1: \documentclass[aps,pra,twocolumn,amsmath,amssymb,showpacs]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphics}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4:
5:
6: \begin{document}
7: \title{Genuine tripartite entanglement in the non-interacting Fermi gas}
8: \author{T. V\'ertesi}
9: \affiliation{Institute of Nuclear Research of the Hungarian
10: Academy of Sciences,\\ H-4001 Debrecen, P.O. Box 51, Hungary}
11:
12: \date{\today}
13:
14: \begin{abstract}
15: We study genuine tripartite entanglement shared among the spins of
16: three localized fermions in the non-interacting Fermi gas at zero
17: temperature. Firstly, we prove analytically with the aid of
18: entanglement witnesses that in a particular configuration the
19: three fermions are genuinely tripartite entangled. Then various
20: three-fermion configurations are investigated in order to quantify
21: and calculate numerically the amount of genuine tripartite
22: entanglement present in the system. Further we give a lower and an
23: upper limit to the maximum diameter of the three-fermion
24: configuration below which genuine tripartite entanglement exists
25: and find that this distance is comparable with the maximum
26: separation between two entangled fermions. The upper and lower
27: limit turn to be very close to each other indicating that the
28: applied witness operator is well suited to reveal genuine
29: tripartite entanglement in the collection of non-interacting
30: fermions.
31: \end{abstract}
32:
33: \pacs{03.65.Ud, 03.67.Mn, 71.10.Ca}
34:
35: \maketitle
36:
37: \section{Introduction}
38: \label{sec:intro}
39:
40: Entanglement is in the heart of quantum mechanics and of great
41: importance in quantum information theory. Two entangled particles
42: already offer a valuable resource to perform several practical
43: tasks such as quantum teleportation, quantum cryptography or
44: quantum computation \cite{NC}. However, the multipartite setting
45: due to the much richer structure suggests many new possibilities
46: and phenomena over the bipartite case. Indeed, multipartite states
47: may contradict local realistic models in a qualitatively different
48: and stronger way \cite{GHSZ}. Moreover, this feature allows to
49: implement novel quantum information processing tasks such as
50: quantum computation based on cluster states \cite{RB},
51: entanglement enhanced measurements \cite{GLM}, quantum
52: communication without a common reference frame \cite{BRS} and
53: open-destination teleportation \cite{Zhao04}.
54:
55: Though the characterization of multipartite entanglement is
56: studied in great depth \cite{Acin,PV}, still rarely investigated
57: in solid state systems (see \cite{GTB} and references therein),
58: however, it definitely plays an essential role in quantum phase
59: transitions~\cite{ON02,Oli06} and might well be a key ingredient
60: to unresolved problems in physics such as high temperature
61: superconductivity~\cite{Ved04}. In this article we investigate
62: genuine multipartite entanglement shared among the spins of three
63: fermions in the Fermi gas of non-interacting particles at zero
64: temperature (degenerate Fermi gas) following the work of
65: Refs.~\cite{Ved03,LBV}. We apply an entanglement witness developed
66: in Ref.~\cite{GTB} (and also appeared in Ref.~\cite{TG}) in order
67: to reveal genuine tripartite quantum correlations in the
68: collection of fermions and using the approach in Ref.~\cite{Bra05}
69: we also characterize quantitatively the amount of it.
70:
71: The article is organized as follows: In Sec.~\ref{sec:analysis}
72: according to Refs. \cite{Ved03,LBV} we present the three-spin
73: reduced density matrix of the degenerate Fermi gas, and show by
74: analytical means (extending the related results of
75: Ref.~\cite{LBV}) that both $GHZ$-type and $W$-type witnesses are
76: unable to detect genuine tripartite entanglement (GTE) among the
77: spins of three localized fermions. On the other, we demonstrate
78: that for specific configurations of the three fermions the GTE
79: witness of Ref.~\cite{GTB} is capable to signal GTE both for the
80: two- and three-dimensional (2D and 3D) degenerate Fermi gases. In
81: Sec.~\ref{sec:er} on the basis of this witness a formula is
82: constructed to the lower bound of the generalized robustness
83: ($E_R$) of genuine tripartite entanglement. With the aid of this
84: formula in Sec.~\ref{sec:num} we quantify numerically genuine
85: tripartite quantum correlations for various arrangements of the
86: three particles. In Sec.~\ref{sec:gte} we determine lower and
87: upper bounds to the GTE distance (i.e., to the largest diameter of
88: the three-fermion configuration below which GTE is still present
89: in the system) both in the 2D and 3D degenerate Fermi gases. The
90: paper concludes in Sec.~\ref{sec:disc} with a brief summary of the
91: results obtained and discusses possible schemes to extract GTE
92: from the system.
93:
94: \section{Analysis of the density matrix for three fermions}
95: \label{sec:analysis}
96: \subsection{Three-spin reduced density matrix}
97: \label{subsec:3spin}
98:
99: Consider a system of $N$ non-interacting fermions in a box with
100: volume $V$. At zero temperature the ground state of the system is
101: $|\phi_0\rangle = \Pi_k^{k_F}
102: \hat{c}_{k,\sigma}^\dagger|vac\rangle$, where $k_F = (3\pi^2
103: N/V)^{1/3}$ is the Fermi momentum and $|vac\rangle$ denotes the
104: vacuum state. From the ground state of the system $|\phi_0\rangle$
105: one obtains the three-spin reduced density matrix (up to
106: normalization) between the three fermions localized at positions
107: $\mathbf{r}$, $\mathbf{r}'$, and $\mathbf{r}''$,
108: \begin{align}
109: &\rho_3(s,s',s'';t,t',t'') = \nonumber \\
110: &\langle\phi_0|
111: \hat{\psi}_{t}^\dagger(\mathbf{r})
112: \hat{\psi}_{t'}^\dagger(\mathbf{r}')
113: \hat{\psi}_{t''}^\dagger(\mathbf{r}'')
114: \hat{\psi}_{s''}(\mathbf{r}'') \hat{\psi}_{s'}(\mathbf{r}')
115: \hat{\psi}_{s}(\mathbf{r}) |\phi_0\rangle
116: \;,
117: \label{rho3gen}
118: \end{align}
119: where $\hat{\psi}_{s}(\mathbf{r})$,
120: $\hat{\psi}_{s}^\dagger(\mathbf{r})$ are field
121: annihilation/creation operators for a particle with spin $s$
122: located at position $\mathbf{r}$ satisfying $\{
123: \hat{\psi}_{s}(\mathbf{r}),\hat{\psi}_{s}^\dagger(\mathbf{r})\}=\delta_{s,s'}\delta(\mathbf
124: r-\mathbf r')$. The justification, that the above matrix elements
125: indeed describe three-qubit quantum states is discussed in the
126: Appendix of Ref~\cite{Cav05}. Following Refs.~\cite{Ved03,LBV} the
127: explicit formula for the three-spin reduced density matrix
128: $\rho_3$ is given by
129: \begin{align}
130: \rho_3=(1-p)\frac{\mathbb I_8}{8} &+p_{12}|\Psi_{12}^-\rangle
131: \langle \Psi_{12}^-|\otimes\frac{\mathbb I_4}{2} +
132: p_{13}|\Psi_{13}^-\rangle \langle \Psi_{13}^-|\otimes\frac{\mathbb
133: I_4}{2} \nonumber \\
134: & +p_{23}|\Psi_{23}^-\rangle \langle
135: \Psi_{23}^-|\otimes\frac{\mathbb I_4}{2} \;, \label{rho3}
136: \end{align}
137: where $p=p_{12}+p_{13}+p_{23}$ and $\mathbb I_n$ denotes the
138: $n\times n$ identity matrix. Further,
139: $\Psi_{ij}^-=(|\uparrow\downarrow\rangle-|\downarrow\uparrow\rangle)/\sqrt
140: 2$ is the singlet state of the pair $ij$ in the orthonormal basis
141: $\{|\uparrow\rangle,|\downarrow\rangle\}$. The value $p_{ij}$
142: depends only on the relative distance between the three fermions
143: and can be written explicitly for the fermion pair $ij$ as
144: \cite{LBV}
145: \begin{equation}
146: p_{ij}=\frac{-f_{ij}^2+f_{ij}f_{ik}f_{jk}}{-2+f_{ij}^2+f_{ik}^2+f_{jk}^2-f_{ij}f_{ik}f_{jk}}\;,
147: \label{pij}
148: \end{equation}
149: where the analytic form of $f_{ij}$ depends on the spatial
150: dimension of the system, that is we may write
151: \begin{align}
152: f^{\mathrm{2D}}_{ij} &= 2J_1(k_F r_{ij})/k_F r_{ij} \nonumber \\
153: f^{\mathrm{3D}}_{ij} &= 3j_1(k_F r_{ij})/k_F r_{ij}
154: \label{fij}
155: \end{align}
156: in the case of the two- and three-dimensional Fermi gases
157: \cite{OK}. In the above formulae $j_1$ and $J_1$ denote the
158: spherical and the first order Bessel function of the first kind,
159: respectively.
160:
161: Actually, owing to the collective $SU(2)$ rotational symmetry of
162: the model Hamiltonian of non-interacting fermions, many matrix
163: elements of $\rho_3$ in (\ref{rho3}) are forced to be zero.
164: Explicitly, the states which are invariant under collective
165: $SU(2)$ rotation of the three qubits are the three-qubit Werner
166: states \cite{EW}, and they can be given in the form \cite{EW}
167: \begin{equation}
168: \rho=\sum_{k=+,0,1,2,3}{\frac{r_k}{4}R_k}\;, \label{rho}
169: \end{equation}
170: where $R_k$ are certain linear combinations of permutation
171: operators and $r_k(\rho)=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho R_k)$. Using the
172: definitions for $R_k$ from Ref.~\cite{EW} and the explicit form of
173: the state $\rho_3$ from (\ref{rho3}), we are able to calculate the
174: parameters $r_k$ for the three-spin reduced density matrix
175: $\rho_3$, which read as follows
176: \begin{align}
177: r_+ & =\frac{1-p}{2} \nonumber \\
178: r_0 & =\frac{1+p}{2} \nonumber \\
179: r_1 & =\frac{p_{12}+p_{13}-2p_{23}}{2} \nonumber \\
180: r_2 & =\frac{3}{2\sqrt 3}(p_{13}-p_{12}) \nonumber \\
181: r_3 & =0 \;. \label{rk}
182: \end{align}
183:
184: \subsection{Possible range of parameters $p_{ij}$}
185: \label{subsec:param}
186:
187: According to the Lemma 2 of Ref.~\cite{EW} $\rho$ in (\ref{rho})
188: is a density matrix only if $r_+,r_0\geq 0$. These inequalities
189: imply for the state $\rho_3$ by the virtue of (\ref{rk}) that $p$
190: lies in the interval
191: \begin{equation}
192: -1\leq p\leq +1\;. \label{p}
193: \end{equation}
194: Let us observe in (\ref{fij}) that $|f_{ij}|\leq 1$ both for the
195: 2D and 3D Fermi gases. This fact together with the bound to $p$ in
196: (\ref{p}) and also the definition $p=p_{12}+p_{13}+p_{23}$, after
197: some algebraic manipulations (which are not detailed here), lead
198: to the bounds
199: \begin{equation}
200: -1\leq p_{ij}\leq 1 \label{pijbound}
201: \end{equation}
202: for the three different fermion pairs $ij=12,13,23$. Thus, the
203: parameters $p_{ij}$ appearing in state $\rho_3$ are limited by
204: the values $\pm1$.
205:
206: Let us introduce the class of biseparable three-qubit states $B$,
207: i.e., the states
208: \begin{equation}
209: \rho = \sum_i{p_i |\psi_i\rangle\langle \psi_i|}\;, \label{bisep}
210: \end{equation}
211: which can be expressed as a convex sum of projectors onto product
212: and bipartite entangled vectors \cite{Acin}. In
213: definition~(\ref{bisep}) the pure states $|\psi_i\rangle$ are
214: separable on the Hilbert-space of three qubits $1,2,3$ with
215: respect to one of the three bipartitions $1|23$, $12|3$ or $13|2$
216: and $p_i\geq 0$ adding up to $1$. We say that a general
217: three-qubit state is genuine tripartite entangled when it is not
218: in the class of biseparable states $B$, that is they cannot be
219: constructed by mixing pure states containing bipartite
220: entanglement at most. Clearly, if $p_{ij}$ in (\ref{rho3}) was
221: positive for each of the three different pairs (whose sum $p$ is
222: upper bounded by $+1$ according to~(\ref{p})), then $\rho_3$
223: should define a biseparable state.
224:
225: Note, that the bound to $p_{ij}$'s in (\ref{pijbound}) may not be
226: tight, therefore it is not evident whether $p_{ij}$ can take up
227: negative values at all. However, by arranging the three fermions
228: in a particular geometry, we demonstrate that $p_{ij}$ may take
229: the value $-1/3$ as well: Taking the first and second derivatives
230: of the functions $f_{ij}(k_F r)$ (defined for both the 2D and 3D
231: Fermi gases under equations~(\ref{fij})) with respect to $x=k_F
232: r$, we observe that in the limit $x\rightarrow 0$ they behave as
233: \begin{equation}
234: \lim_{x\rightarrow 0}f_{ij}(x)=1,\;\; \lim_{x\rightarrow
235: 0}f'_{ij}(x)=0,\;\; \lim_{x\rightarrow 0}f''_{ij}(x)\neq0 \;.
236: \label{limits}
237: \end{equation}
238: Now let us place the three particles on a line so that particle
239: $2$ would lie just at the midpoint between particle $1$ and
240: particle $3$, and let the relative distance between these outer
241: particles tends to zero. Actually, in the limit $x\rightarrow 0$,
242: $p_{ij}$ in~(\ref{pij}) can be given explicitly by applying
243: l'Hospital's rule twice and by taking account the limiting
244: values~(\ref{limits}). As a result we obtain
245: \begin{equation}
246: p_{12}=p_{23}=2/3,\hspace{0.5cm}p_{13}=-1/3 \label{plimit}
247: \end{equation}
248: both for the 2D and 3D Fermi gases.
249:
250: In the next two subsections we propose witness operators in order
251: to reveal GTE in the degenerate Fermi systems. An observable which
252: is well suited for signaling genuine tripartite quantum
253: correlations in Heisenberg spin lattices \cite{GTB} turns out to
254: detect GTE in the degenerate Fermi gas as well.
255:
256: \subsection{Generalized $GHZ$ and $W$ witnesess}
257: \label{subsec:ghzw}
258:
259: For deciding whether the state $\rho_3$ with the explicit
260: parameters $p_{12}=p_{23}=2/3$, $p_{13}=-1/3$ in (\ref{plimit}) is
261: genuine tripartite entangled, we will use entanglement witnesses.
262: A witness of genuine tripartite entanglement is an observable
263: $\Pi$ with a positive mean value on all biseparable states so a
264: negative expectation value $\mathrm{Tr}(\rho \Pi)$ guarantees that
265: the state $\rho$ carries genuine tripartite entanglement
266: \cite{Terhal}. Thus a witness operator which separates genuine
267: tripartite entangled states from the biseparable set $B$ (defined
268: by equation~(\ref{bisep})) can be given in the form \cite{Bou04}
269: \begin{equation}
270: W_\psi = \Lambda \mathbb I_8 - |\psi\rangle\langle\psi|\;,
271: \label{wit}
272: \end{equation}
273: where
274: \begin{equation}
275: \Lambda = \max_{|\phi\rangle \in B} |\langle
276: \phi|\psi\rangle|^2\;.
277: \end{equation}
278:
279: A simple method has been found in Ref.~\cite{Bou04} to determine
280: $\Lambda$ for any pure genuine tripartite entangled state
281: $|\psi\rangle$. In particular, let $|\psi\rangle$ be the
282: $GHZ$-like and the $W$-like state \cite{CC05}, which are
283: respectively
284: \begin{align}
285: |GHZ(\alpha)\rangle &= \frac{|\mathbf n_1,\mathbf n_2, \mathbf
286: n_3\rangle+
287: e^{i\alpha}|-\mathbf n_1,-\mathbf n_2,-\mathbf n_3\rangle}{\sqrt 2} \nonumber \\
288: |W(\beta,\gamma)\rangle &= \frac{|\mathbf n_1,\mathbf n_2,-\mathbf
289: n_3\rangle +e^{i\beta}|\mathbf n_1,-\mathbf n_2,\mathbf
290: n_3\rangle+e^{i\gamma} |-\mathbf n_1,\mathbf n_2,\mathbf
291: n_3\rangle}{\sqrt 3} \;, \label{GHZW}
292: \end{align}
293: where $\{\mathbf n_i,-\mathbf n_i\}$ denotes an arbitrary local
294: orthonormal basis in the Hilbert space of qubit $i$. Note, that
295: for the original $GHZ$ state the phase $\alpha = 0$ and for the
296: original $W$ state the phases $\beta=\gamma=0$, and the
297: corresponding parameters $\Lambda$ appearing in the witness
298: operator~(\ref{wit}) are $1/2$ and $2/3$, respectively
299: \cite{Acin}. The states~(\ref{GHZW}), however, can be transferred
300: to the original ones by local unitary operations, which leave the
301: parameters $\Lambda$ unchanged, that is we have the witness
302: operators
303: \begin{align}
304: W_{GHZ(\alpha)} &= \frac{1}{2} \mathbb I_8
305: -|GHZ(\alpha)\rangle\langle GHZ(\alpha)|
306: \nonumber \\
307: W_{W(\beta,\gamma)} &= \frac{2}{3} \mathbb I_8
308: -|W(\beta,\gamma)\rangle\langle W(\beta\gamma)| \label{witGHZW}
309: \end{align}
310: for the $GHZ$- and $W$-like states, respectively.
311:
312: Lunkes et al.~\cite{LBV} applying these witness operators for the
313: special case $\alpha=\beta=\gamma=0$ and $|\mathbf
314: n_i\rangle=|\uparrow\rangle$, $i=1,2,3$ established that neither
315: $\mathrm{ Tr}(\rho_3 W_{GHZ})$ nor $\mathrm{Tr}(\rho_3 W_W)$ can
316: become negative in the permitted range of parameters $p_{ij}$,
317: $ij=12,13,23$, hence no GTE could be revealed in the three-spin
318: reduced density matrix $\rho_3$ by the application of these
319: witnesses.
320:
321: We confirm and extend this result by generalizing the $GHZ$ and
322: $W$ witnesses to the form~(\ref{witGHZW}) with the corresponding
323: values $\alpha,\beta,\gamma \in [0,2\pi]$ and with the arbitrary
324: local bases $|\mathbf n_i\rangle = \cos
325: (\theta_i/2)|\uparrow\rangle +
326: e^{i\phi_i}\sin(\theta_i/2)|\downarrow\rangle,\; i=1,2,3$. Then
327: the trace of $\rho_3 \Pi$, where $\Pi$ denotes either
328: $W_{GHZ(\alpha)}$ or $W_{W(\beta,\gamma)}$ and $\rho_3$ is the
329: state~(\ref{rho3}), is a linear combination of the trigonometric
330: functions cosine/sine with arguments $\theta_i,\phi_i,\;i=1,2,3$.
331: Owing to convexity arguments $\mathrm{Tr}(\rho_3 \Pi)$ can be
332: extremal only if $p_{ij}\in\{+1,-1\},\; ij=12,13,23$ in the
333: permitted range~(\ref{pijbound}) and $\theta_i,\phi_i \in \{0,
334: \pi/2, \pi, 3\pi/2, 2\pi\}, \; i=1,2,3$. Moreover, we may fix
335: three parameters, e.g., $\phi_1=\phi_2=0$ and $\theta_1=0$, owing
336: to the invariance of the state $\rho_3$ under the collective
337: $SU(2)$ rotation. Considering all the possible combinations of the
338: remaining parameters $p_{ij}$, $ij=12,13,23$ and
339: $\theta_2,\theta_3,\phi_3$ from the set above, we found that
340: $\mathrm{Tr}(\rho_3 \Pi)\geq 0$ is always true for the witness
341: operators $\Pi$ in (\ref{witGHZW}). Therefore, genuine tripartite
342: entanglement could not be witnessed by the general $GHZ$-type and
343: $W$-type witnesses~(\ref{witGHZW}), as well.
344:
345: Naturally, we may ask whether there exist other witnesses over the
346: $GHZ/W$-types in~(\ref{witGHZW}) which are better suited for
347: detecting GTE in the state $\rho_3$. Indeed, in Ref.~\cite{CC05}
348: it has been shown that there are several genuine triparite
349: entangled states which are not witnessed by the
350: operators~(\ref{witGHZW}). Note, that nonlinear entanglement
351: witnesses \cite{GL06} may show improvement with respect to linear
352: witnesses in the multipartite case as well. However, if we stick
353: to linear functionals we are even able to reveal GTE in the state
354: $\rho_3$, as it will be discussed in the next subsection.
355:
356: \subsection{The witness operator of G\"uhne et al.}
357: \label{subsec:witness}
358:
359: G\"uhne et al.~\cite{GTB} showed that the internal energy is a
360: good indicator of genuine tripartite entanglement in macroscopic
361: spin systems. The idea was to write the internal energy in terms
362: of the mean value of the observables $W_{ijk}=
363: \vec{\sigma}^i\cdot\vec{\sigma}^j + \vec{\sigma}^j \cdot
364: \vec{\sigma}^k$, where
365: $\vec{\sigma}^i=(\sigma_x^i,\sigma_y^i,\sigma_z^i)$ is the vector
366: of Pauli spin operators associated with the qubit $i$, and the
367: absolute value of $\langle W_{ijk} \rangle$ has been shown to be a
368: witness itself, capable to detect GTE. Namely, it has been proven
369: \cite{GTB} that if the inequality
370: \begin{equation}
371: |\langle W_{ijk} \rangle|> 1+\sqrt 5\simeq 3.236 \label{Wijk}
372: \end{equation}
373: holds, the qubits $i,j,k$ are genuinely tripartite entangled.
374:
375: Let us use this inequality~(\ref{Wijk}) in order to reveal GTE in
376: the degenerate Fermi gas among the spins of the three fermions
377: $i,j,k$. Plugging the state $\rho_3$ in (\ref{rho3}) into the
378: expectation $\langle W_{ijk}\rangle =\mathrm{Tr}(\rho_3 W_{ijk})$
379: one has $\langle W_{ijk} \rangle=3(p_{ij}+p_{jk})$, which by
380: substitution back into (\ref{Wijk}) gives the condition
381: \begin{equation}
382: |\langle W_{ijk} \rangle|:= 3|p_{ij}+p_{jk}|> 1+\sqrt 5
383: \label{Wijk3}
384: \end{equation}
385: for the existence of genuine tripartite entanglement in the
386: degenerate Fermi gas. Next we discuss from the viewpoint of
387: witnessed GTE by the mean of this condition two different
388: three-fermion configurations:
389:
390: (a) Consider the case investigated before in
391: Section~\ref{subsec:param}, that three particles lie evenly spaced
392: on a line close to each other. Choosing $ijk=123$ and recalling
393: $p_{12}=p_{23}=2/3$ from (\ref{plimit}), by the virtue of
394: (\ref{Wijk3}), $|\langle W_{123} \rangle|=4 > 1+\sqrt 5$, hence
395: the three-fermion state $\rho_3$ corresponding to this arrangement
396: of particles is genuine tripartite entangled.
397:
398: (b) In this case the particles are separated from each other by
399: equal distances, i.e., the particles are put on the vertices of an
400: equilateral triangle. Owing to three-fold symmetry of this
401: configuration the state $\rho_3$ contains an equal mixture of
402: maximally entangled states $|\Psi^-\rangle$, that is, all
403: $p_{ij},\;ij=12,13,23$ in (\ref{rho3}) must have the same value.
404: Further, considering the constraint
405: $|p|=|p_{12}+p_{13}+p_{23}|\leq 1$ in (\ref{p}) and also owing to
406: the left-hand side of (\ref{Wijk3}) we have $|\langle
407: W_{123}\rangle|=|\langle W_{231} \rangle|=|\langle
408: W_{132}\rangle|=2|p|\leq 2$ implying that in this case all
409: possible $|\langle W_{ijk}\rangle|$ (with different permutations
410: of $ijk$) are smaller than the bound $1+\sqrt 5$. Consequently, no
411: GTE can be revealed by the witness~(\ref{Wijk}) of G\"uhne et al.,
412: no matter how far the fermions are separated from each other. It
413: is reasonable to think that there is indeed no GTE associated with
414: this highly symmetrical configuration, as it has been argued in
415: Ref.~\cite{LBV} by attributing it to the Pauli principle. In the
416: next section we construct from the observable $W_{ijk}$ a witness
417: operator $\tilde{W}_{ijk}$, which has a maximum eigenvalue smaller
418: than unity ($\tilde{W}_{ijk}\leq \mathbb I_8$) and with the aid of
419: it a lower bound is given for the amount of GTE in the state
420: $\rho_3$ quantified by an entanglement monotone, the generalized
421: robustness $E_R$.
422:
423: \section{Deriving a lower bound to the generalized robustness $E_R$}
424: \label{sec:er}
425:
426: Up to this point the observable $W_{ijk}$ was applied for
427: witnessing genuine tripartite entanglement. On the other, they are
428: also good for quantifying it \cite{Bra05} (see~\cite{RGFGC} as an
429: application to a magnetic material). The maximum eigenvalue of the
430: operator $-W_{ijk}$ is 4, thus considering~(\ref{Wijk}) we may
431: construct the following witness operator,
432: \begin{equation}
433: \tilde{ W}_{ijk} = \frac{(1+\sqrt 5)\mathbb I_8 - W_{ijk}}{5+\sqrt
434: 5}\;,\label{tildeWijk}
435: \end{equation}
436: whose negative mean value $\mathrm{Tr}(\rho \tilde{W}_{ijk})$
437: guarantees that the three-qubit state $\rho$ is genuine tripartite
438: entangled. Further the witness operator is normalized so that
439: $\tilde{W}_{ijk}\leq \mathbb I_8$. It is apparent that provided
440: the mean value $\langle W_{ijk} \rangle \geq 0$ for state $\rho_3$
441: (i.e., $p_{ij}+p_{jk} \geq 0$ according to calculations in
442: Sec.~\ref{subsec:witness}), the witness operator~(\ref{tildeWijk})
443: is just as powerful to detect GTE associated with state $\rho_3$
444: as $|\langle W_{ijk}\rangle|$ in the inequality~(\ref{Wijk}).
445:
446: The generalized robustness $E_R$ as a GTE measure quantifies how
447: robust the genuine tripartite entangled state $\rho$ is under the
448: influence of noise, and also has a geometrical meaning measuring
449: the distance of $\rho$ from the biseparable set $B$ \cite{CBC}.
450: According to Ref.~\cite{Bra05} $E_R$ can be expressed in a
451: Lagrange dual representation
452: \begin{equation}
453: E_R(\rho) = \max\{0,-\min_{\Pi\in M}\mathrm{Tr}(\rho\Pi)\}\;,
454: \label{witent}
455: \end{equation}
456: where the set $M$ is given by the restriction $\Pi\leq \mathbb
457: {I}_8$ for the GTE witnesses $\Pi$.
458:
459: Since $\tilde{W}_{ijk}$ with any permutation of $ijk$ defines a
460: valid GTE witness with maximum eigenvalue smaller than unity, we
461: are able to develop the lower bound
462: \begin{equation}
463: E_{R,\min}(\rho) = \max\{0,-\min_{ijk \in \{123,231,132 \}}
464: \mathrm{Tr}(\rho \tilde{W}_{ijk})\}
465: \label{boundER}
466: \end{equation}
467: to the generalized robustness~(\ref{witent}) of an arbitrary state
468: $\rho$ on qubits $123$, as it is discussed in
469: Refs.~\cite{CC06,EBA}. This lower bound by
470: applying~(\ref{tildeWijk}) for the particular state $\rho_3$ in
471: (\ref{rho3}) reads as
472: \begin{equation}
473: E_{R,\min}(\rho_3) =
474: \max_{ijk\in\{123,231,132\}}\{0,\frac{3(p_{ij}+p_{jk})-1-\sqrt
475: 5}{5+\sqrt 5} \}\;. \label{boundER3}
476: \end{equation}
477:
478: In the next section this formula will be applied to give
479: explicitly a lower bound to the generalized robustness $E_R$ of
480: GTE for various configurations of three fermions, associated with
481: the reduced state $\rho_3$ of the degenerate Fermi gas.
482:
483: \section{Numerical calculations to the lower bound of $E_R$}
484: \label{sec:num}
485:
486: \subsection{Fermion moving on a straight line}
487: \label{subsec:line}
488:
489: Now we concentrate on two different kinds of arrangements of the
490: three fermions in the 3D degenerate Fermi gas, which
491: configurations were also investigated in Ref.~\cite{LBV} from the
492: viewpoint of bipartite entanglement shared between two arbitrary
493: groups of three fermions.
494:
495: (a) In the first instance a collinear arrangement is considered,
496: namely we put three fermions on a straight line numbering them in
497: the order $1,2$, and $3$. The distance between particles $1$ and
498: $3$ is $r$, and the intermediate particle $2$ is by a distance of
499: $x$ away from particle $1$ (shown by the geometrical picture of
500: Fig.~\ref{fig-line}.(a)). In Fig.~\ref{fig-line}.(a), the lower
501: bound to GTE quantified by $E_R$ is plotted in the $3D$ Fermi gas
502: according to the formula~(\ref{boundER3}) in the function of $x/r$
503: for different values $k_Fr$ of the external fermions. The
504: calculations can be in general performed only numerically, however
505: for the limiting value $k_Fr\rightarrow 0$ one obtains
506: \begin{equation}
507: \max_{ijk\in 123, 231, 132}{\{p_{ij}+p_{jk}\}} = p_{12}+p_{23} =
508: \frac{1}{1-x/r+(x/r)^2}\;.\label{p123x}
509: \end{equation}
510: Substitution of this expression into (\ref{boundER3}) gives
511: analytically the curve corresponding to $k_Fr\rightarrow 0$. Note
512: that formula~(\ref{p123x}) holds true independently of the
513: dimensionality of the Fermi gas (i.e., both for the 2D and 3D
514: cases). The curves produced in Fig.~\ref{fig-line}.(a) exhibit two
515: essential features: For any given value of $k_Fr$, the maximum of
516: $E_{R,\min}$ is achieved by the symmetrical configuration (i.e.,
517: particle $2$ is located at the midpoint of the line connecting
518: particles $1$ and $3$), still presenting GTE in the system by the
519: dimensionless distance $k_Fr=2.59$. On the other, when fermion $2$
520: starting from this midpoint is moved toward fermion $1$ in the
521: case $k_Fr\rightarrow 0$, the curve falls off to zero by the value
522: $x/r =1/2 (1 - \sqrt{3(\sqrt 5 -2)}) \simeq 0.08 $. That is, if
523: fermions $1$ and $3$ are a distance $r$ away from each other and
524: fermion $2$ becomes closer than $x \simeq 0.08r$ to fermion $1$
525: (or to fermion $3$ in the symmetrically equivalent situation)
526: formula~(\ref{boundER3}) does not indicate GTE among the three
527: fermions. This result fits to the monogamy property of
528: entanglement \cite{CKW}, as in the case $x/r\rightarrow 0$ fermion
529: $2$ becomes maximally entangled with fermion $1$, excluding the
530: existence of any higher order entanglement in the system.
531:
532: (b) Now let the three particles lie on the vertices of an
533: isosceles triangle fermions $1$ and $3$ forming its base with
534: length $r$, and fermion $2$ is positioned by a distance of $y$
535: from the midpoint of the base as it is illustrated in the
536: geometrical part of Fig.~\ref{fig-line}.(b). The curves
537: $E_{R,\min}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig-line}.(b) are plotted against $y/r$
538: for different values of $k_Fr$. As it can be observed, all the
539: curves $E_{R,\min}$ plotted are monotonically decreasing in the
540: function of the ratio $y/r$ for any given $k_Fr$. Similarly to
541: case (a) the curve corresponding to $k_Fr\rightarrow 0$ can be
542: treated analytically, and one obtains vanishing GTE beyond the
543: value $y/r =1/2 (\sqrt{3(\sqrt 5 -2)}) \simeq 0.42$ (both in the
544: 2D and 3D Fermi gases). This supports the result of case (b) in
545: Sec.~\ref{subsec:witness} that three fermions located at the
546: vertices of an equilateral triangle (where $y/r = \sqrt 3/2 \simeq
547: 0.866$) are not genuine tripartite entangled independent of the
548: separation distance $r$. It is also apparent from
549: Fig.~\ref{fig-line}.(b) that for a fixed ratio $y/r$, $E_{R,\min}$
550: is maximal when $k_Fr\rightarrow 0$, for in this case the
551: antisymmetrization effect between the three particular fermions
552: and the rest of the fermions (which reduces the amount of quantum
553: correlations shared among the three fermions) becomes negligible.
554:
555: %========================================================================
556: \begin{figure}
557: \centerline{\epsfxsize 2.8in \epsffile{GTE-line.eps}}
558: \caption{(color online) Lower bound to the generalized robustness
559: $E_R$ of genuine tripartite entanglement shared by three fermions
560: is plotted for the 3D Fermi gas for the cases (a) fermion $2$ is
561: moved away from the position of fermion $1$ toward the position of
562: fermion $3$, (b) fermion $2$ is moved away from the midpoint of
563: the line connecting fermion $1$ and fermion $3$ normal to this
564: line (see the respective schematic geometrical pictures). The
565: curves are plotted in both cases for the following dimensionless
566: distances between fermion $1$ and fermion $3$: $k_Fr\rightarrow0$
567: (displayed in black) and $k_Fr=0.5,1,1.5,2,2.5,2.59$ (displayed in
568: color).} \label{fig-line}
569: \end{figure}
570: %========================================================================
571:
572: \subsection{Fermion moving in a plane}
573: \label{subsec:plane}
574:
575: We now turn to the situation (pictured in the geometrical part of
576: Fig.~\ref{fig-plane}) when fermion $2$ is allowed to move in the
577: two-dimensional plane given by polar coordinates ($\theta,q$) with
578: an origin at the midpoint of the line of length $r$ connecting
579: fermion $1$ and fermion $3$. Let us restrict fermion $2$ to be
580: positioned within the circle with radius $r/2$. Recalling the
581: definition of the GTE distance from Sec.~\ref{sec:intro}, in this
582: case the GTE distance is equal to the maximum separation length
583: $r$ between the two external fermions, below which the three
584: fermions are genuine tripartite entangled.
585:
586: In what follows, we inquire the shape of region within particle
587: $2$ could be located so that fermions $1,2$, and $3$ by a fixed
588: relative distance $r$ would be genuine tripartite entangled.
589: Further, owing to the symmetry of the configuration it suffices to
590: study the interval $\theta \in [0,\pi/2]$, i.e., particle $2$ is
591: restricted to be situated on a quarter-disk of radius $r/2$. The
592: polar plot of Fig.~\ref{fig-plane} represents curves which
593: distinguish regions with (left side) and without (right side)
594: witnessed GTE in the system, by the following values of the
595: dimensionless distances $k_Fr\rightarrow 0$ and
596: $k_Fr=1,2,2.5,2.59$. The witnessed GTE (i.e., to decide whether
597: $E_{R,\min}(\rho_3)>0$) corresponding to these curves for the
598: various values of $k_Fr$ was calculated according to the
599: formula~(\ref{boundER3}).
600:
601: The case $k_Fr\rightarrow 0$ can be treated analytically yielding
602: the result (as it can be read off from Fig.~\ref{fig-plane}) that
603: by $k_Fr\rightarrow 0$ GTE is present in the system provided
604: fermion $2$ is located inside a disk with radius $q\simeq 0.42r$
605: (generalizing the results $x\simeq 0.08r$ and $y\simeq 0.42r$ in
606: the limit $k_Fr\rightarrow 0$ obtained in Sec.~\ref{subsec:line}).
607: Now one can see from the shape of the polar curves that for
608: greater $k_Fr$ the corresponding disk associated with GTE squeezes
609: toward the axis of particles $1$ and $3$, eventually contracting
610: on the origin $q=0$. It is noted that the same behavior would have
611: been observed for the case of 2D Fermi gas, as well. This implies
612: that if in this particular case we were searching for the GTE
613: distance (i.e., the maximum separation $r$, below which GTE
614: exists) then we should focus on the case where particle $2$ is
615: located at the midpoint between particles $1$ and $3$. This task
616: will be performed in the sequel both for the 2D and 3D degenerate
617: Fermi gases.
618:
619: %========================================================================
620: \begin{figure}
621: \centerline{\epsfxsize 3.2in \epsffile{GTE-plane.eps}}
622: \caption{(color online) Witnessed genuine tripartite entanglement
623: among three fermions is plotted for the 3D Fermi gas for the
624: configuration where fermion $2$ (with polar coordinates
625: ($\theta,q$)) is allowed to move in a disk of radius $r/2$
626: centered at the midpoint between fermion $1$ and fermion $3$, as
627: shown by the geometrical picture. The polar plot represents curves
628: with black, green, cyan, magenta and brown colors, which separate
629: the regions associated with GTE (left-hand side) from regions
630: without having GTE (right-hand side) for values of the
631: dimensionless distances $k_Fr\rightarrow 0$, $k_Fr=1,2,2.5,2.59$,
632: respectively.} \label{fig-plane}
633: \end{figure}
634: %========================================================================
635:
636: \section{An upper and a lower bound to the GTE distance in the 2D
637: and 3D degenerate Fermi gases} \label{sec:gte}
638:
639: \subsection{Lower bound}
640: \label{subsec:lower}
641:
642: In the present section the three-fermion configuration is
643: investigated, where the particles $1,2$ and $3$ are positioned
644: evenly spaced on a straight line, with a relative distance $r$
645: between the external particles $1$ and $3$. We develop both for
646: the 2D and 3D Fermi gases an upper and a lower bound to the
647: relative distance $r$, beyond which GTE disappears.
648:
649: Let us first calculate numerically and plot the lower bound to the
650: generalized robustness of GTE defined by~(\ref{boundER3}) in the
651: function of $k_Fr$. In Fig.~\ref{fig-distance} the respective
652: curves are plotted both for the two- and three-dimensional
653: degenerate Fermi gases, and numerics shows that
654: $E_{R,\min}(\rho_3)$ vanishes beyond, i.e., the lower bound to the
655: GTE distance is
656: \begin{align}
657: r_{\min}^{\mathrm{2D}} &=2.3588/k_F\;, \nonumber \\
658: r_{\min}^{\mathrm{3D}} &=2.5964/k_F\;, \label{rmin}
659: \end{align}
660: respectively. Let us compare these values (\ref{rmin}) with the
661: bipartite entanglement distance (i.e., the maximal separation
662: distance between two entangled fermions), which are slightly
663: smaller, and are given explicitly by the values \cite{LBV}
664: $1.6163/k_F$ and $1.8148/k_F$ for the 2D and 3D Fermi gases,
665: respectively.
666:
667: For the 3D Fermi gas the $p_{ij}$ parameters of the state $\rho_3$
668: corresponding to $r_{\min}^{\mathrm{3D}}$ are
669: \begin{equation}
670: p_{12}=p_{23}=0.539345 ,\;\; p_{13}=-0.160702\;. \label{p123min}
671: \end{equation}
672: We can also observe in Fig.~\ref{fig-distance}, as one may expect,
673: that the curves are monotonically decreasing, such as in the
674: bipartite case for the entanglement measure negativity \cite{LBV}.
675:
676: %========================================================================
677: \begin{figure}
678: \centerline{\epsfxsize 2.8in \epsffile{GTE-distance.eps}}
679: \caption{(color online) Lower bound to the generalized robustness
680: $E_R$ of genuine tripartite entanglement is plotted both for the
681: two- and three-dimensional degenerate Fermi gases in the function
682: of the dimensionless distance $k_Fr$, where $r$ is the relative
683: distance between the positions of fermion $1$ and fermion $3$, and
684: fermion $2$ is located at the midpoint, as shown by the upper part
685: of the figure.} \label{fig-distance}
686: \end{figure}
687: %========================================================================
688:
689: \subsection{Upper bound}
690: \label{subsec:upper}
691:
692: We continue with studying the particular three-fermion
693: configuration discussed in the previous subsection in order to
694: establish an upper bound to the GTE distance, beside the lower
695: bound already obtained. Exploiting the mirror symmetry of the
696: configuration, for any given distance $r$ between the positions of
697: particle $1$ and particle $3$ we have $p_{12}=p_{23}$, thus in
698: this case parameters $r_k$ defined by (\ref{rk}) in
699: Section~\ref{subsec:3spin} can be expressed through $p_{12}$ and
700: $p_{13}$ alone, and we obtain the relation
701: \begin{equation}
702: r_2=\sqrt 3 r_1\;. \label{rsym}
703: \end{equation}
704:
705: On the other, by applying Theorem~7 of Eggeling and Werner
706: \cite{EW} it is asserted that a three-qubit state is biseparable
707: with respect to the partition $1|23$ if the following inequalities
708: are satisfied:
709: \begin{eqnarray}
710: -1< r_1-2r_+ < 0\;, \nonumber \\
711: 3r_2^2 +3r_3^2+(1-3r_+)^2 \leq (r_1-2r_+)^2\;. \label{EWineq}
712: \end{eqnarray}
713: Now let us calculate the boundary of the area in the plane
714: $(r_1,r_2)$ described by these inequalities~(\ref{EWineq}) by
715: $r_+=0.041$ and $r_3=0$, which parameters correspond to the
716: symmetrical configuration of separation $r_{\min}^{\mathrm{3D}}$
717: between fermion $1$ and fermion $3$ with
718: parameters~(\ref{p123min}). The solution of the
719: inequality~(\ref{EWineq}) by $r_+=0.041$, $r_3=0$ corresponds to
720: the leftmost yellow shaded semi-disk in Fig.~\ref{fig-polygon},
721: representing states in the section $r_+=0.041$ and $r_3=0$ that
722: are separable with respect to the partition $1|23$. The other two
723: disks (representing biseparable states with respect to partitions
724: $12|3$, $13|2$) can be obtained through $\pm 2\pi/3$ rotations
725: around the origin of the plane $(r_1,r_2)$ \cite{TA} owing to the
726: permutation symmetry of the three subsystems. The boundary of the
727: convex hull of these semi-disks are indicated by solid blue line
728: segments in Fig.~\ref{fig-polygon}. All the three-qubit states in
729: the section $r_+=0.041$ and $r_3=0$ which lie inside this polygon
730: are in the class of biseparable states $B$. However, since this
731: area corrresponds to a section, biseparable states in this section
732: may exist outside the polygon as well.
733:
734: Next let us determine the explicit position of the point
735: corresponding to the mirror-symmetrical configuration with
736: separation $r_{\min}^{\mathrm{3D}}$ between the two external
737: fermions. In this particular symmetrical configuration according
738: to~(\ref{rsym}) the ratio $r_2/r_1=\sqrt 3$ and we also have
739: $r_1=(p_{13}-p_{12})/2$. The above ratio has been displayed in
740: Fig.~\ref{fig-polygon} by a dashed line and the point on this line
741: with coordinate $r_1 = -0.35$ (obtained by plugging the
742: values~(\ref{p123min}) into the above formula for $r_1$)
743: corresponding to the separation $r_{\min}^{\mathrm{3D}}$ with
744: $E_{R,\min}=0$ has been designated by the red cross marker.
745: Numerics shows, that this point lies outside the solid blue
746: polygon, as it ought to owing to $E_R\geq 0$ associated with the
747: point. By inspection, on the other, this point is very close to
748: the border of the polygon.
749:
750: Indeed, explicit numerical calculations yield that the distance
751: $r$ between the two outer fermions corresponding to the border of
752: the polygon is $r_{\max}^{\mathrm{3D}}=2.5988/k_F$. This value was
753: obtained by tuning the value of $r_+$ from $0.041$ up to $\simeq
754: 0.0415$ by the mean of increasing the separation $r$ starting from
755: the value $r_{\min}^{\mathrm{3D}}$ so that by
756: $r_{\max}^{\mathrm{3D}}$ the point represented by the the cross
757: marker would lie just on the edge of the polygon. However, this
758: distance $r_{\max}^{\mathrm{3D}}=2.5988/k_F$ is just an upper
759: bound to the GTE distance for the 3D Fermi gas. On the other,
760: similar evaluations give the value
761: $r_{\max}^{\mathrm{2D}}=2.3599/k_F$ for the 2D Fermi gas.
762: Comparing these values with the ones in~(\ref{rmin}) corresponding
763: to the lower bound, it shows that the upper and lower bounds to
764: the GTE distance are indeed very close to each other both for the
765: 2D and 3D Fermi gases. Hence, this implies that the witness of
766: G\"uhne et al.~\cite{GTB} in our particular problem ought to be
767: close to an optimal one.
768:
769: %========================================================================
770: \begin{figure}
771: \centerline{\epsfxsize 3.0in \epsffile{GTE-polygon.eps}}
772: \caption{(color online). The three yellow shaded half-disks
773: represent areas corresponding to biseparable states with respect
774: to the partitions $1|23$, $12|3$ and $13|2$ on the $(r_1,r_2)$
775: plane by the section $r_+=0.041$ and $r_3=0$ for the 3D Fermi gas.
776: The solid blue straight lines bound the set of biseparable states
777: $B$ at this particular section. The equation $r_2=\sqrt 3 r_1$ is
778: represented by the dashed line, and the red cross stands for the
779: point which is located on this line with coordinate $r_1=-0.35$.}
780: \label{fig-polygon}
781: \end{figure}
782: %========================================================================
783:
784: \section{Discussion}
785: \label{sec:disc}
786:
787: Previous works (e.g., \cite{Ved03,LBV}) explored that bipartite
788: entanglement exists within the order of the Fermi wavelength
789: $1/k_F$ at zero temperature in the non-interacting Fermi gas and
790: may even persist for nonzero temperatures (e.g., \cite{LBVa,OK}).
791: Since the system consists of non-interacting fermions,
792: entanglement is purely due to particle statistics and not to any
793: physical interaction between the particles. In the present work we
794: found the result as an extension of the formerly studied bipartite
795: case that particle statistics is capable to generate genuine
796: tripartite entanglement (GTE) as well. Furthermore, it has been
797: found that the diameter of the three-fermion configuration wherein
798: GTE is present (a lower bound to the maximum diameter is given
799: explicitly by~(\ref{rmin})) is comparable with the maximum
800: relative distance between two entangled fermions, both in the 2D
801: and 3D Fermi gases. Looking at higher order entanglement as a
802: useful resource, the presence of GTE in Fermi systems would be
803: promising to allow for performing new quantum information
804: processing tasks, exemplified by the $GHZ$ paradox \cite{GHSZ}.
805: However, in order to do so, the amount of entanglement stored by
806: three fermions should be somehow extracted from the system. In the
807: present article, though, we did not consider this problem some
808: explicit schemes has been put forward recently in the bipartite
809: setting \cite{DDW, Cav06, CV}, some of which might be extended to
810: the tripartite setting as well.
811:
812: Namely, in Ref.~\cite{DDW} it has been shown that bipartite
813: entanglement can exist between non-interacting fermions on a
814: lattice and can extend over multiple lattice sites even if the
815: entanglement is quantified by the most restrictive measure, the
816: entanglement of particles \cite{WV}. Further, considering that in
817: the continuum limit the entanglement of particles corresponds to
818: the entanglement in the spin reduced density matrix \cite{DDW}, by
819: continuity arguments genuine tripartite entanglement, quantified
820: by the measure entanglement of particles, should exist in the
821: lattice system as well. Thus, in the near future optical lattice
822: implementations may offer a simulation technics to observe the
823: phenomenon of genuine tripartite entanglement among
824: non-interacting fermions in a lattice.
825:
826: On the other, in the continuum limit the extraction of genuine
827: tripartite entangled particles seems to be a more difficult
828: problem: As it has been shown \cite{Ved03} the entanglement
829: distance between two fermions is inversely proportional to the
830: Fermi momentum $k_F$, and $k_F^3$ in turn is proportional to the
831: density of particles. In the case of conduction electrons in a
832: usual metal the density is very large indicating an entanglement
833: distance of the order of a few angstroms. This failure might be
834: avoided by using 2D electron gas formed in GaAs heterostructure,
835: where the entanglement distance is in the order of hundred
836: angstroms \cite{OK} or using stored ultra-cold neutrons in a
837: carefully devised experiment \cite{CV}. Also, note the intriguing
838: proposal, exploiting decoherence effects to extract bipartite
839: entanglement created merely by particle statistics from
840: semiconductor quantum wells \cite{Cav06}. Although the GTE
841: distance in (\ref{rmin}) is comparable (even greater) than the
842: bipartite entanglement distance both for the 2D and 3D Fermi
843: gases, technically these proposals appear to be very demanding
844: when applied to the three-party setting.
845:
846: Finally, we would like to mention interesting future directions as
847: a continuation of the present work. One could for example apply
848: the same methods as in the present article for determining GTE
849: distance in Fermi gases trapped in a harmonic trap \cite{Yi} or
850: considering GTE not only in spin, but in other internal degrees of
851: freedom as well \cite{CWZ}. Also the possible existence of genuine
852: multipartite entanglement beyond the three-party scenario remains
853: to be explored.
854:
855: \acknowledgments
856:
857: This work was supported by the Grant \"Oveges of the National
858: Office for Research and Technology.
859:
860: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
861:
862: \bibitem{NC}
863: M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang, {\it Quantum Computation and Quantum
864: Information}, (Cambridge University Press, 2000).
865:
866: \bibitem{GHSZ}
867: D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Horne, A. Shimony, A. Zeilinger, Am. J.
868: Phys. {\bf 58} 1131 (1990).
869:
870: \bibitem{RB}
871: R. Raussendorf and H.J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett, {\bf 86} 5188
872: (2001).
873:
874: \bibitem{GLM}
875: V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, L. Maccone, Science {\bf 306} 1330
876: (2004).
877:
878: \bibitem{BRS}
879: S.D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R.W. Spekkens, Phys. Rev. Lett.
880: {\bf 91} 027901 (2003).
881:
882: \bibitem{Zhao04}
883: Z. Zhao, Y.-A. Chen, A.-N. Zhang, T. Yang, H.J. Briegel, and J.-W.
884: Pan, Nature {\bf 430} 54 (2004).
885:
886: \bibitem{Acin}
887: A. Ac\'in, D. Bru\ss, M. Lewenstein, and A. Sanpera, Phys. Rev.
888: Lett. {\bf 87} 040401 (2001).
889:
890: \bibitem{PV}
891: M.B. Plenio, S. Virmani, Quant. Inf. Comp. {\bf 7} 1 (2007).
892:
893: \bibitem{GTB}
894: O. G\"uhne, G. T\'oth, and H.J. Briegel, New. J. Phys. {\bf 7} 229
895: (2005)
896:
897: \bibitem{ON02}
898: T.J. Osborne and M.A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 66} 032110
899: (2002).
900:
901: \bibitem{Oli06}
902: T.R. de Oliveira, G. Rigolin, M.C. de Oliveira, E. Miranda, Phys.
903: Rev. Lett. {\bf 97} 170401 (2006).
904:
905: \bibitem{Ved04}
906: V. Vedral, New J. Phys. {\bf 6} 102 (2004).
907:
908: \bibitem{Ved03}
909: V. Vedral, Cent. Eur. J. Phys. {\bf 1} 289 (2003)
910:
911: \bibitem{LBV}
912: C. Lunkes, \v{C}. Brukner, and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
913: 95} 030503 (2005).
914:
915: \bibitem{TG}
916: G. T\'oth and O. G\"uhne, Appl. Phys. B {\bf 82} 237 (2006).
917:
918: \bibitem{Bra05}
919: F.G.S.L. Brand\~ao, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 72} 022310 (2005).
920:
921: \bibitem{RGFGC}
922: T.G. Rappoport, L. Ghivelder, J.C. Fernandes, R.B. Guimar\~aes,
923: M.A. Continentino, ArXiv: quant-ph/0608403.
924:
925: \bibitem{Cav05}
926: D. Cavalcanti, M. Fran\c ca Santos, M.O. Terra Cunha, C. Lunkes,
927: V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. A. {\bf 72} 062307 (2005).
928:
929: \bibitem{OK}
930: S. Oh and J. Kim, Phys. Rev. A. {\bf 69} 054305 (2004).
931:
932: \bibitem{EW}
933: T. Eggeling and R.F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A. {\bf 63} 042111 (2001).
934:
935: \bibitem{Terhal}
936: B.M. Terhal, Phys. Lett. A {\bf 271} 319 (2000).
937:
938: \bibitem{Bou04}
939: M. Bourennane, M. Eibl, C. Kurtsiefer, S. Gaertner, H. Weinfurter,
940: O. G\"uhne, P. Hyllus, D. Bru\ss, M. Lewenstein, and A. Sanpera,
941: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92} 087902 (2004).
942:
943: \bibitem{CC05}
944: D. Cavalcanti and M.O. Terra Cunha, ArXiv: quant-ph/0506035.
945:
946: \bibitem{GL06}
947: O. G\"uhne, N. L\"utkenhaus, ArXiv: quant-ph/0612108.
948:
949: \bibitem{CBC}
950: D. Cavalcanti, F.G.S.L. Brand\~ao, and M.O. Terra Cunha, ArXiv:
951: quant-ph/0510068.
952:
953: \bibitem{CC06}
954: D. Cavalcanti and M.O. Terra Cunha, Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 89}
955: 084102 (2006).
956:
957: \bibitem{EBA}
958: J. Eisert, F.G.S.L. Brand\~ao, and K.M.R. Audenart, ArXiv:
959: quant-ph/0607167.
960:
961: \bibitem{CKW}
962: V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 61}
963: 052306 (2000).
964:
965: \bibitem{TA}
966: G. T\'oth and A. Ac\'in, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 74} 030306(R) (2006).
967:
968: \bibitem{LBVa}
969: C. Lunkes, \v{C}. Brukner, and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 71}
970: 034309 (2005).
971:
972: \bibitem{DDW}
973: M.R. Dowling, A.C. Doherty, H.M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A. {\bf 73}
974: 052323 (2006).
975:
976: \bibitem{Cav06}
977: D. Cavalcanti, L.M. Moreira, F. Matinaga, M.O. Terra Cunha, M.
978: Fran\c ca Santos, ArXiv: quant-ph/0608141.
979:
980: \bibitem{CV}
981: M.O. Terra Cunha and V. Vedral, ArXiv: quant-ph/0607224.
982:
983: \bibitem{WV}
984: H.M. Wiseman and J.A. Vaccaro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 097902 (2003).
985:
986: \bibitem{Yi}
987: X.X. Yi, Eur. J. Phys. D {\bf 39} 465 (2006).
988:
989: \bibitem{CWZ}
990: D.-M. Chen, W.-H. Wang, and L.-J. Zou, ArXiv: cond-mat/0605378.
991:
992: \end{thebibliography}
993:
994: \end{document}
995: