Unveiling the geometric meaning of quantum entanglement: Discrete and continuous variable systems

Abstract

We show that the manifold of quantum states is endowed with a rich and nontrivial geometric structure. We derive the Fubini−Study metric of the projective Hilbert space of a multi-qubit quantum system, endowing it with a Riemannian metric structure, and investigate its deep link with the entanglement of the states of this space. As a measure, we adopt the entanglement distance E preliminary proposed in Phys. Rev. A 101, 042129 (2020). Our analysis shows that entanglement has a geometric interpretation: E(|\psi ⟩) is the minimum value of the sum of the squared distances between |\psi ⟩ and its conjugate states, namely the states {\mathit{v}}^{\mu }\cdot {\mathit{\sigma }}^{\mu }|\psi ⟩, where {\mathit{v}}^{\mu } are unit vectors and \mu runs on the number of parties. Within the proposed geometric approach, we derive a general method to determine when two states are not the same state up to the action of local unitary operators. Furthermore, we prove that the entanglement distance, along with its convex roof expansion to mixed states, fulfils the three conditions required for an entanglement measure, that is: i) E(|\psi ⟩)=0 iff |\psi ⟩ is fully separable; ii) E is invariant under local unitary transformations; iii) E does not increase under local operation and classical communications. Two different proofs are provided for this latter property. We also show that in the case of two qubits pure states, the entanglement distance for a state |\psi ⟩ coincides with two times the square of the concurrence of this state. We propose a generalization of the entanglement distance to continuous variable systems. Finally, we apply the proposed geometric approach to the study of the entanglement magnitude and the equivalence classes properties, of three families of states linked to the Greenberger−Horne−Zeilinger states, the Briegel Raussendorf states and the W states. As an example of application for the case of a system with continuous variables, we have considered a system of two coupled Glauber coherent states.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

entanglements / quantum information / entanglement measure

References

[1] D. Cocchiarella , S. Scali , S. Ribisi , B. Nardi , G. Bel-Hadj-Aissa , R. Franzosi . Entanglement distance for arbitrary M-qudit hybrid systems. Phys. Rev. A, 2020, 101(4): 042129

[2] O. Gühne , G. Toth . Entanglement detection. Phys. Rep., 2009, 474(1−6): 1

[3] A. Nourmandipour , A. Vafafard , A. Mortezapour , R. Franzosi . Entanglement protection of classically driven qubits in a lossy cavity. Sci. Rep., 2021, 11(1): 16259

[4] A. Vafafard , A. Nourmandipour , R. Franzosi . Multipartite stationary entanglement generation in the presence of dipole−dipole interaction in an optical cavity. Phys. Rev. A, 2022, 105(5): 052439

[5] J. Sperling , I. A. Walmsley . Entanglement in macroscopic systems. Phys. Rev. A, 2017, 95(6): 062116

[6] V. Giovannetti , S. Mancini , D. Vitali , P. Tombesi . Characterizing the entanglement of bipartite quantum systems. Phys. Rev. A, 2003, 67(2): 022320

[7] A. Vesperini , G. Bel-Hadj-Aissa , R. Franzosi . Entanglement and quantum correlation measures for quantum multipartite mixed states. Sci. Rep., 2023, 13(1): 2852

[8] A. Vesperini , R. Franzosi . Entanglement, quantum correlators, and connectivity in graph states. Adv. Quantum Technol., 2024, 7(2): 2300264

[9] R. Horodecki , P. Horodecki , M. Horodecki , K. Horodecki . Quantum entanglement. Rev. Mod. Phys., 2009, 81(2): 865

[10] S. Popescu , D. Rohrlich . Thermodynamics and the measure of entanglement. Phys. Rev. A, 1997, 56(5): R3319

[11] W. K. Wootters . Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett., 1998, 80(10): 2245

[12] C. H. Bennett , D. P. DiVincenzo , J. A. Smolin , W. K. Wootters . Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction. Phys. Rev. A, 1996, 54(5): 3824

[13] C. H. Bennett , G. Brassard , S. Popescu , B. Schumacher , J. A. Smolin , W. K. Wootters . Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels. Phys. Rev. Lett., 1996, 76(5): 722

[14] M. Horodecki , P. Horodecki , R. Horodecki . Mixed-state entanglement and distillation: Is there a “bound” entanglement in nature?. Phys. Rev. Lett., 1998, 80(24): 5239

[15] V. Vedral , M. B. Plenio , M. A. Rippin , P. L. Knight . Quantifying entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 1997, 78(12): 2275

[16] G. Adesso , T. R. Bromley , M. Cianciaruso . Measures and applications of quantum correlations. J. Phys. A Math. Theor., 2016, 49(47): 473001

[17] W. Dür , G. Vidal , J. I. Cirac . Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways. Phys. Rev. A, 2000, 62(6): 062314

[18] H. J. Briegel , R. Raussendorf . Persistent entanglement in arrays of interacting particles. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2001, 86(5): 910

[19] J. Eisert , H. J. Briegel . Schmidt measure as a tool for quantifying multiparticle entanglement. Phys. Rev. A, 2001, 64(2): 022306

[20] K. Roszak . Measure of qubit-environment entanglement for pure dephasing evolutions. Phys. Rev. Res., 2020, 2(4): 043062

[21] V. Coffman , J. Kundu , W. K. Wootters . Distributed entanglement. Phys. Rev. A, 2000, 61(5): 052306

[22] A. R. R. Carvalho , F. Mintert , A. Buchleitner . Decoherence and multipartite entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2004, 93(23): 230501

[23] S. L. Braunstein , C. M. Caves . Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 1994, 72(22): 3439

[24] A. M. Frydryszak , M. I. Samar , V. M. Tkachuk . Quantifying geometric measure of entanglement by mean value of spin and spin correlations with application to physical systems. Eur. Phys. J. D, 2017, 71(9): 233

[25] L. Pezzé , A. Smerzi . Entanglement, nonlinear dynamics, and the Heisenberg limit. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2009, 102(10): 100401

[26] P. Hyllus , W. Laskowski , R. Krischek , C. Schwemmer , W. Wieczorek , H. Weinfurter , L. Pezzé , A. Smerzi . Fisher information and multiparticle entanglement. Phys. Rev. A, 2012, 85(2): 022321

[27] S. Scali , R. Franzosi . Entanglement estimation in non-optimal qubit states. Ann. Phys., 2019, 411: 167995

[28] J. P. Provost , G. Vallee . Riemannian structure on manifolds of quantum states. Commun. Math. Phys., 1980, 76(3): 289

[29] G. Gibbons . Typical states and density matrices. J. Geom. Phys., 1992, 8(1−4): 147

[30] D. C. Brody , L. P. Hughston . Geometric quantum mechanics. J. Geom. Phys., 2001, 38(1): 19

[31] G. Vidal . Entanglement monotones. J. Mod. Opt., 2000, 47(2−3): 355

[32] D.M. GreenbergerM.A. HorneA.Zeilinger, Going beyond Bell’s theorem, in: Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1989, pp 69–72

[33] A. Vesperini . Correlations and projective measurements in maximally entangled multipartite states. Ann. Phys., 2023, 457: 169406

[34] Note that the other formula, proposed in Ref. [7] as a generalization of the ED to mixed state, in fact reduces to Eq. (31), and is hence also an entanglement monotone. The supplementary minimization process in the former serves only as a trick, which sometimes allow to overcome the difficulty of the usual minimization over all possible realizations {p_j, ψ_j} of ρ as mixture of pure states.

[35] W. K. Wootters . Entanglement of formation and concurrence. Quantum Inf. Comput., 2001, 1(1): 27

[36] S. Wu , Y. Zhang . Multipartite pure-state entanglement and the generalized Greenberger−Horne−Zeilinger states. Phys. Rev. A, 2000, 63(1): 012308

Declarations

The authors declare that they have no competing interests and there are no conflicts.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the support from the Research Support Plan 2022 − Call for applications for funding allocation to research projects curiosity driven (F CUR) − Project “Entanglement Protection of Qubits’ Dynamics in a Cavity” – EPQDC and the support by the Italian National Group of Mathematical Physics (GNFM-INdAM). R. F. and A. V. would like to acknowledge INFN Pisa for the financial support to this activity.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 Higher Education Press