1: \documentclass{elsart}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{amssymb}
5: \usepackage{setspace}
6:
7: \setstretch{1.5}
8:
9: \journal{Physics Letter A}
10: \begin{document}
11: \begin{frontmatter}
12: \title{Quantum Message Exchange Based on Entanglement and Bell-State Measurements}
13: \author{Sung Soon Jang}
14: \and
15: \author{Hai-Woong Lee}
16: \address {Department of Physics, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology Daejeon, 305-701, Korea}
17: \date{\today}
18:
19: \begin{abstract}
20: We propose a scheme by which two parties can secretely and
21: simultaneously exchange messages. The scheme requires the two
22: parties to share entanglement and both to perform Bell-state
23: measurements. Only two out of the four Bell states are required to
24: be distinguished in the Bell-state measurements, and thus the
25: scheme is experimentally feasible using only linear optical means.
26: Generalizations of the scheme to high-dimensional systems and to
27: multipartite entanglement are considered. We show also that the
28: proposed scheme works even if the two parties do not possess
29: shared reference frames.
30: \end{abstract}
31:
32: \end{frontmatter}
33:
34: \section{Introduction}
35: Entanglement is an essential resource for many applications in
36: quantum information science such as quantum superdense
37: coding\cite{BW92,MWKZ96} quantum
38: teleportation\cite{BBCJPW93,BBMHP98,BPMEWZ97,FSBFKP98,LK01,LSPM02},
39: quantum cryptography\cite{E91,ECrypt00,LLCLK03}, and quantum
40: computing\cite{RB01,Ni04}. From an information-theoretic point of
41: view, two parties sharing entanglement can be regarded to have
42: already a certain amount of information distributed between them;
43: one e-bit per a shared maximally entangled pair of qubits. Thus,
44: for example, in superdense coding two bits of information can be
45: sent from one party to another by manipulating only one of two
46: maximally entangled qubits. In quantum teleportation a quantum
47: state of a qubit can be completely transferred by sending only two
48: bits of classical information, if the two parties, the sender and
49: the receiver, share a maximally entangled pair.
50:
51: In this work we explore yet another situation in which two(or
52: more) parties can make use of entanglement they share to their
53: advantage. We consider a situation in which two parties, Alice and
54: Bob, share a maximally entangled pair A and B of qubits. Alice
55: makes a Bell-state measurement upon the qubit $A$ and another
56: qubit $\alpha$ she prepared in a state about which only she has
57: the information. Bob also makes a Bell-state measurement upon the
58: qubit $B$ and another qubit $\beta$ he prepared in a state about
59: which only he has the information. We are interested in the
60: probability for each of the sixteen possible joint measurement
61: outcomes, which in general depends upon the states of the qubits
62: $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in a way characteristic of the shared
63: entanglement. If Alice keeps the information on the state of qubit
64: $\alpha$ to herself and Bob keeps the information on the state of
65: qubit $\beta$ to himself, they have a partial knowledge of the
66: probabilities in advance that others do not. We suggest that this
67: advantage can be exploited to devise a method by which Alice and
68: Bob secretely and simultaneously exchange messages.
69: Generalizations of the method to higher-dimensional
70: systems(``qudits'') and to multipartite entanglement are also
71: discussed.
72:
73: \section{The Basic Scheme}
74: Let us suppose that two parties, Alice and Bob, share a maximally
75: entangled pair $A$ and $B$ of qubits. The qubits A and B can be in
76: any of the four Bell states
77: \begin{equation}
78: |\Phi _{ij}\rangle_{AB} = \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\sum\limits_{q=0}^{1}
79: {(-1) ^{jq} } |q\rangle_A |q + i\rangle_B; i,j=0,1
80: \begin{array}{l}
81: \\ [-10mm] ,
82: \end{array}
83: \end{equation}
84: but for the sake of concreteness of argument, we take it as
85: \begin{equation}
86: |\Phi _{00}\rangle_{AB} = \frac{1}{{\sqrt 2 }}\left( {\left| 0
87: \right\rangle_A \left| 0 \right\rangle_B + \left| 1
88: \right\rangle_A \left| 1 \right\rangle_B } \right)
89: \end{equation}
90: Alice has in her possession another qubit $\alpha$ which she
91: prepared in state
92: \begin{equation}
93: |\psi\rangle_{\alpha} = a_0 |0 \rangle_{\alpha}+ a_1
94: |1\rangle_{\alpha}
95: \end{equation}
96: Similarly, Bob has in his possession yet another qubit $\beta$
97: which he prepared in state
98: \begin{equation}
99: |\psi\rangle_{\beta} = b_0 |0 \rangle_{\beta}+ b_1
100: |1\rangle_{\beta}
101: \end{equation}
102: Now Alice performs a Bell-state measurement on the pair $\alpha$
103: and $A$, and Bob performs a Bell-state measurement on the pair
104: $\beta$ and $B$. The experimental scheme is depicted schematically
105: in Fig.~1.
106:
107: \begin{figure}
108: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{efig} \caption{Experimental
109: Scheme. The EPR(Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) source emits an entangled
110: pair in state $|\Phi_{00}\rangle_{AB}$. Alice performs a
111: Bell-state measurement on the qubit pair $\alpha$ and A, and Bob
112: performs a Bell-state measurement on the qubit pair $\beta$ and B.
113: BSM stands for Bell-state measurement.}
114: \end{figure}
115:
116: The probability $P_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2} (i_1,j_1,i_2,j_2 = 0,1)$ that
117: Alice's Bell-state measurement yields $|\Phi_{i_1
118: j_1}\rangle_{\alpha A}$ and Bob's Bell-state measurement yields
119: $|\Phi_{i_2 j_2}\rangle_{\beta B}$ can be obtained by expanding
120: the total wave function $|\psi\rangle_{\alpha \beta A B} =
121: |\psi\rangle_\alpha |\psi\rangle_\beta |\Phi_{00}\rangle_{AB}$ as
122: \begin{equation}
123: \left| \psi \right\rangle _{\alpha \beta AB} =
124: \sum\limits_{i_1,j_1,i_2,j_2 = 0}^1 {\left| {\Phi _{i_1 j_1} }
125: \right\rangle _{\alpha A} \left| {\Phi _{i_2 j_2} } \right\rangle
126: _{\beta B} V_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2} }
127: \end{equation}
128: A straightforward algebra yields
129: \begin{equation}
130: V_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt 2}(-1)^{\left ( i_1 j_1 + i_2
131: j_2 \right )} \left [ a_{i_1} b_{i_2} + (-1)^{\left (j_1 +
132: j_2\right )} a_{i_1 + 1} b_{i_2 + 1} \right ],
133: \end{equation}
134: where all indices are evaluated modulo 2. The probabilities
135: $P_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2}$'s are given by $P_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2} =
136: |V_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2}|^2$. From Eq.(6) we immediately obtain
137: \begin{subequations}
138: \begin{eqnarray}
139: P_{0000} = P_{0101} = P_{1010} = P_{1111} = \frac{1}{8}\left |
140: a_0 b_0 + a_1 b_1 \right |^2 \\
141: P_{0001} = P_{0100} = P_{1011} = P_{1110} = \frac{1}{8}\left |
142: a_0 b_0 - a_1 b_1 \right |^2 \\
143: P_{0010} = P_{0111} = P_{1000} = P_{1101} = \frac{1}{8}\left |
144: a_0 b_1 + a_1 b_0 \right |^2 \\
145: P_{0011} = P_{0110} = P_{1001} = P_{1100} = \frac{1}{8}\left |
146: a_0 b_1 - a_1 b_0 \right |^2
147: \end{eqnarray}
148: \end{subequations}
149:
150: We note that, since Alice prepared the state of qubit $\alpha$ and
151: thus knows what $a_0$ and $a_1$ are, and similarly since Bob
152: prepared the state of qubit $\beta$ and thus knows what $b_0$ and
153: $b_1$ are, Alice and Bob have a partial prior knowledge of the
154: probabilities $P_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2}$'s. We suggest that they can
155: take advantage of this knowledge to secretely exchange messages.
156:
157: The scheme we propose goes as follows. We suppose that Alice and
158: Bob share a large number N($\gg 1$) of maximally entangled pairs
159: A's and B's. We further suppose that Alice has an equally large
160: number N of qubits $\alpha$'s, each of which she prepared in state
161: (3), and that Bob has N qubits $\beta$'s, each of which he
162: prepared in state (4). Alice keeps the information on the state of
163: qubits $\alpha$'s to herself and Bob keeps the information on the
164: state of qubits $\beta$'s to himself. Alice and Bob then perform a
165: series of N Bell-state measurements on each pair $\alpha$ and $A$,
166: and $\beta$ and $B$, respectively. They announce publicly their
167: measurement results only when the outcome is either $\Phi_{10}$ or
168: $\Phi_{11}$ (this considerably eases the burden on the Bell-state
169: measurements, because only these two Bell states can be
170: unambiguously distinguished with linear optical means
171: \cite{MWKZ96,LK01,LCS99}). By counting the number $N_{1 j_1 1
172: j_2}$ of occurrences for the joint outcome $\left |\Phi_{1 j_1}
173: \right \rangle_{\alpha A} \left | \Phi_{1 j_2} \right
174: \rangle_{\beta B}$, the probabilities $P_{1 j_1 1 j_2}$'s $(j_1 ,
175: j_2 = 0,1)$ can be determined experimentally as
176: \begin{equation}
177: P^{exp}_{1 j_1 1 j_2} = \frac{N_{1 j_1 1 j_2}}{N}
178: \end{equation}
179: When the four experimentally determined probabilities $P^{exp}_{1
180: j_1 1 j_2}$'s ($P^{exp}_{1010}$, $P^{exp}_{1111}$,
181: $P^{exp}_{1011}$, $P^{exp}_{1110}$) are substituted for the
182: probabilities $P_{1 j_1 1 j_2}$'s of Eqs. (7a) and (7b), we obtain
183: two equations that relate the four constants $a_0 , a_1 , b_0$ and
184: $b_1$. Since Alice knows the values of $a_0$ and $a_1$, there are
185: only two unknowns $b_0$ and $b_1$ [ the constants $b_0$ and $b_1$
186: are complex numbers, but they are subject to normalization and the
187: overall phase can be ignored] to her. Likewise, there are only two
188: unknowns $a_0$ and $a_1$ to Bob. To any third party, however, the
189: number of unknowns is four. We can thus conclude that only Alice
190: and Bob can completely determine the four constants $a_0, a_1,
191: b_0$ and $b_1$. Let us suppose that Alice and Bob have secret
192: messages they wish to send to each other. If they prepare their
193: messages in the form of two constants, the scheme described above
194: can be used for them to achieve a secret two-way communication. We
195: mention that a scheme which is different from our proposed scheme
196: but allows two parties to simultaneously exchange their messages
197: as our proposed scheme does has recently been proposed\cite{Ng04}.
198:
199: \section{Efficiency}
200: Let us now estimate the efficiency of the scheme described in the
201: previous section. When a sufficiently large number $N\gg 1$ of
202: Bell-state measurements are made by Alice and Bob each, the number
203: $N_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2}$ of times the joint outcome $|\Phi_{i_1
204: j_1}\rangle_{\alpha A}|\Phi_{i_2 j_2}\rangle_{\beta B}$ is counted
205: lies within the range defined as\cite{Reif}
206: \begin{equation}
207: \begin{array}{l}
208: NP_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2} - \sqrt {2NP_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2} \left( {1 -
209: P_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2} } \right)} \lesssim N_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2}^{exp}
210: \lesssim NP_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2} + \sqrt {2NP_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2}
211: \left( {1 - P_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2} } \right)}
212: \end{array}
213: \end{equation}
214: where $P_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2}$'s are the exact theoretical
215: probabilities given by Eqs.(7). Thus, the accuracy of the
216: experimentally determined probabilities $P^{exp}_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2}
217: = N^{exp}_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2}/N$ is limited by
218: \begin{equation}
219: \left | P^{exp}_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2} - P_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2} \right |
220: \lesssim \frac{\sqrt{2NP_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2} \left( {1 - P_{i_1 j_1
221: i_2 j_2} } \right)}}{N}\cong \frac{1}{\sqrt N}
222: \end{equation}
223: Eq.(10) is valid as long as Alice and Bob perform each of their
224: Bell-state measurements individually, which we assume here. [If a
225: collective approach is adopted, for example, if Alice performs all
226: N Bell-state measurements before Bob makes any of his measurements
227: and sends the message containing the outcome of all her
228: measurements to Bob, and if Bob, upon receiving Alice's message,
229: performs his Bell-state measurements in an appropriate collective
230: way, it may be possible to obtain a higher accuracy for
231: $P^{exp}_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2}$. Further research is needed on the
232: collective approach.] Eq.(10) indicates that, in order to obtain
233: $P^{exp}_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2}$ accurate to one decimal point, which
234: would allow Alice and Bob to share four real values $\cos\theta_A,
235: \cos\phi_A, \cos\theta_B, \cos\phi_B$ ($a_0 = \cos\theta_A, a_1 =
236: \sin\theta_A e^{i\phi_A}, b_0 =\cos\theta_B, a_1 = \sin\theta_B
237: e^{i\phi_B}$) accurate to one decimal point each, Alice and Bob
238: should perform $\sim 100$(perhaps a few hundred) Bell-state
239: measurements each. We therefore conclude that Alice and Bob gain 4
240: secret digits(or equivalently 13$\sim$14 secret bits) at the
241: expense of $\sim 100$(a few hundred) entangled pairs, i.e., the
242: number of secret bits gained per use of an entangled pair is
243: roughly 0.1 or less. The efficiency of the proposed scheme is thus
244: somewhat lower than that of the entanglement-based cryptographic
245: scheme(E91)\cite{E91}.
246:
247: We note that the proposed protocol can be used for Alice and Bob
248: to send secretly to each other directions in space and
249: consequently to possess two private shared reference frames. They
250: need of course to store the information on their Euler angles in
251: the constants $a_0$, $a_1$ and $b_0$, $b_1$, respectively. Shared
252: reference frames are a resource for quantum communications
253: \cite{Enk04,RG03,BRS04}. A standard protocol\cite{RG03} to send
254: directions in space when Alice and Bob share entangled pairs, say
255: in $\left ( \Phi_{00} \right)_{AB}$, requires Alice to perform a
256: projection measurement in her $|0\rangle-|1\rangle$ basis on the
257: particle A of each entangled pair and announce publicly the
258: outcome of each measurement. Bob would then follow with his
259: projection measurement in his $|0\rangle-|1\rangle$ basis on the
260: corresponding particle B of each entangled pair. If a sufficiently
261: large number $N \gg 1$ of projection measurements are performed by
262: Alice and Bob, the number $N_s$ of times that Alice and Bob obtain
263: the same measurement outcome will be given by $\frac{N_s}{N} =
264: \cos^2\theta$, where $\theta$ is the angle between Alice's and
265: Bob's axes.[ We assume that qubits are polarized photons. If we
266: take spins for qubits, then $\frac{N_s}{N} =
267: cos^2\frac{\theta}{2}$]. Provided that Alice and Bob perform each
268: of their projection measurements individually, essentially the
269: same statistical analysis based on Eq.(9) applies here, and thus
270: the efficiency of our proposed protocol is of the same order of
271: magnitude as that of this standard entanglement-based protocol.
272: [If, however, we allow Bob to make collective measurements in the
273: standard protocol, the efficiency can be higher. See, for example,
274: Ref.\cite{SharingReference}.] Our protocol, however, requires both
275: Alice and Bob to perform Bell-state measurements, which are in
276: general more difficult to perform than von-Neumann projection
277: measurements. One advantage of our protocol is that it is
278: symmetric with respect to Alice and Bob and allows both Alice and
279: Bob to gain information, whereas in standard schemes the
280: information usually flows one way.
281:
282: \section{Generalization to higher-dimensional systems}
283: We now consider a generalization of the above scheme to
284: higher-dimensional systems, i.e., to ``qudits''. The generalized
285: Bell states for a qudit can be defined as \cite{ADGJ00,E03}
286: \begin{equation}
287: |\Phi _{ij}\rangle_{AB} = \frac{1}{\sqrt d
288: }\sum\limits_{q=0}^{d-1} {\omega ^{jq} } |q\rangle_A |q +
289: i\rangle_B;~i,j=0,1,\dots,d-1
290: \end{equation}
291: where $\omega=e^{i\frac{2 \pi}{d}}$. Let us assume that Alice and
292: Bob share a large number N($\gg 1$) of entangled pairs $A$'s and
293: $B$'s in the generalized Bell state $\left | \Phi_{00} \right
294: \rangle_{AB}$. Alice performs a series of N Bell-state
295: measurements on pairs of qudit $A$ and another qudit $\alpha$ she
296: prepared in state $|\psi\rangle_{\alpha} = \sum\limits_{i=0}^{d-1}
297: a_i |i \rangle_{\alpha}$, while Bob performs a series of N
298: Bell-state measurements on pairs of qudit $B$ and yet another
299: qudit $\beta$ he prepared in state
300: $|\psi\rangle_{\beta}=\sum\limits_{i=0}^{d-1}b_i|i\rangle_{\beta}$.
301: As in the qubit case, the total wave function
302: $|\psi\rangle_{\alpha\beta A B}$ can be expanded in terms of the
303: products of the generalized Bell states $|\Phi_{i_1
304: j_1}\rangle_{\alpha A} |\Phi_{i_2 j_2}\rangle_{\beta B}$ as
305: \begin{equation}
306: |\psi\rangle_{\alpha \beta A B} = \sum\limits_{i_1 , j_1 , i_2 ,
307: j_2 = 0}^{d-1} |\Phi_{i_1 j_1}\rangle_{\alpha A} |\Phi_{i_2
308: j_2}\rangle_{\beta B} V_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2}
309: \end{equation}
310: where $V_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2}$ is given by
311: \begin{equation}
312: V_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2}=\frac{1}{d \sqrt d}~\omega^{\left ( i_1 j_1 +
313: i_2 j_2 \right ) } \sum\limits_{m=0}^{d-1}\omega^{-\left (j_1 +
314: j_2 \right ) m} a_{m-i_1} b_{m-i_2}
315: \end{equation}
316: where all indices are now evaluated modulo d. Eq.(13) indicates
317: that the probabilities $P_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2}=\left | V_{i_1 j_1 i_2
318: j_2} \right|^2$ take on the same value if $i_1 - i_2$(mod d) is
319: the same and if $j_1 + j_2$(mod d) is the same. Thus, there are
320: $d^2$ different values of the probabilities $P_{i_1 j_1 i_2
321: j_2}$'s. Eq.(13) then provides $(d^2-1)$ independent equations
322: that relate the constants, $a_0, a_1,\dots,a_{d-1}$;
323: $b_0,b_1,\dots,b_{d-1}$. To any third party other than Alice and
324: Bob, the number of unknowns contained in these constants is
325: $(4d-4)$. There are , however, only $(2d-2)$ unknowns, as far as
326: Alice or Bob is concerned. By agreeing to publicly announce their
327: measurement results only when the outcome is among judiciously
328: chosen generalized Bell states, Alice and Bob can limit the number
329: of probabilities that can be determined experimentally in such a
330: way that the number of equations that relate the experimentally
331: determined probabilities with the constants $a_i$'s and $b_i$'s is
332: greater than or equal to $(2d-2)$ but less that $(4d-4)$. This
333: way, Alice and Bob can send secret messages in the form of
334: $(2d-2)$ constants to each other and as a result secretely share
335: $(4d-4)$ constants between them.
336:
337: As an example consider the case $d=3$. If Alice and Bob announce
338: results of the Bell-state measurements only when they measure
339: either $\Phi_{00}$ or $\Phi_{21}$, they can determine
340: experimentally the four probabilities $P^{exp}_{0000},
341: P^{exp}_{2121}, P^{exp}_{0021}$ and $P^{exp}_{2100}$, which are
342: given by
343: \begin{subequations}
344: \begin{eqnarray}
345: P_{0000} & = & \frac{1}{27}\left |a_0 b_0 + a_1 b_1 + a_2 b_2
346: \right|^2 \\
347: P_{2121} & = & \frac{1}{27}\left |a_0 b_0 + a_1 b_1 \omega + a_2
348: b_2\omega^2 \right |^2 \\
349: P_{0021} & = & \frac{1}{27}\left |a_2 b_0 + a_0 b_1 \omega^2 + a_1
350: b_2 \omega \right |^2 \\
351: P_{2100} & = & \frac{1}{27}\left |a_1 b_0 \omega^2 + a_2 b_1
352: \omega + a_0 b_2 \right |^2
353: \end{eqnarray}
354: \end{subequations}
355: where $\omega=e^{i \frac{2 \pi}{3}}$. Eqs. (14a)-(14d) are
356: sufficient for Alice and Bob to determine their four unknowns,
357: allowing them to exchange messages in the form of four constants
358: each.
359:
360: \section{Generalization to multipartite entanglement}
361: Another possible generalization of the proposed scheme is to the
362: case of multiparty communications. Let us consider the case when
363: N($>2$) parties share an N-qubit entangled state of
364: Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) type \cite{GHZ} given by
365: \begin{equation}
366: |\Phi\rangle_{AB\dots N}=\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\left ( |0\rangle_A
367: |0\rangle_B \dots |0\rangle_N + |1\rangle_A |1\rangle_B \dots
368: |1\rangle_N \right )
369: \end{equation}
370: where the letter N(also the small letter $n$ and the Greek letter
371: $\nu$) refers to the Nth party or Nth qubit. Each party has, in
372: addition to the qubit K of Eq.(15) [ the letter K (and also the
373: small letter k and the Greek letter $\kappa$) denotes the Kth
374: party or Kth qubit, where $1\leq K \leq N$], another qubit
375: $\kappa$ which she or he prepared in state
376: \begin{equation}
377: |\psi\rangle_\kappa = k_0 |0\rangle_\kappa + k_1 |1\rangle_\kappa
378: \end{equation}
379: Each party then performs a Bell-state measurement upon the qubits
380: $\kappa$ and K. The total wave function for the 2N qubits $\alpha,
381: \beta,\dots \nu, A, B, \dots N$ can be expanded as
382: \begin{equation}
383: |\psi\rangle_{\alpha, \beta,\dots \nu, A, B, \dots N} = \sum
384: \limits_{i_1, j_1, i_2, j_2, \dots, i_N, j_N = 0}^{1}\left(
385: \Phi_{i_1 j_1} \right )_{\alpha A}\left( \Phi_{i_2 j_2} \right
386: )_{\beta B} \dots \left ( \Phi_{i_N j_N} \right )_{\nu N} V_{i_1
387: j_1 i_2 j_2 \dots i_N j_N}
388: \end{equation}
389: A straightforward algebra yields
390: \begin{equation}
391: \begin{array}{l}
392: V_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2 \dots i_N j_N} = \\
393: \displaystyle{\frac{1}{(\sqrt 2)^{N+1}}}(-1)^{i_1 j_1 + i_2 j_2 +
394: \dots + i_N j_N } \left [ a_{i_1} b_{i_2} \dots n_{i_N} +
395: (-1)^{j_1 + j_2 + \dots + j_N} a_{i_1 + 1}b_{i_2 + 1} \dots n_{i_N
396: +1} \right ]
397: \end{array}
398: \end{equation}
399:
400: In Eq.(18), the constants $n_0$ and $n_1$ define the state of the
401: qubit $\nu$ in which the Nth party prepared according to
402: \begin{equation}
403: |\psi\rangle_\nu = n_0 |0\rangle_\nu + n_1 |1\rangle_\nu
404: \end{equation}
405:
406: Eq.(18) indicates that there are $2^N$ different values for the
407: probabilities $P_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2 \dots i_N j_N}$ $= \left |
408: V_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2 \dots i_N j_N} \right |^2$. To any member of
409: the $N$ parties sharing the entanglement of Eq.(15), the number of
410: unknowns is $(2N-2)$, while it is $(2N)$ to any outsider. As
411: before, by agreeing to publicly announce the measurement results
412: only when the outcome is among judiciously chosen Bell states,
413: each of the N parties can secretely send his message in the form
414: of two constants to all others of the N parties, so that the N
415: parties can share secretely the messages in the form of $2N$
416: constants.
417:
418: As an example, consider the case $N=3$. Let us assume that the
419: three parties, Alice, Bob and Charlie agree that Charlie is the
420: last one to make an announcement each time, that Alice and Bob
421: announce the measurement results only when they obtain either
422: $\Phi_{10}$ or $\Phi_{11}$, and that Charlie announces his
423: measurement result only when both Alice and Bob announce their
424: measurement results and he(Charlie) obtains either $\Phi_{10}$ or
425: $\Phi_{11}$ or $\Phi_{00}$. The probabilities that can be
426: determined experimentally are then the following:
427: \begin{subequations}
428: \begin{eqnarray}
429: P^{exp}_{101010} &=& P^{exp}_{101111} = P^{exp}_{111110} =
430: P^{exp}_{111011} = \frac{1}{16}\left | a_0 b_0 c_0 + a_1 b_1 c_1
431: \right |^2 \\
432: P^{exp}_{111010} &=& P^{exp}_{101110} = P^{exp}_{101011} =
433: P^{exp}_{111111} = \frac{1}{16}\left | a_0 b_0 c_0 - a_1 b_1 c_1
434: \right |^2 \\
435: P^{exp}_{101100} &=& P^{exp}_{111000} = \frac{1}{16}\left | a_0
436: b_0
437: c_1 - a_1 b_1 c_0 \right |^2 \\
438: P^{exp}_{101000} &=& P^{exp}_{111100} = \frac{1}{16}\left | a_0
439: b_0 c_1 + a_1 b_1 c_0 \right |^2
440: \end{eqnarray}
441: \end{subequations}
442: Since each of Alice, Bob and Charlie has four unknowns, she or he
443: can use Eqs. (20a)-(20d) to solve for her or his unknowns. This
444: allows Alice, Bob and Charlie to share secretely six constants
445: among them.
446:
447: If Alice, Bob and Charlie are limited to linear-optical Bell-state
448: measurements, they can only determine eight probabilities $P_{1
449: j_1 1 j_2 1 j_3}\left ( j_1, j_2, j_3 = 0, 1 \right )$ of Eqs.
450: (20a) and (20b) experimentally. In this situation, Alice, Bob and
451: Charlie each needs to announce publicly one of the constants, say
452: $a_0, b_0$ and $c_0$. Each of Alice, Bob and Charlie then has two
453: unknowns for which Eqs.(20a) and (20b) provide sufficient
454: information. In this case, however, the number of constants that
455: the three parties can secretely share is reduced to three.
456:
457: \section{Case of no shared reference frames}
458: So far, we have assumed that Alice and Bob have exactly the same
459: basis for the states $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$. Thus, if the
460: qubits we consider are polarized photons or spins, we assume that
461: Alice and Bob share a spatial reference frame. As far as our
462: proposed protocol is concerned, this shared reference frame does
463: not need to be private, because the privacy of the protocol does
464: not depend upon the privacy of the reference frame. The shared
465: reference frame can, for example, be a specific direction with
466: respect to a fixed star.
467:
468: \begin{figure}
469: \center
470: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{efigref} \caption{Alice's reference
471: frame ($|1\rangle$ and $|0\rangle$) and Bob's reference frame
472: ($|1'\rangle$ and $|0'\rangle$).}
473: \end{figure}
474:
475: It may happen, however, that Alice and Bob, for reasons of better
476: security, want to use reference frames of their own choice which
477: may not coincide, or that their reference frames are inadvertently
478: misaligned. As show below, our proposed protocol still works, even
479: if Alice's reference frame does not coincide with Bob's. Let us
480: suppose that Bob's axis makes an angle $\theta$ with respect to
481: Alice's, as shown in Fig.~2. The initial state for the four
482: particles $\alpha,\beta,A$ and $B$ are now written as
483: \begin{equation}
484: \left|\Psi\right\rangle_{\alpha\beta A B} = \left( {a_0 \left| 0
485: \right\rangle _\alpha + a_1 \left| 1 \right\rangle _\alpha }
486: \right) \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} \left( |0\rangle_A |0\rangle_B +
487: |1\rangle_A |1\rangle_B \right) \left( {b_0 \left| {0'}
488: \right\rangle _\beta + b_1 \left| {1'} \right\rangle _\beta }
489: \right)
490: \end{equation}
491: where$|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ denote Alice's basis states and
492: $|0'\rangle$ and $|1'\rangle$ Bob's basis states. We assume that
493: Alice prepares the entangled pair $A$ and $B$ in
494: $|\Phi_{00}\rangle_{AB}$, keeps $A$ and sends $B$ to Bob. Now
495: Alice performs her Bell state measurement on the pair $\alpha A$
496: in her $|0\rangle-|1\rangle$ basis, whereas Bob performs his Bell
497: state measurement on the pair $\beta B$ in his
498: $|0'\rangle-|1'\rangle$ basis. We thus need to express
499: $|0\rangle_B$ and $|1\rangle_B$ in terms of $|0'\rangle_B$ and
500: $|1'\rangle_B$, and expand the wave function $|\Psi\rangle_{\alpha
501: \beta A B}$ as
502: \begin{equation}
503: \left|\Psi\right\rangle_{\alpha \beta A B} = \sum\limits_{i_1 ,j_1
504: ,i_2,j_2=0}^1 \left| {\Phi _{i_1 j_1} } \right\rangle_{\alpha A}
505: \left| {\Phi '_{i_2 j_2} } \right \rangle_{\beta B} V_{i_1 j_1 i_2
506: j_2}
507: \end{equation}
508: where $|\Phi'_{ij}\rangle$ refers to Bell states of Eq. (1)
509: defined in terms of Bob's basis $|0'\rangle$ and $|1'\rangle$. A
510: straightforward algebra yields, for the probabilities $P_{i_1 j_1
511: i_2 j_2}=\left| V_{i_1 j_1 i_2 j_2} \right|^2$,
512: \begin{subequations}
513: \begin{equation}
514: P_{0000} = P_{1111} = \frac{1}{8}\left| {a_0 b_0 \cos \theta -
515: a_1 b_0 \sin \theta + a_0 b_1 \sin \theta + a_1 b_1 \cos \theta
516: } \right|^2 \equiv \frac{1}{2}P_1
517: \end{equation}
518: \begin{equation}
519: P_{0001} = P_{1110} = \frac{1}{8}\left| {a_0 b_0 \cos \theta - a_1
520: b_0 \sin \theta - a_0 b_1 \sin \theta - a_1 b_1 \cos \theta }
521: \right|^2 \equiv \frac{1}{2}P_2
522: \end{equation}
523: \begin{equation}
524: P_{0010} = P_{1101} = \frac{1}{8}\left| {a_0 b_0 \sin \theta +
525: a_1 b_0 \cos \theta + a_0 b_1 \cos \theta - a_1 b_1 \sin \theta
526: } \right|^2 \equiv \frac{1}{2}P_3
527: \end{equation}
528: \begin{equation}
529: P_{0011} = P_{1100} = \frac{1}{8}\left| {a_0 b_0 \sin \theta +
530: a_1 b_0 \cos \theta - a_0 b_1 \cos \theta + a_1 b_1 \sin \theta
531: } \right|^2 \equiv \frac{1}{2}P_4
532: \end{equation}
533: \begin{equation}
534: P_{0100} = P_{1011} = \frac{1}{8}\left| {a_0 b_0 \cos \theta +
535: a_1 b_0 \sin \theta + a_0 b_1 \sin \theta - a_1 b_1 \cos \theta
536: } \right|^2 \equiv \frac{1}{2}P_5
537: \end{equation}
538: \begin{equation}
539: P_{0101} = P_{1010} = \frac{1}{8}\left| {a_0 b_0 \cos \theta +
540: a_1 b_0 \sin \theta - a_0 b_1 \sin \theta + a_1 b_1 \cos \theta
541: } \right|^2 \equiv \frac{1}{2}P_6
542: \end{equation}
543: \begin{equation}
544: P_{0110} = P_{1001} = \frac{1}{8}\left| {a_0 b_0 \sin \theta -
545: a_1 b_0 \cos \theta + a_0 b_1 \cos \theta + a_1 b_1 \sin \theta
546: } \right|^2 \equiv \frac{1}{2}P_7
547: \end{equation}
548: \begin{equation}
549: P_{0111} = P_{1000} = \frac{1}{8}\left| {a_0 b_0 \sin \theta -
550: a_1 b_0 \cos \theta - a_0 b_1 \cos \theta - a_1 b_1 \sin \theta
551: } \right|^2 \equiv \frac{1}{2}P_8
552: \end{equation}
553: \end{subequations}
554: where the probabilities are further restricted by the identities
555: \begin{subequations}
556: \begin{equation}
557: P_1 + P_2 + P_3 + P_4 = \frac{1}{2}
558: \end{equation}
559: \begin{equation}
560: P_2 + P_3 = P_5 + P_8
561: \end{equation}
562: \begin{equation}
563: P_1 + P_4 = P_6 + P_7
564: \end{equation}
565: \end{subequations}
566: Comparison of Eqs.(23) with Eqs.(7) indicates that the
567: misalignment of Bob's axis with respect to Alice's axis partly
568: breaks degeneracies among the probabilities. For example,
569: $P_{1111}$ is no longer equal to $P_{1010}$, and $P_{1110}$ is no
570: longer equal to $P_{1011}$. The difference between these
571: probabilities can thus be considered as a measure of the
572: misalignment.
573:
574: Our scheme for quantum message exchange can proceed exactly as
575: before. We let Alice and Bob announce publicly their measurement
576: results only when the outcome is either $\Phi_{10}$ or
577: $\Phi_{11}$. The four experimentally determined probabilities
578: $P^{exp}_{1010}, P^{exp}_{1111}, P^{exp}_{1011}$, and
579: $P^{exp}_{1110}$ then provide four equations, Eqs. (23a), (23b),
580: (23e) and (23f), that relate the five constants; $a_0, a_1, b_0,
581: b_1$ and the angle $\theta$. To Alice(Bob) there are three
582: unknowns $b_0, b_1 (a_0, a_1)$ and $\theta$, whereas to any third
583: party the number of unknowns is five. Only Alice and Bob can thus
584: determine the five constants $a_0, a_1, b_0, b_1$ and $\theta$.
585: Our scheme thus allows Alice and Bob not only to secretely share
586: the four constants but also to determine the angle between their
587: reference frames.
588:
589: \section{Summary and discussion}
590: We have analyzed a situation in which each of two (or more)
591: parties sharing entanglement performs a Bell-state measurement
592: upon the entangled particle in his (or her) possession and another
593: particle he(or she) prepared in a specific state. The probability
594: for a joint measurement outcome corresponding to a given
595: combination of the Bell states depends critically upon the states
596: of the particles involved. Taking advantage of the fact that each
597: person belonging to the parties sharing entanglement and only
598: he(or she) knows the state of the particle he(or she) prepared, we
599: suggest a scheme by which two(or more) parties sharing
600: entanglement can secretely and simultaneously exchange messages.
601: For the case of two parties sharing entangled qubits, the scheme
602: requires Bell-state measurements that distinguish only two out of
603: the four Bell states, which can be accomplished using only linear
604: optical devices. The scheme thus provides an experimentally
605: feasible means of two-way communication.
606:
607: We should emphasize that, although it may not be apparent at first
608: sight, entanglement plays a critical role in the proposed scheme.
609: It is through entanglement that the joint probabilities appear in
610: an ``entangled'' form as give in Eqs.(7) and that the separate
611: probabilities for either Alice or Bob to obtain any arbitrary Bell
612: state are evenly distributed regardless of which Bell state we
613: consider. Information on the constants $a_0,a_1,b_0$ and $b_1$ can
614: be obtained only by looking at the joint probabilities. On the
615: other hand, if the qubits A and B were not entangled, Alice's
616: Bell-state measurements would be completely independent of Bob's
617: Bell-state measurements, and information on the constants $a_0$
618: and $a_1$ ($b_0$ and $b_1$) would be obtained by looking only at
619: the results of Alice's (Bob's) Bell-state measurements. Bob(Alice)
620: would need as much information as any third party in order to
621: determine $a_0$ and $a_1$($b_0$ and $b_1$) from the results of
622: Alice's (Bob's) Bell-state measurements. The parties sharing
623: entanglement have advantages only because the joint probabilities
624: for Alice's and Bob's Bell-state measurements are ``entangled''.
625: Of course, the maximal advantage is provided by the maximal
626: entanglement which we have assumed. In general, as the degree of
627: shared entanglement is decreased, the joint probabilities exhibit
628: less degree of entanglement, and as a result the parties sharing
629: entanglement has less degree of advantage over a third party.
630:
631: \ack This research was supported by a Grant from the Korea Science
632: and Engineering Foundation(KOSEF) through Korea-China
633: International Cooperative Research Program and from the Ministry
634: of Science and Technology(MOST) of Korea. The authors thank
635: Professor Gui Lu Long of Tsinghua university of China for helpful
636: discussions.
637:
638: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
639: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}
640: \selectfont
641: \bibitem{BW92}
642: C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Phys. Rev. Lett.
643: \textbf{69} (1992) 2881.
644: \bibitem{MWKZ96}
645: K.Mattle, H.Weinfurter, P.G.Kwiat, and A. Zeilinger,
646: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{76} (1996) 4656.
647: \bibitem{BBCJPW93}
648: C.H.Benett, G. Brassard, C. Crepeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W.
649: K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{70} (1993) 1895.
650: \bibitem{BBMHP98}
651: D. Boschi, S. Branca, F. De Martini, L. Hardy, and S.
652: Popescu, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{80} (1998) 1121.
653: \bibitem{BPMEWZ97}
654: D. Bouwmeester, J.W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H.
655: Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Nature (London) \textbf{390} (1997)
656: 575.
657: \bibitem{FSBFKP98}
658: A. Furusawa, J. L. S{\o}rensen, S.L.Braustein, C. A. Fuchs, H.
659: J. Kimble, and E. S. Polzik, Science \textbf{282} (1998) 706.
660: \bibitem{LK01}
661: H.W.Lee and J. Kim, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{63} (2001) 012305.
662: \bibitem{LSPM02}
663: E. Lombardi, F. Sciarrino, S. Popescu, and F. De Martini, Phys.
664: Rev. Lett. \textbf{88} (2002) 070402.
665: \bibitem{E91}
666: A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{67} (1991) 661.
667: \bibitem{ECrypt00}
668: T. Jennewein, C. Simon, G. Weihs, H. Weinfurter, and A.
669: Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{84} (2000) 4729;
670:
671: D. S. Naik, C. G. Peterson, A. G. White, A. J. Berglund, and P.
672: G. Kwiat, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{84} (2000) 4733;
673:
674: W. Tittel, J. Brendel, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{84}
675: (2000) 4737.
676: \bibitem{LLCLK03}
677: J.W.Lee, E.K.Lee, Y.W.Chung, H.W.Lee, and J.Kim, Phys. Rev. A
678: \textbf{68} (2003) 012324.
679: \bibitem{RB01}
680: R. Raussendorf and H.J.Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{86} (2001)
681: 5188.
682: \bibitem{Ni04}
683: M.A.Nielsen, quant-ph/0402005.
684: \bibitem{LCS99}
685: N.L\"{u}tkenhaus, J.Calsamiglia, and S.A.Suominen, Phys. Rev. A
686: \textbf{59} (1999) 3295.
687: \bibitem{Ng04}
688: B.A.Nguyen, Phys. Lett. A \textbf{328} (2004) 6.
689: \bibitem{Reif}
690: See, for example, F. Reif, Fundamentals of Statistical and
691: Thermal Physics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965), Ch. 1.
692: \bibitem{Enk04}
693: S.J.van Enk, quant-ph/0410083
694: \bibitem{RG03}
695: T.Rudolph and L.Grover, Phys.Rev.Lett. \textbf{91},
696: 217905(2003).
697: \bibitem{BRS04}
698: S.D.Bartlett, T.Rudolph, and R.W.Spekkens, Phys.Rev.A
699: \textbf{70}, 032307 (2004).
700: \bibitem{SharingReference}
701: S.Massar and S.Popescu, Phys.Rev.Lett. \textbf{74}, 1259(1995);
702:
703: R.Derka, V.Buzek, and A.K.Ekert, Phys.Rev.Lett. \textbf{80},
704: 1571 (1998);
705:
706: N.Gisin and S.Popescu, Phys.Rev.Lett. \textbf{83}, 432 (1999);
707:
708: S.Massar, Phys.Rev.A \textbf{62}, 040101(R) (2000);
709:
710: A.Peres and P.F.Scudo, Phys.Rev.Lett. \textbf{86}, 4160 (2001).
711: \bibitem{ADGJ00}
712: G.Alber, A.Delgado, N.Gisin, and I.Jex, quant-ph/0008022.
713: \bibitem{E03}
714: S.J. van Enk, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{91} (2003) 017902.
715: \bibitem{GHZ}
716: D.M.Greenberger, M.A.Horne, A.Shimony, and A.Zeilinger,
717: Amer.J.Phys. \textbf{58} (1990) 1131;
718:
719: N.D.Mermin, Phys. Today \textbf{43} (1990) 9.
720: \end{thebibliography}
721:
722: \end{document}
723: