and
302: (\ref{eq:nmeps2}), one of which, say (\ref{eq:nmeps1}), is maximally
303: entangled, $\epsilon_1 = \epsilon_2 = 1$. The mixing can be controlled
304: by the parameter $\gamma$, that is,
305: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:rhoineg}
306: \hat{\rho}_{ABin} &=& \gamma {\cal N}_{1}^{2} \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
307: |\epsilon_1|^2 & 0 & 0 & \epsilon_1^{*}\epsilon_2 \\
308: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
309: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
310: \epsilon_1\epsilon_2^{*} & 0 & 0 & |\epsilon_2|^2 \\ \end{array} \right)
311: + \frac{1-\gamma}{2}\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
312: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
313: 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
314: 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
315: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \end{array} \right)
316: \end{eqnarray}
317: This state is one of many of the range of mixed states that can be
318: concentrated and has been chosen to easily show the protocols
319: extension from pure to mixed states, from distillation to concentration.
320: Using the BS protocol illustrated in figure(\ref{fig:exp2}) the
321: output state for (\ref{eq:rhoineg}) in the coincidence basis, $AB$, can
322: be represented as
323: \begin{eqnarray}
324: \hat{\rho}_{ABout}&=&{\cal N}_{3}^{2} \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
325: \gamma|\epsilon_1|^2\eta_{va}^2\eta_{vb}^2&0&0&\gamma \epsilon_1\epsilon_2^{*}\eta \\
326: 0 &\Gamma \eta_{va}^2\eta_{hb}^2 &\Gamma \eta & 0 \\
327: 0 & \Gamma \eta & \Gamma \eta_{ha}^2\eta_{vb}^2 & 0 \\
328: \gamma \epsilon_1^{*}\epsilon_2\eta & 0 & 0 &\gamma |\epsilon_2|^2\eta_{ha}^2\eta_{hb}^2 \\ \end{array} \right)
329: \end{eqnarray}
330: with $\Gamma = \frac{(1-\gamma)}{2}$
331: and the normalisation ${\cal N}_{3}$ given by
332: \begin{eqnarray}
333: {\cal N}_{3}^{2} =
334: [\gamma(|\epsilon_1|^2\eta_{va}^2\eta_{vb}^2+|\epsilon_2^2|\eta_{ha}^2\eta_{hb}^2)+\Gamma(\eta_{va}^2\eta_{h_{b}}^2 + \eta_{ha}^2\eta_{vb}^2)]^{-1}
335: \end{eqnarray}
336:
337: In figure (\ref{fig:conc}) we display the effect of our protocol for
338: a range of $\gamma$ values with $\epsilon_1=1$ and $\epsilon_2=0.1$
339: (the $\gamma$ values are labeled at the peak of each curve). The initial points for the fixed $\gamma$, $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$
340: are displayed as solid dots. These curves represent the behaviour
341: of the Entropy and EOF of the states as the BSs are tuned to optimise
342: both. We see how this class of state can be improved is dependent on the
343: amount mixing. The behaviour of the state is similarly dependent
344: on the degree of entanglement in the pure state components of the
345: mixed state of (\ref{eq:rhoineg}), variations in $\epsilon_{1,2}$,
346: though this is not explicitly shown here.
347: \begin{center}
348: \begin{figure}
349: \epsfig{figure=conc.eps,width=60mm}
350: \caption{\label{fig:conc} The plot of the Entanglement of Formation
351: versus the Entropy displays the concentration characteristics of the
352: idealised schematic of figure(\ref{fig:ent-pur}). We consider states of the
353: form of (\ref{eq:rhoineg})
354: with $(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2) = (1,0.1)$, the values for $\gamma$ are
355: labeled at the peak of each curve. The curves illustrate the entire
356: range of values a state can attain in the (S,EOF) plane as the BS
357: parameters, $\eta_{va} = \eta_{vb}=\eta_v$, are varied,
358: $0<\eta_{v}<1$. The initial states are marked as filled black
359: circles. If we consider the state $\gamma = 0.1$, initially (S,EOF) =
360: (0.23,0.84), then as we decrease $\eta_v$ from an initial value of 1 we
361: approach the maximum concentration value (S,EOF) = (0.075,0.94) at
362: $\eta_v= 0.32$. If we continue to decrease $\eta_v$ we then follow the
363: curve back down through our initial point on the plane and from then on the
364: state deteriorates from its original value. We also note that the
365: other curves have similar concentration characteristics for $\gamma
366: \le 0.5$. $\gamma = 0.5$ corresponds to the case where the two
367: Bell-type states are evenly mixed.}
368: \end{figure}
369: \end{center}
370:
371:
372: The curves in figure (\ref{fig:conc}) represent the range of (S,EOF)
373: values for the output states from our protocol. We take the
374: specific case of $\gamma = 0.1$ and observe the variation of (S,EOF) as we tune
375: $\eta_{va} = \eta_{vb} = \eta_v $. From the initial state marked with a
376: black circle at (S,EOF) = (0.23,0.84) with $\eta_v=1$ we then adjust
377: the BSs, moving up the curve, to a state with (S,EOF) =
378: (0.075,0.94) for $\eta_v= 0.32$. This constitutes a turning point on the plane and if we
379: continue decreasing $\eta_v$ we follow the curve back to our initial point in the plane after which
380: the entanglement-entropy properties of the state deteriorate from the
381: original values.
382:
383: What does the state look like? We observe that with
384: ($\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,\gamma) = (1.00,0.10,0.30)$ and allowing all
385: the light through the horizontal BS (an optimal setting provided
386: $|\epsilon_1| > |\epsilon_2|$ to maximise the output), and tuning the
387: vertical beam splitters transmission to $\eta_{v} = 0.32$ we can take
388: an initial state
389: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:rhoinsp}
390: \hat{\rho}_{ABin} = \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
391: 0.297 & 0 & 0 & 0.030 \\
392: 0 & 0.350 & 0.350 & 0 \\
393: 0 & 0.350 & 0.350 & 0 \\
394: 0.030 & 0 & 0 & 0.003 \\ \end{array} \right)
395: \end{eqnarray}
396: to an output state
397: \begin{eqnarray}
398: \hat{\rho}_{ABout} = \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
399: 0.039 & 0 & 0 & 0.039 \\
400: 0 & 0.461 & 0.461 & 0 \\
401: 0 & 0.461 & 0.461 & 0 \\
402: 0.039 & 0 & 0 & 0.039 \\ \end{array} \right)
403: \end{eqnarray}
404: This output state has an increase in the Entanglement of Formation
405: from EOF = 0.52 to EOF = 0.78, while the entropy of the system has
406: decreased from S = 0.30 to S = 0.20, this result is achieved with a
407: finite probability P = 7.6\%.
408:
409: There exists a critical point with respect to
410: concentration at $\gamma = 0.5$ which corresponds to the case
411: where the two pure states of (\ref{eq:rhoineg}) are evenly mixed. For
412: those states with the mixing parameter $\gamma \le 0.5$ concentration
413: is possible whilst for those states above this value the entanglement
414: can be increased but this is at the cost of purity. All of these
415: states can be concentrated if we choose to tune another BS, thus
416: highlighting the need for all four BSs. Similarly if we considered a
417: mixture of the pure states of (\ref{eq:nmeps1}) and (\ref{eq:nmeps2}),
418: where both had $\epsilon_{1,2} \ne 1$, then we find that concentration
419: is still achievable.
420:
421: Now let us consider the incoherent sum of a pure state and a mixed
422: state and take as an example of this the Werner state, a mixture of
423: the identity and some fraction of a pure state. If the pure state
424: fraction of the Werner state is a non-maximally entangled pure state,
425: then it is possible to increase the entanglement of the state. However
426: this entanglement increase comes at the cost of purity and is bound by
427: the amount of entanglement that would be inherent in a Werner state using a
428: maximally entangled pure state.
429:
430: %========== CONCLUSION ================================
431: %\section{Conclusion}
432: \label{CONCLUSION}
433:
434: In conclusion, we have proposed an entanglement concentration protocol that is
435: experimentally realisable and can produce a finite concentration of Bell pairs
436: from some initially mixed states. The key point here is that whilst this
437: is achievable we are more interested in the entanglement properties
438: then the final form of the state. Indeed with such a simple protocol the range of possible
439: tests with respect to quantum information and entanglement are quite
440: diverse, and whilst this protocol does require some knowledge of the
441: state in determining the tuning parameters and is a non-unitary
442: operation, we believe it should provide a most useful tool in the
443: exploration of mixed state entanglement.\\
444:
445: %\acknowledgments{}
446: The authors would like to thank A.G. White and P.G. Kwiat for useful
447: discussions with respect to the practicality of the experimental
448: implementation of this scheme. WJM would like to acknowledge the support of the Australian
449: Research Council.
450:
451: %======REFS=============================================
452: \vspace{-.5cm}
453: \begin{references}
454: \small\vspace{-.5cm}
455: \bibitem[*]{RTT} Electronic address: thew@physics.uq.edu.au
456: \bibitem[\dagger]{WJM} Electronic address: billm@physics.uq.edu.au
457:
458: \bibitem{Bennett2:96} C.H. Bennett, G.Brassard, S. Popescu, and B.
459: Schumacher, J.A. Smolin, and W.K. Wooters, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 722
460: (1996).
461: \bibitem{Deutsch:96} D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello,
462: S. Popescu, and A. Sanpera, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 2818 (1996).
463: \bibitem{Bennett1:96} C.H. Bennett,D.P. Vincenzo, J.A. Smolin and
464: W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 54}, 3824 (1996).
465: \bibitem{Bennett3:96} C.H. Bennett, H.J. Bernstein, S. Popescu, and
466: B. Schumacher, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 53}, 2046 (1996).
467: \bibitem{Rains1:99} E.M. Rains, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 60}, 173 (1999).
468: \bibitem{Vedral:97} V. Vedral, M.B. Plenio, M.A. Rippen, and
469: P.L. Knight, Phys.Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 2275 (1997).
470: \bibitem{Kwiat:00} P.G. Kwiat, private communication.
471: \bibitem{Popescu1:95} S. Popescu, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74}, 2619 (1995).
472: \bibitem{Gisin1:96} N. Gisin, Phys. Lett. A {\bf 210}, 151 (1996).
473: \bibitem{White:99} A.G. White, D.F.V. James, P.H. Eberhard, and
474: P.G. Kwiat, Phys.Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 3103 (1999).
475: \bibitem{White:00} A.G. White, D.F.V. James, W.J.Munro, and P.G. Kwiat, In preparation.
476: \bibitem{Wooters1:98} W.K. Wooters, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 2245 (1998).
477: \end{references}
478:
479:
480: \end{document}
481:
482:
483: