Teleportation identities for discrete and continuous systems
J. E. Avron and O. Kenneth
arXiv:1705.08390v1 [quant-ph] 23 May 2017
Department of Physics, Technion, Haifa, Israel
Abstract
We give a streamlined derivation of “teleportation identities” for discrete and
continuous systems. The identities do not depend on the choice of Bell basis and so
are “coordinate free”. The unitaries Bob needs to apply to recover Alice’s unknown
state is the product of the unitaries Alice and Bob use to generate a common Bell
basis. The case of qubit, qudits and continuous systems are all treated on the same
footing.
1 Introduction and main result
Quantum teleporation [1, 12, 9], in its pristine form, deals with three systems living
in three isomorphic Hilbert spaces, H ⊗ H ⊗ H. The first two factors refer to the two
systems of Alice and the last one to the single system of Bob. Alice first system is in
an unknown state |ψi ∈ H while her second system is maximally entangled with Bob’s
system in a known Bell pair state |βξ i. In the case of qudits H = Cd the Bell basis has
d2 orthogonal vectors so ξ ∈ 1, . . . , d2 . In the continuous case, H = L2 (Rd ), Bell states
are also known as EPR states [5], there is a continuum of such pairs. ξ ∈ R2d may then
be viewed as a point in phase space.
The teleportation identities we shall derive below say that
 X
1


|βη iAA ⊗ Vξ Uη |ψiB
Discrete case, H = Cd
d
η Z
(1)
|ψiA ⊗ |βξ iAB =
1


2 (Rd )

dη
|β
i
⊗
V
U
|ψi
Continuous
case,
H
=
L
η AA
ξ η
B
(2π)d
where Vξ and Uξ are the unitaries defined by the common Bell basis:
where
|βξ i = 1 ⊗ Vξ |β0 i = Uξ† ⊗ 1 |β0 i
(2)
(
δξ,η
discrete case
hβξ |βη i =
δ(ξ − η) continuous case
(3)
1
The interpretation of the teleportation identity, Eq. (1), is as follows: Suppose Alice
measures her two systems in the Bell basis and finds |βη i. By Eq. (3), Alice’s measurement remotely prepared Bob’s system to be at Vξ Uη |ψi. This allows Bob to recover
Alice’s unknown state |ψi by applying (Vξ Uη )† . Bob needs to know ξ and η. In the
discrete case ξ, η ∈ 1, . . . d2 . In the continuous case ξ, η ∈ R2d , are two points in phase
space.
Eqs. (2), with |β0 i maximally entangled, is the fundamental property of Bell states.
It expresses the fact that a complete basis in H ⊗ H, can be remotely prepared by
either Alice or Bob, from a single maximally entangled state, |β0 i. Eqs. (2) give the
teleportation identity, Eqs. (1), a pleasing interpretation which does not depend on the
the choice of Bell basis.
In the continuous case, |βξ i are not normalizable vectors in Hilbert space, (see
Eq. (3)), and Eq. (1) is a relation between generalized vectors. Now Alice can measure
only appropriate approximations of |βη i and Bob can prepare only an approximation
of Vξ Uη |ψi. It is then not possible to teleport an arbitrary unknown state |ψi but only
states belonging to restricted families of states, e.g. a subset of coherent states [4]. We
shall not address these difficulties with continuous teleportation here and instead point
to the reader the relevant literature [4, 10, 8, 14]. We shall also not address the experimental status of teleportation [3, 6, 13] nor issues that arise with noisy channels [2]
or teleportation based on entangled states other than maximally entangle bi-bipartite
states [7].
Teleportation identities are derived in section 2. In section 3 we review standard
explicit constructions of Uξ and Vξ [1].
2 Teleportation identities
Observe first that by Eq. (2) it is enough to show Eq. (1) for the case were Alice and
Bob share |β0 i:
 X
1


|βη iAA ⊗ Uη |ψiB
Discrete case
d
η Z
(4)
|ψiA ⊗ |β0 iAB =
1



dη |βη iAA ⊗ Uη |ψiB Continuous case
(2π)d
The general case, Eq. (1), then follows by multiplying both sides on the left by 1 ⊗ 1 ⊗Vξ .
To show Eq. (4) consider first the discrete case1 . Write |β0 i in its Schmidt form:
1 X
|β0 i = √
|ai ⊗ |ai
d a∈Z
(5)
d
Note that the Schmidt basis with vectors |ai need not be the computational basis [9].
1
The identity in this case is implicit in [1].
2
By linearity it is enough to prove Eq. (4) for |ψi any basis vector. In particular,
we may choose the basis to be Alice’s Schmidt basis. In the discrete case this means
showing
1X
|aiA ⊗ |β0 iAB =
|βη iAA ⊗ Uη |aiB , a ∈ Zd
(6)
d η
Indeed, projecting Alice two qudits on |βη i we find
1 X
hβη |aiA ⊗ |β0 iAB = √
hβη |abiAA |biB
d b
1X
hcc| Uη ⊗ 1 |abiAA |biB
=
d
bc
1X
=
hb| Uη |aiA |biB
d
b
1
= Uη |aiB
d
The proof in the continuous case, H = L2 (Rd ), is essentially the same. The maximally
entangled EPR pair [5] (in the coordinate basis) is
Z
1
dd x |xi ⊗ |xi
(7)
|β0 i =
(2π)d/2
The integral is a formal expression, as no notion of convergence is implied. It is a
shorthand for
1
δ(xA − xB )
(8)
hxA ⊗ xB |β0 i =
(2π)d/2
To show
|xiA ⊗ |β0 iAB
1
=
(2π)d
Z
dη |βη iAA ⊗ Uη |xiB
(9)
we project on |βη i
hβη |xi ⊗ |β0 iAB =
=
=
=
Z
1
dd y hβη |x ⊗ yi |yiB
d/2
(2π)
Z
1
dd ydd z hz ⊗ z| Uη ⊗ 1 |x ⊗ yi |yiB
(2π)d
Z
1
dd y hy| Uη |xi |yiB
(2π)d
1
Uη |xiB
(2π)d
This completes the proof of the teleportation identities and shows the intrinsic relation
between the two ways of preparing Bell pairs and the two unitaries Bob need to apply
to recover Alice’s unknown state.
3
3 Explicit construction of Bell basis
There is a standard construction of Bell basis |βξ i [1, 10]. This leads to explicit construction of Uξ and Vξ . We review this construction for completeness.
Bell bases are naturally labeled by a pair2 ξ = (q, p) [1, 10, 14] namely
(
Zd ⊕ Zd , Discrete case, H = Cd
ξ∈
(10)
Rd ⊕ Rd Continuous case, H = L2 (Rd )
Consider first the discrete case. Define
U(q,p) |ai = eiωpa |a + qi ,
a, p, q ∈ Zd ,
ω=
2π
d
(11)
U(q,p) satisfy
′
U(q,p) U(q′ ,p′ ) = eiωpq U(q+q′ ,p+p′ )
(12)
|hβη |βξ i| = |hβη−ξ |β0 i|
(13)
By Eq. (2) and Eq. (12)
Hence, the mutual orthogonality and completeness of the d2 Bell pairs in Eq. (2) follows
from
1X
ha|b − qi ha|bi e−iωpa
hβ0 |β(q,p) i =
d
ab
1X
=
ha|a − qi e−iωpa
d a
= δq,0 δp,0
It remains to construct V(q,p) . From Eq. (2)
1 X
†
|a − qi ⊗ |ai e−iωpa
⊗ 1 |β0 i = √
U(q,p)
d a
1 X
|ai ⊗ |a + qi e−iωp(a+q)
=√
d a
(14)
This identify V(q,p) as
V(q,p) |ai = e−iωpq e−iωpa |a + qi
(15)
V(q,p) = e−iωpq U(q,−p)
(16)
Equivalently
In the case of a qubit, where p = −p mod 2 and ω = π
V(q,p) = (−1)qp U(q,p)
(17)
In the continuous case and in the case d = pn with p prime, the spaces in Eqs. (10) can be identified
as phase space, i.e. a vector space with a simplectic structure [15].
2
4
A similar construction works in the continuous case. Define phase space translations
Uξ |xi = eip·q/2 eip·x |x + qi ,
ξ = (q, p)
Uξ satisfy the algebra of Canonical Commutation relations
0 1
i(η|Jξ)/2
Uη Uξ = e
Uη+ξ , J =
−1 0
(18)
(19)
Eq. (2) now gives a complete set of EPR pairs parametrized by phase space:
eip·q/2
δ(xA − xB + q)eip·xB
(2π)d/2
1
=
δ(xA − xB + q)eip·(xA +xB )/2
(2π)d/2
hxA ⊗ xB |βqp i =
(20)
It is known, [10], and can be easily verified that the above set of EPR pairs make a
complete orthogonal set
Z
(21)
d2d ξ |βξ i hβξ | = 1, hβξ |βη i = δ(ξ − η)
The construction of V is the same as in the discrete case. It too is a phase space
translation.
4 Summary
We gave a derivation of the teleportation identities which is independent of the choice of
Bell basis and gives an intrinsic interperetation to the two unitaries, Vξ and Uη that Bob
needs to apply to recover Alice unknown state |ψi. Vξ is the unitary that allows Bob to
transform |β0 i to |βξ i, the joint initial Bell state. Uη† is the unitary that allows Alice to
transform |β0 i to |βη i, the outcome of Alice’s Bell state measurement. The discrete and
continuous case fit under the same umbrella.
Acknowledgment
JEA thanks L. Vaidman for discussion and especially A. Mann for helpful comments on
a draft of this work. The work is supported by ISF.
References
[1] Charles H Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Claude Crépeau, Richard Jozsa, Asher Peres,
and William K Wootters. Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical
and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels. Physical Review Letters, 70(13):1895, 1993.
5
[2] Charles H Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Sandu Popescu, Benjamin Schumacher, John A
Smolin, and William K Wootters. Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful
teleportation via noisy channels. Physical review letters, 76(5):722, 1996.
[3] Dik Bouwmeester, Jian-Wei Pan, Klaus Mattle, Manfred Eibl, Harald Weinfurter,
and Anton Zeilinger. Experimental quantum teleportation. Nature, 390(6660):575–
579, 1997.
[4] Samuel L Braunstein and H Jeff Kimble. Teleportation of continuous quantum variables. Physical Review Letters, 80(4):869, 1998.
[5] Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47(10):777,
1935.
[6] Akira Furusawa, Jens Lykke Sørensen, Samuel L Braunstein, Christopher A Fuchs,
H Jeff Kimble, and Eugene S Polzik. Unconditional quantum teleportation. Science,
282(5389):706–709, 1998.
[7] VN Gorbachev and AI Trubilko. Quantum teleportation of an einstein-podolsy-rosen
pair using an entangled three-particle state. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical
Physics, 91(5):894–898, 2000.
[8] M Koniorczyk, V Bužek, and J Janszky. Wigner-function description of quantum
teleportation in arbitrary dimensions and a continuous limit. Physical Review A,
64(3):034301, 2001.
[9] Michael A Nielsen and Isaac Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information. AAPT, 2002.
[10] Juan Pablo Paz. Discrete Wigner functions and the phase-space representation of
quantum teleportation. Physical Review A, 65(6):062311, 2002.
[11] Julian Schwinger. Unitary operator bases. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 46(4):570–579, 1960.
[12] Lev Vaidman. Teleportation of quantum states. Physical Review A, 49(2):1473,
1994.
[13] Lev Vaidman and Nadav Yoran. Methods for reliable teleportation. Physical Review
A, 59(1):116, 1999.
[14] SJ Van Enk. Discrete formulation of teleportation of continuous variables. Physical
Review A, 60(6):5095, 1999.
[15] William K Wootters and Brian D Fields. Optimal state-determination by mutually
unbiased measurements. Annals of Physics, 191(2):363–381, 1989.
6