Abstract
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox highlights the absence of a local
realistic explanation for quantum mechanics, and shows the incompatibility of
the local-hidden-state models with quantum theory. For -qubit states, or
more importantly, the -qubit mixed states, we present the EPR steering
paradox in the form of the contradictory equality “2=1”. We show that the contradiction holds for any -qubit
state as long as both “the pure state
requirement” and “the measurement
requirement” are satisfied. This also indicates that the EPR
steering paradox exists in more general cases. Finally, we give specific
examples to demonstrate and analyze our arguments.
Keywords: Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering; quantum paradox; qubits states.
I Introduction
The quantum paradox serves as a powerful tool in elucidating the fundamental distinction between the quantum theory and the classical theory. Quantum correlations
play a central role in the study of quantum information and quantum mechanics.
Among the quantum correlations, quantum entanglement and Bell’s nonlocality
are the first to be proposed and studied. In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and
Rosen (EPR) published their famous article “Can
Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered
Complete?” EPR1935 , which questioned the
completeness of quantum mechanics under the assumptions of locality and
reality. This is nowadays well-known as the EPR paradox. Soon after the
publication of the EPR paper, Schrödinger introduced two important
concepts, namely, quantum entanglement and quantum steering Schr1935 ; Schr1936 . Quantum entanglement distinguishes quantum theory from classical
theory. And quantum steering is closely related to “the
spooky action at a distance”. However, the idea of steering
did not receive considerable attention or advancement until the year 2007, at
which point Wiseman et al. presented a meticulous definition by
utilizing quantum information concepts Wiseman2007 ; jones2007 . So far,
quantum steering has been widely applied in various fields
preskill1998 ; Galindo2002 ; Ekert1996 ; Childs2010 .
Steering is a quantum correlation between entanglement Quantum entanglement2009 and Bell nonlocality Bell nonlocality2014 ; Quantum machine learning2017 ; bell1964 . Steering is used to describe the situation in
a bipartite system. When people use different observables to detect one of the
particles, it will cause the corresponding other particle to collapse to a
certain state. In practice, Alice prepares a bipartite quantum state, and she
sends one of the particles to Bob. They each measure the particles in their
hands and communicate over a classical channel. It is Alice’s task to convince
Bob that Alice has prepared a pair of entangled state. In the process, Bob
needs to assess the correctness of the assumptions of quantum mechanics and
acknowledge the measurements as described by quantum mechanics. Specifically,
Bob can disbelieve Alice’s equipment and measurements. However, in this case,
Bob needs to rule out the influence of hidden variables on the measurement
results by the measurements he has in hand. Bob can fully trust his own
equipment and results. If Bob cannot explain the measurement results on his
side with the local-hidden states (LHS), he must recognize that Alice has
prepared an entangled bipartite state. Only EPR steering states can accomplish
this task. And quantum steering is an asymmetric quantum nonlocality. That is,
in some cases Alice can steer Bob, but in turn Bob cannot steer Alice
Asymmetric2010 ; Bowles2014 ; Quintino2015 ; Wollmann2016 ; HV2012 . Based on
some properties of quantum steering, Chen et al. proposed the EPR
steering paradox “2=1” chenjl2016 ,
where “2” is the quantum result and
“1” is the corresponding result of LHS
models. They verified the EPR steering state by the contradiction between
quantum mechanics and classical theory. In the 2-setting EPR steering
protocol, they found that any 2-qubit entangled pure state possesses the
contradiction. Thereafter, Liu et al. found that such a contradiction
was also valid for a specific 4-qubit entangled mixed state Liu2021 . In
other words, the discussion of the EPR steering paradox “2=1” has been limited to arbitrary 2-qubit pure state and a
special 4-qubit mixed state.
The purpose of this paper is to study the EPR steering paradox
“2=1” for qubits. Based on the 2-setting
steering protocol, we have obtained such EPR steering paradox
“2=1” for -qubit entangled states. In
this work, we demonstrate that any -qubit state can lead to the
contradiction, provided that both “the pure state
requirement” and “the measurement
requirement” are fulfilled simultaneously. The paper is
organized as follows. In Sec. II, we propose a theorem for -qubit quantum
states that contains two requirements : “the pure state
requirement” and “the measurement
requirement”. In Sec. III, We obtain the EPR steering paradox
“2=1” for the -qubit states under
Bell-like basis measurement. In Sec. IV, we apply the results to the 2-qubit
mixed states and obtain a corollary that there is no EPR steering paradox
“2=1” for 2-qubit mixed states. Finally, we
conclude with a summary in Sec. V. Some detailed proofs are given in the Appendix A and B.
III Bell-like basis measurement
Here we show a more specific example of the Bell-like basis measurement for
the -qubit mixed states. Let us consider Alice and Bob share an -qubit
entangled state , in which may be written as
|
|
|
(34) |
and .
Alice has particles and Bob has particles. In
particular, in the 2-setting steering protocol ,
Alice performs the Bell-like basis measurement on her qubits. Then according
to the theorem, we analyze whether this example can obtain the contradiction
“2=1”, and if yes, what conditions need to meet with the Bell-like basis measurement.
The Bell-like basis measurement can be written as
|
|
|
(35) |
in which . Alice performs
the measurement along directions (with ). And ( ) is a set of complete
basis of -dimensional Hilbert space. We prove that in Appendix C. After
Alice’s measurement, Bob obtains
|
|
|
(36) |
with
|
|
|
(37) |
Firstly, in Bell-like basis measurement, the transformation matrix is
|
|
|
(38) |
It is obvious that there are only two nonzero matrix elements
as well as (with ) in each row of matrix
, and
contains only
two terms. Similarly, only and contribute to , and we can consider as
|
|
|
(39) |
The measurement requirement also requires , so
. In this way, the
measurement requirement is satisfied. Secondly, the pure state requirement
requires that
is independent of , i.e.
|
|
|
(40) |
It is apparent that after a series of analysis, the form of is simple and only contains
two terms. There is an interesting question worthy of our further analysis,
that is, whether and
can contain the same states? Suppose that and are
|
|
|
(41) |
with . The pure state requirement requires
|
|
|
(42) |
and
|
|
|
(43) |
The measurement requirement requires . According to Eq. (42) and Eq. (43), we
have
|
|
|
(44) |
So
|
|
|
(45) |
that means and
are
the same state. In summary, and cannot contain the same state.
Therefore, for arbitrary and , we have
|
|
|
(46) |
with and . And after
Alice’s measurement, Bob’s results are
|
|
|
(47) |
Similarly, suppose every Bob’s state has a LHS description. Bob can check the
following set of equations:
|
|
|
(48) |
According to Eq. (47) , Bob’s unnormalized conditional states are
pure. A density matrix of pure state can only be expanded by itself,
therefore, from Eq. (47) we have
|
|
|
(49) |
By summing them up and taking the trace, the left side gives . But the right side gives
. This leads to the contradiction
“2=1”
In summary, we discuss the steering paradox with the Bell-like basis
measurement. And it shows that for Bell-like basis measurement, when
satisfied both the pure state requirement and the measurement
requirement, we can obtain the contradiction “2=1”. In this case, and cannot contain the same state, and
only contain two items. It is evident that the maximum value range of
is from to ( is the number of particles of Alice), that is,
the maximum rank of is for the Bell-like basis measurement.
Appendix A Can Bob have the same state in the same measurement?
In order to obtain the contradiction “2=1”, we analyze whether Bob can have
the same pure state in the same measurement, and whether Bob can have the same
pure state in different measurements.
After Alice’s measurement, Bob obtains
|
|
|
(53) |
In Eq. (53), assuming that , i.e., only different pure
states appear in the quantum result of Eq. (53), so that it is
sufficient to take from to , namely, one can take the
ensemble as
|
|
|
(54) |
Then Eq. (53) can be written as
|
|
|
(55) |
Since the states on the left-hand side of Eq. (53) are all
pure states, a pure state cannot be obtained by a convex sum of other
different states. Therefore,
|
|
|
(56) |
Similarly, one has
|
|
|
(57) |
|
|
|
(58) |
|
|
|
(59) |
|
|
|
(60) |
|
|
|
(61) |
|
|
|
(62) |
Because , one has
|
|
|
(63) |
where , The sum on the left-hand side of Eq. (63) is
, and the sum on the right-hand side is . By summing
terms in Eq. (63) and taking trace, we arrive at the contradiction
“2=1”. So in the same measurement, if Bob
gets the same pure state, we can get the contradiction “2=1”.
Appendix B Can Bob have the same state in different measurements?
In Eq. (53), assuming that , i.e., only
different pure states appear in the quantum result of Eq. (53).
Similarly, it is sufficient to take from to , one can
take the ensemble as Eq. (54). Then one has Eq. (55). The
states on the left-hand side of Eq. (53) are all pure states.
The same reasoning can be used to obtain
|
|
|
(64) |
Similarly, one has
|
|
|
(65) |
|
|
|
(66) |
|
|
|
(67) |
|
|
|
(68) |
|
|
|
(69) |
|
|
|
(70) |
Because , one has
|
|
|
(71) |
Here , , no more . The sum on the left-hand side of Eq.
(71) is , and the sum on the right-hand side is . By summing terms in Eq. (71) and taking trace, we no
longer get the contradiction “2=1”. So in the
different measurements, if Bob gets the same pure state, we can’t get the
contradiction “2=1”.