text:
# Asymptotic Theory for Quantum Bose Systems with Many Degrees of Freedom

## 1.

We consider a time-independent Hamiltonian

$$H(a_1^{},\mathrm{},a_N^{},a_1,\mathrm{},a_N)=\underset{\mathrm{},s}{}H_\mathrm{}sa^{\mathrm{}}a^s,$$
(1.1)
where

$$\mathrm{}=(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_N)_+^N,s=(s_1,\mathrm{},s_N)_+^N;$$

$`_+`$ stands for the set of nonnegative integers; $`a^{\mathrm{}}=a_1^\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}a_N^\mathrm{}_N`$; $`a^s=a_1^{s_1}\mathrm{}a_N^{s_N}`$. Here as usual

$$a_k^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(x_k\mathrm{}\frac{}{x_k}\right),a_k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(x_k+\mathrm{}\frac{}{x_k}\right)$$

are the creation operator and the annihilation operator respectively; $`[a_k^{},a_{\mathrm{}}]=\delta _k\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ for $`k,\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},N`$.

We assume $`H`$ is formally self-adjoint, i.e.,

$$H_\mathrm{}s=H_s\mathrm{}^{}.$$
(1.2)
The Heisenberg equation for an arbitrary operator valued function $`F(t)`$ is

$$\dot{F}=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[H,F].$$
(1.3)
We introduce Poisson vectors $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ and coherent states $`|\alpha `$ as follows: for any $`\alpha =(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _N)^N`$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ $`=(\pi \mathrm{})^{N/4}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}}\left(x^22\sqrt{2}x\alpha +\alpha ^2\right)\right\},`$ (1.4)
$`|\alpha `$ $`=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha |^2}{2\mathrm{}}}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha .`$ (1.5)
Then, $`a\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$, i.e.,

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill a_k\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha & =& \alpha _k\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ,\hfill & k=1,\mathrm{},N.\text{Also}\hfill \\ \multicolumn{4}{c}{}\\ \hfill \mathrm{}\frac{}{\alpha _k}\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha & =& a_k^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ,\hfill & k=1,\mathrm{},N.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.6)
Unlike $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$, the vectors $`|\alpha `$ are normalized: $`\alpha \alpha =1`$. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ is holomorphic with respect to $`\alpha ^N`$. Our goal is to study the expectation value $`\alpha |F(t)|\alpha `$. To obtain the partial differential equation for this quantity we argue as follows.

Let $`F(t)=_{m,q_+^N}F_{mq}(t)a^ma^q`$. Using (1.1), (1.3), (1.6),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha |F\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ (1.7)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha |(HFFH)\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{},s,m,q}{}}H_\mathrm{}sF_{mq}(t)\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha |a^{\mathrm{}}a^sa^ma^q\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha |a^ma^qa^{\mathrm{}}a^s\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \right\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{},s,m,q}{}}H_\mathrm{}sF_{mq}\left\{\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}\alpha ^qa^s\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha |a^m\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \alpha ^m\alpha ^sa^q\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha |a^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \right\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{},s,m,q}{}}H_\mathrm{}sF_{mq}\left\{\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}\alpha ^q\left(\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha ^{}}}\right)^s\left(\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha }}\right)^m\alpha ^m\alpha ^s\left(\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha ^{}}}\right)^q\left(\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha }}\right)^{\mathrm{}}\right\}\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha |^2}{\mathrm{}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{},s,m,q}{}}H_\mathrm{}sF_{mq}\left\{\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha ^{}}}\right)^s\alpha ^m\alpha ^q\alpha ^s\left(\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha }}\right)^{\mathrm{}}\alpha ^m\alpha ^q\right\}\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha |^2}{\mathrm{}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{},s}{}}H_\mathrm{}s\left\{\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha ^{}}}\right)^s\alpha ^s\left(\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha }}\right)^{\mathrm{}}\right\}\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha |^2}{\mathrm{}}}\alpha |F(t)|\alpha .`$
In a slightly more general setting, let

$$H=\mathrm{op}^{\text{Wick}}(z^{},z)$$
(1.8)
For $`H`$ as in (1.1) this means

$$(z^{},z)=\underset{\mathrm{},s}{}H_\mathrm{}sz^{\mathrm{}}z^s$$

Then from (1.5), (1.7) we get a closed equation for the evolution of $`\alpha |F|\alpha `$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{d}{dt}\alpha |F|\alpha =\hfill \\ & =\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{op}\left[\left((\alpha ^{},\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\xi +\alpha )(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\xi ^{}+\alpha ^{},\alpha )\right)\right]\alpha |F|\alpha \hfill \end{array}$$
(1.9)
Here, as in the theory of pseudodifferential operators, for any appropriate symbol $`b(\alpha ,\xi )`$

$$\mathrm{op}[b(\alpha ,\xi )]f=(2\pi )^{2N}_^N_^Nb(\alpha ,\xi )e^{i\mathrm{Re}\xi (\alpha \gamma )^{}}f(\gamma )d^{2N}\gamma d^{2N}\xi $$

For the purpose of the present paper it will be sufficient to treat the case when $``$ is a polynomial in $`z^{},z`$. We will address the mathematical problems related to a more general $``$ in future publications.

In case $`(z^{},z)`$ is a polynomial, the equation (1.9) has the following explicit form:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{d}{dt}\alpha |F|\alpha =\hfill \\ & =\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\underset{r_+^N}{}\frac{1}{r!}\left(\left(\frac{}{\alpha }\right)^r(\alpha ^{},\alpha )\left(\mathrm{}\frac{}{\alpha ^{}}\right)^r\left(\frac{}{\alpha ^{}}\right)^r(\alpha ^{},\alpha )\left(\mathrm{}\frac{}{\alpha }\right)^r\right)\alpha |F|\alpha \hfill \end{array}$$
(1.10)
Here, for $`r=(r_1,\mathrm{},r_N)_+^N`$, $`r!=r_1!\mathrm{}r_N!`$.

## 2.

The goal of the paper is to present an asymptotic solution to (1.9), (1.10) as $`\mathrm{}0`$. We first treat the case of the initial condition of the following nature:

$$\alpha |F(0)|\alpha =\alpha ^m\alpha ^q\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{|\alpha \alpha _0|^2}{\mathrm{}}\right),\alpha _0^N.$$
(2.1)
This corresponds, i.e., to the choice

$$F(0)=a^m|\alpha _0\alpha _0|a^q$$
(2.2)
Indeed, for $`\alpha ^N`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha |a^m|\alpha _0\alpha _0|a^q|\alpha & =\alpha ^m\alpha ^q|\alpha _0,\alpha |^2\hfill \\ & =\alpha ^m\alpha ^q\left|\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\alpha _0^{}\alpha }{\mathrm{}}\frac{|\alpha _0|^2}{2\mathrm{}}\frac{|\alpha |^2}{2\mathrm{}}\right)\right|^2\hfill \\ & =\alpha ^m\alpha ^q\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{|\alpha \alpha _0|^2}{\mathrm{}}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

To solve asymptotically the problem (1.9), (1.10) with the initial condition as in (2.1) we propose the following procedure. Let $`f(\alpha ^{},\alpha ,t)=\alpha |F(t)|\alpha `$.

Assume formally

$$f(\alpha ^{},\alpha ,t)=e^{\frac{S(\alpha ^{},\alpha ,t)}{\mathrm{}}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_j(\alpha ^{},\alpha ,t)\mathrm{}^j,$$
(2.3)
where the phase $`S(\alpha ^{},\alpha ,t)`$ and the coefficients $`b_j`$, $`j=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ are to be determined.

The initial conditions are

$`S(\alpha ^{},\alpha ,0)`$ $`=|\alpha \alpha _0|^2;`$ (2.4)
$`b_0(\alpha ^{},\alpha ,0)`$ $`=\alpha ^m\alpha ^q;`$ (2.5)
$`b_j(\alpha ^{},\alpha ,0)`$ $`=0\text{ for }j1.`$ (2.6)
With these choices (2.1) will follow immediately. We substitute (2.3) into (1.10) and obtain the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for $`S`$ and a system of transport equations for $`b_j`$, $`j0`$.

For the phase $`S`$ we have from Taylor’s formula:

$$\dot{S}=i\left\{(\alpha ^{},\alpha +\frac{S}{\alpha ^{}})(\alpha ^{}+\frac{S}{\alpha },\alpha )\right\}.$$
(2.7)
It is a rather remarkable fact that the Hamilton-Jacobi equation (2.7) is real (see (1.2)) and therefore the classical Hamilton-Jacobi theory applies. The expansion (2.3) describes Laplace asymptotics unlike WKB asymptotics valid for the Schrödinger equation (see, e.g., Berman et al. (1994)) describing the evolution of a wave function.

We introduce the momenta $`p,p^{}`$ and the effective Hamiltonian associated with (2.7) as follows:

$$W(\alpha ^{},\alpha ,p^{},p)=i\left\{(\alpha ^{},\alpha +p^{})(\alpha ^{}+p,\alpha )\right\}.$$
(2.8)
The Hamiltonian dynamics in these variables is

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \dot{\alpha }_k& =i\frac{}{\alpha _k^{}}(\alpha ^{}+p,\alpha )\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{p}_k& =i\left\{\frac{}{\alpha _k}(\alpha ^{},\alpha +p^{})\frac{}{\alpha _k}(\alpha ^{}+p,\alpha )\right\}\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{\alpha }_k^{}& =i\frac{}{\alpha _k}(\alpha ^{},\alpha +p^{})\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{p}_k^{}& =i\left\{\frac{}{\alpha _k^{}}(\alpha ^{},\alpha +p^{})\frac{}{\alpha _k^{}}(\alpha ^{}+p,\alpha )\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.9)
We now fix $`\alpha _0^N`$ and solve the equation (2.7). Let

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (\alpha ^{},\alpha ,p^{},p)& =i\{(p\frac{}{\alpha ^{}}(\alpha ^{}+p,\alpha )p^{}\frac{}{\alpha }(\alpha ^{},\alpha +p^{}))\hfill \\ & (\alpha ^{}+p,\alpha )+(\alpha ^{},\alpha +p^{})\}\hfill \end{array}$$

Denote by $`g^t`$ the Hamiltonian dynamics corresponding to

$$\dot{\alpha }_k=i\frac{}{\alpha _k^{}}(\alpha ^{},\alpha ),k=1,\mathrm{},N.$$

Under the condition $`|(\alpha ^{},\alpha )|c_1|\alpha |^Mc_2`$, where $`M>0`$, $`c_1>0`$, $`c_2>0`$ this dynamics is defined for all $`\alpha (0)^N`$, $`t`$

$$\alpha =g^t(\alpha (0))$$

and is a 1-parametric group of (real)-analytic diffeomorphisms $`^N\stackrel{}{}^N`$.111To ensure the well-posedness of the evolution (1.3) one needs some additional assumptions on $``$. The following condition suffices (see Hörmander (1983–1985), Shubin (1987)). There exist $`R>0`$, $`\rho >0`$ and a set of constants $`C_s\mathrm{}`$, where $`s,\mathrm{}_+^N`$, so that
$$\left|\frac{^{|s+\mathrm{}|}}{\alpha ^s\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}(\alpha ^{},\alpha )\right|C_{s,\mathrm{}}|\alpha |^{\rho |s+\mathrm{}|}|(\alpha ^{},\alpha )|,|\alpha |R.$$

Let $`\alpha `$ belong to a small enough neighborhood of $`g^t\alpha _0`$. We solve (2.9) with initial data

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _k(0),\hfill & k=1,\mathrm{},N\hfill \\ p_k(0)=(\alpha _k^{}(0)\alpha _{0k}^{}),\hfill & k=1,\mathrm{},N\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.10)
Here $`\alpha (0)`$ is chosen in a small neighborhood of $`\alpha _0`$ in $`^N`$.

Linearizing (2.9) along a trajectory with $`p=0`$, we obtain

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\dot{A}_k=i\left\{\frac{^2}{\alpha _k^{}\alpha _r}(\alpha ^{},\alpha )A_r+\frac{^2}{\alpha _k^{}\alpha _r^{}}(\alpha ^{},\alpha )(A_r^{}+B_r)\right\}\hfill & \\ \dot{B}_k=i\left\{\frac{^2}{\alpha _k\alpha _r}(\alpha ^{},\alpha )B_r^{}\frac{^2}{\alpha _k\alpha _r^{}}(\alpha ^{},\alpha )B_r\right\},\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2.11)
where $`A_k=\delta \alpha _k`$, $`B_k=\delta p_k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},N`$.

From (2.10) the initial condition for (2.11) satisfies

$$B_k(0)=A_k^{}(0),k=1,\mathrm{},N.$$
(2.12)
We want to show that the map that assigns $`\alpha (t)`$ to each $`\alpha (0)`$ in a small neighborhood of $`\alpha _0`$ where $`(\alpha (t),p(t))`$ solves (2.9) with initial condition (2.10) is a local diffeomorphism (of class $`C^\omega `$). Once this is established, $`S`$ can be defined in a small neighborhood of $`g^t\alpha _0`$ as follows:

$$S(\alpha ^{}(t),\alpha (t),t)=|\alpha (0)\alpha _0|^2+_0^t(\alpha ^{}(\tau ),\alpha (\tau ),p^{}(\tau ),p(\tau ))𝑑\tau $$
(2.13)
Also, $`p^{}(t)=\frac{S}{\alpha ^{}}(\alpha ^{}(t),\alpha (t),t)`$, $`p(t)=\frac{S}{\alpha }(\alpha ^{}(t),\alpha (t),t)`$. To verify the statement above we notice that (2.11) yields

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{d}{dt}(A_kB_k+A_k^{}B_k^{})& =i\left\{\frac{^2}{\alpha _k^{}\alpha _r}A_rB_k+\frac{^2}{\alpha _k^{}\alpha _r^{}}(A_r^{}+B_r)B_k+\frac{^2}{\alpha _k\alpha _r}A_kB_r^{}\frac{^2}{\alpha _k\alpha _r^{}}A_kB_r\right\}\hfill \\ & i\left\{\frac{^2}{\alpha _r^{}\alpha _k}A_r^{}B_k^{}+\frac{^2}{\alpha _r\alpha _k}(A_r+B_r^{})B_k^{}+\frac{^2}{\alpha _r^{}\alpha _k^{}}A_k^{}B_r\frac{^2}{\alpha _r\alpha _k^{}}A_k^{}B_r^{}\right\}\hfill \\ & =i\frac{^2}{\alpha _k^{}\alpha _r^{}}B_rB_ki\frac{^2}{\alpha _r\alpha _k}B_r^{}B_k^{}\hfill \\ & =\frac{d}{dt}B_kB_k^{}\hfill \end{array}$$

Integrating and using (2.12) we get

$$A_k(t)B_k(t)+A_k^{}(t)B_k^{}(t)+B_k(t)B_k^{}(t)=2|B(0)|^2+|B(0)|^2=|B(0)|^2.$$

this implies $`A_k(t)B_k(t)+A_k^{}(t)B_k^{}(t)|B(t)|^2`$. By using the second equation (2.11) and (2.12) we get $`C|A(0)||B(t)|C^1|A(0)|`$ with some $`C>0`$ uniform over any finite time interval $`[0,T]`$. Therefore, $`|A(t)|C^1|A(0)|`$ and one would never encounter a caustic moving along the trajectory (2.9) with $`p=0`$ (i.e., along $`g^t\alpha _0`$). This is enough to conclude. The solution (2.13) to (2.7), (2.4) is unique in the obvious sense.

Clearly $`S((g^t\alpha _0)^{},g^t\alpha _0,t)=0`$ and

$$\frac{S}{\alpha ^{}}((g^t\alpha _0)^{},g^t\alpha _0,t)=0,\frac{S}{\alpha }((g^t\alpha _0)^{},g^t\alpha _0,t)=0.$$

Also, the function $`S(\alpha ^{},\alpha ,t)`$ satisfies the inequality

$$S(\alpha ^{},\alpha ,t)C|\alpha g^t\alpha _0|^2$$

in some possibly smaller neighborhood of $`g^t\alpha _0`$. This follows from the above argument since $`A_k(t)B_k(t)+A_k^{}(t)B_k^{}(t)`$ is the second differential of $`S(t)`$ at the critical point $`((g^t\alpha _0)^{},g^t\alpha _0)`$.

## 3.

We now turn to the system of transport equations for the coefficients $`b_j(\alpha ^{},\alpha ,t)`$, $`j0`$. We have, substituting (2.3) into (1.10) and collecting terms of order $`\mathrm{}^0`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \dot{b}_0& =i\underset{r_+^N}{}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{r_{\mathrm{}}}{r!}\{\left(\frac{}{\alpha }\right)^r(\alpha ^{},\alpha )[\left(\frac{S}{\alpha ^{}}\right)^{r1_{\mathrm{}}}\frac{}{\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{}}b_0+\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{}}\left(\left(\frac{S}{\alpha ^{}}\right)^{r1_{\mathrm{}}}\right)b_0]\hfill \\ & \left(\frac{}{\alpha ^{}}\right)^r(\alpha ^{},\alpha )[\left(\frac{S}{\alpha }\right)^{r1_{\mathrm{}}}\frac{}{\alpha _{\mathrm{}}}b_0+\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{\alpha _{\mathrm{}}}\left(\left(\frac{S}{\alpha }\right)^{r1_{\mathrm{}}}\right)b_0]\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.1)
In other words,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \dot{b}_0& =i\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left\{\frac{}{\alpha _{\mathrm{}}}(\alpha ^{},\alpha +\frac{S}{\alpha ^{}})\frac{}{\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{}}\frac{}{\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{}}(\alpha ^{}+\frac{S}{\alpha },\alpha )\frac{}{\alpha _{\mathrm{}}}\right\}b_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{i}{2}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}\{\frac{^2}{\alpha _{\mathrm{}}\alpha _m}(\alpha ^{},\alpha +\frac{S}{\alpha ^{}})\frac{^2S}{\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{}\alpha _m^{}}\hfill \\ & \frac{^2}{\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{}\alpha _m^{}}(\alpha ^{}+\frac{S}{\alpha },\alpha )\frac{^2S}{\alpha _{\mathrm{}}\alpha _m}\}b_0\hfill \\ & L_0b_0\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.2)
In the right side of (3.1) $`1_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},N`$ is the vector with components $`\delta _\mathrm{}s`$, $`s=1,\mathrm{},N`$.

For an arbitrary $`j0`$

$$\dot{b}_j=L_0b_j+\underset{k=1}{\overset{j}{}}L_kb_{jk}.$$
(3.3)
The differential operators $`L_k`$ in the right hand side of (3.3) are as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill L_k& =\frac{i}{(k+1)!}\frac{^{k+1}}{\mathrm{}^{k+1}}\underset{r_+^N}{}\frac{1}{r!}\{\left(\frac{}{\alpha }\right)^r(\alpha ^{},\alpha )(\mathrm{}\frac{}{\alpha ^{}}+\frac{S}{\alpha ^{}})^r\hfill \\ & \left(\frac{}{\alpha ^{}}\right)^r(\alpha ^{},\alpha )(\mathrm{}\frac{}{\alpha }+\frac{S}{\alpha })^r\left\}\right|_{\mathrm{}=0}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.4)
To solve the system (3.1)–(3.4) with initial conditions (2.5), (2.6) we use (2.9) to obtain with fixed $`\alpha ^{}(0)`$, $`\alpha (0)`$ in a small neighborhood of $`\alpha _0^N`$

$$\frac{d}{dt}b_0(\alpha ^{}(t),\alpha ^{}(t),t)+c_0(\alpha ^{}(t),\alpha (t),t)b_0=0$$
(3.5)
where $`c_0`$ is the coefficient in the second term of (3.2). Having solved (3.5) with initial condition (2.5), we obtain a first order linear inhomogeneous ODE for $`b_1`$, etc.. According to (3.3) to solve the equation for $`b_j`$ we are recursively faced with the problem of solving the same ODE with a different known right hand side. The solution to this problem therefore exists and is unique for $`(\alpha ^{},\alpha )`$ being sufficiently close to $`((g^t\alpha _0)^{},g^t\alpha _0)`$.

To solve the problem (1.9), (1.10) with the initial condition

$$\alpha |F(0)|\alpha =\alpha ^m\alpha ^q$$

we use the completeness relation

$$\frac{1}{(\pi \mathrm{})^N}|\alpha _0\alpha _0|d^{2N}\alpha _0=id$$

which leads to the expansion

$$\alpha |F(t)|\alpha =\frac{1}{(\pi \mathrm{})^N}d^{2N}\alpha _0e^{\frac{S(\alpha ^{},\alpha ,t)}{\mathrm{}}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_j(\alpha ^{},\alpha ,t)\mathrm{}^j$$

Here in the right hand side the phase $`S`$ and the coefficients $`b_j`$, $`j0`$ depend on a parameter $`\alpha _0^N`$.

## 4. Example (see Berman et al. (1981), Berman et al. (1994) for the exact solution)

Let $`N=1`$, $`(\alpha ^{},\alpha )=\omega \alpha ^{}\alpha +\mu \alpha ^2\alpha ^2`$. The equation (2.7) takes the form

$$\dot{S}=i(\omega +2\mu |\alpha |^2)\left(\alpha ^{}\frac{S}{\alpha ^{}}\alpha \frac{S}{\alpha }\right)+i\mu \left(\alpha ^2\left(\frac{S}{\alpha ^{}}\right)^2\alpha ^2\left(\frac{S}{\alpha }\right)^2\right)$$
(4.1)
The first transport equation is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \dot{b}_0& =i(\omega +2\mu |\alpha |^2)\left(\alpha ^{}\frac{}{\alpha ^{}}\alpha \frac{}{\alpha }\right)b_0+2i\mu \left(\alpha ^2\frac{S}{\alpha ^{}}\frac{}{\alpha ^{}}\alpha ^2\frac{S}{\alpha }\frac{}{\alpha }\right)b_0\hfill \\ & +i\mu \left(\alpha ^2\frac{^2S}{\alpha ^2}\alpha ^2\frac{^2S}{\alpha ^2}\right)b_0L_0b_0\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.2)
A simple computation yields:

$`S(\alpha ^{},\alpha ,t)`$ $`=|\alpha (0)\alpha _0|^2i\mu t\left(\alpha ^{}(0)^2\alpha _0^2\alpha (0)^2\alpha _0^2\right)`$ (4.3)
$`+|\alpha (0)|^2\left(1e^{2i\mu t(\alpha ^{}(0)\alpha _0\alpha (0)\alpha _0^{})}\right)`$
$`b_0(\alpha ^{},\alpha ,t)`$ $`=\alpha (0)^m\alpha (0)^q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+4\mu ^2t^2|\alpha _0|^2|\alpha (0)|^2}}}`$ (4.4)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i(\alpha (0)^{}\alpha _0\alpha (0)\alpha _0^{})}{2|\alpha (0)||\alpha _0|}}\mathrm{arctan}(2\mu t|\alpha _0||\alpha (0)|)\right\},`$
where

$$\alpha =\alpha (0)\mathrm{exp}\{i\omega t+2\mu t\alpha _0^{}\alpha (0)\}.$$
(4.5)
Notice that for any $`t`$ the map (4.5) $`\alpha (0)\alpha `$ is invertible in a sufficiently small neighborhood of $`\alpha _0`$.

## Conclusion

In conclusion, we developed a theory for Bose systems with many degrees of freedom which describes not an oscillating asymptotic behavior of a quasi-classical wave function, but a Laplace asymptotics for quantum average quantities, which are localized in phase space. This approach has many advantages in comparison with the standard one, as it does not require (i) an intermideate step of computing a complicated behaviour of a quasi-classical wave function which usually presents difficulties associated with caustics, and (ii) an additinal integration for computing the average values. Our approach can be used for solving many dynamical problems related to Bose systems with many degrees of freedom.

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Department of Energy under the contract W-7405-ENG-36 and DOE Office of Basic Energy Sciences. The work of MV was supported in part by the National Science Foundation Grant DMS-9876947. The work of GPB was partly supported by the National Security Agency (NSA) and by the Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA). MV is grateful to the Los Alamos National Laboratory for the kind hospitality during his visit in July 2002.


format: text

text:
# Distinguishing two-qubit states using local measurements and restricted classical communication

## 1 Introduction

Suppose that we have a two-qubit state, and we give one of the qubits to Alice and the other to Bob. Alice and Bob know that the state is either $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, and by making local measurements and communicating classically, they want to determine which state they have. We want to consider the case of unambiguous discrimination, which means that Alice and Bob may fail to decide which state they have, but if they succeed, they will not make an error. That is, they will never conclude that they have $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ when they have been given $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and vice versa. Our object is to develop a procedure that Alice and Bob can use to discriminate between the states.

One aspect of this problem has already been solved. If each state is equally likely and and both qubits can be measured together, then it is known that the states can be successfully unambiguously discriminated with a probability of $`p_{idp}=1|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|`$ -. It was recently shown that the states can be discriminated using only local operations and classical communication (LOCC) with the same success probability. Walgate, et al. proved that if $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0`$, then the states can be distinguished perfectly using only LOCC . The case when $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ are not orthogonal was investigated numerically by Virmani, et al. , and they found strong evidence that unambiguous discrimination is possible with a probability of $`p_{idp}`$ using LOCC. In addition, they found a class of states for which they could prove that this was true. A proof that this is true for all bipartite states was provided by Chen and Yang .

The procedure that makes LOCC unambiguous discrimination with a success probability of $`p_{idp}`$ possible is the following. Alice makes a projective measurement on her particle that gives her no information about whether the state is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, and she then communicates her result to Bob. Based on what Alice has told him, Bob chooses a measurement to make on his particle. In particular, he applies the procedure for the optimal unambiguous discrimination of single qubit states to his particle. However, in this procedure one must know the two states that one is discriminating between, and it is this information that is provided by the result of Alice’s measurement.

What we wish to examine here is how restricting the classical communication between the parties affects their ability to discriminate between the states. We shall first see what happens when no classical communication is allowed. In that case each party has three possible measurement results, $`0`$ corresponding to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, $`1`$ corresponding to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, and $`f`$ for failure to distinguish. If $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is sent, then Alice and Bob both measure $`0`$ or both measure $`f`$, so that they both know, without communicating, that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ was sent or that the measurement failed. If $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ is sent, then they both measure either $`1`$ or $`f`$. We shall then relax the ban on classical commuincation, and allow Alice and Bob to communicate their meaurement results to each other. However, conditional measurements will still be banned, i.e. situations in which the measurement made by one party depends on the measurement results of the other will not be allowed.

One motivation for studying these situations, in addition to what they tell us about state discrimination, is their possible use in communication schemes. State discrimination for single qubits can be used to construct a scheme for quantum cryptography . In this protocol, Alice and Bob wish to share a secure key. Alice sends single qubits to Bob in one of two nonorthogonal states, $`|\psi _0`$ or $`|\psi _1`$, and Bob applies the unambiguous state discrimination protocol to the states he receives. He then tells Alice whether the procedure succeeded or failed, and they keep the instances when it succeeded and throw out the rest. If Bob’s measurement resulted in $`|\psi _0`$, then that particular key bit is recorded as $`0`$, and if it resulted in $`|\psi _1`$, it is recorded as $`1`$. In this way a binary string shared by Alice and Bob can be constructed, and it serves as the key. An eavesdropper, Eve, who intercepts the qubits that Alice sends to Bob, and who wishes to find out which state they are in, has a problem. Because the states are not orthogonal, she will not be able to definitely determine the state each of each qubit she receives. However, she must send a qubit in either $`|\psi _0`$ or $`|\psi _1`$ on to Bob. Since her information about the qubit she received is not perfect, Eve will sometimes send a qubit in the wrong state to Bob. If Alice and Bob publicly compare some of their key bits and find discrepencies, then they know an eavesdropper was present. If they find no discrepencies, then they can conclude that they share a secure key.

The no-classical-communication scheme would allow a third party, Charlie, to distribute a shared key to Alice and Bob. Charlie would send one qubit to Alice and one to Bob, where the qubits are either in the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, and Alice and Bob would measure them. They would both know when the had found $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, when they had found $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, and when they had failed. Note that Charlie would not know the key, because he would not know which bits corresponded to failure. A slight relaxation of the no-classical-communication condition allows all three parties to share a key. Alice and Bob simply announce publicly when they failed to distinguish the state.

A possible use for the second scheme, when Alice and Bob are allowed to compare their meaurement results, is secret sharing. In this case a third party, Charlie, wants to share a secure key with Alice and Bob, but he wants Alice and Bob to have to cooperate to determine the key bit. Neither Alice nor Bob, separately, will know the key, but together they will. Charlie accomplishes this by sending one qubit to Alice and another to Bob. The two qubits are either in the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, and these states are not orthogonal. Alice and Bob then perform a procedure to determine which state they have, and this procedure must require their cooperation, so that neither of them by themselves can determine the state. If they use the optimal procedure in which the measurement Bob makes depends on the result of Alice’s measurement, then Alice would measure her particle, and Bob would do nothing to his. When they want to determine the key bit, Alice will tell Bob the result of her measurement, and Bob will make the appropriate measurement on his particle. This method, however, requires Bob to store quantum information, i.e. keep his particle free from the effects of decoherence, until the bit is determined. A more practical procedure would be the restricted-classical-communication scheme in which both Alice and Bob make independent measurements, and are able to determine the state from the results. In that case, they each measure their qubit when they receive it, and they record the results of their measurements. This means that it is only classical information that needs to be stored. Neither Alice nor Bob should be able to determine the state from just their own result, but by putting their results together they should be able to indentify the state they were sent with some nonzero probability, and they should never make an error. It is this kind of procedure we wish to study here.

## 2 No classical communication

As discussed in the Introduction, we shall assume that Alice and Bob each has one of three measurement alternatives, $`0`$, $`1`$, and $`f`$. The POVM operators that characterize the measurements are $`\{A_0,A_1,A_f\}`$ for Alice and $`\{B_0,B_1,B_f\}`$ for Bob. These operators satisfy

$$I_A=\underset{j=0,1,f}{}A_j^{}A_jI_B=\underset{j=0,1,f}{}B_j^{}B_j,$$
(1)
where $`I_A`$ is the identity on $`_A`$, the Hilbert space of Alice’s qubit, and $`I_B`$ is the identity on $`_B`$, the space of Bob’s qubit. The requirement that Alice and Bob only get the same result for their measurements imposes the conditions

$$A_jB_k|\mathrm{\Psi }_n=0,$$
(2)
where $`j,k\{0,1,f\}`$ and $`jk`$, and $`n\{0,1\}`$. In addition, the fact that no errors are made in identitfying the states requires that

$$A_0B_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_1A_1B_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=0.$$
(3)
It is clear simply from the number of conditions, that if this procedure is possible at all, it will be true only for a very restricted set of states. In fact, what we find is that the best we can do is to is to identify one of the states with a nonzero probability and fail the rest of the time. The details of the proof of this statement are given in the Appendix.

We conclude this section with an example of the situation in which one state can be detected. Suppose our two states are given by

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`|0|0`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0|0+|1|1),`$ (4)
where Alice’s states are first and Bob’s second. In addition, we have that $`A_0=B_0=0`$, so that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is never detected, and

$`A_1=|11|`$ $`B_1=|11|`$
$`A_f=|00|`$ $`B_f=|00|.`$ (5)
From this we see that, indeed, if $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is sent, then it will not be detected, but if $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ is sent, then we will detect it with a probability of $`1/2`$ and fail with a probability of $`1/2`$. Thus, we are very limited in distinguishing two states without any classical communication between Alice and Bob.

## 3 Limited classical communication

The situation becomes more interesting if we allow Alice and Bob to communicate the results of their measurements to each other only after both measurements have been made. We now consider the following situation. Alice and Bob make measurements on their particles, and each of these measurements can have one of two outcomes, $`0`$ or $`1`$. Alice’s measurement is described by the POVM $`\{A_0,A_1\}`$ and Bob’s by $`\{B_0,B_1\}`$, where

$$I_A=A_0^{}A_0+A_1^{}A_1I_B=B_0^{}B_0+B_1^{}B_1,$$
(6)
and $`I_A`$ and $`I_B`$ are the identity operators in Alice’s and Bob’s Hilbert spaces, respectively. The probability that Alice will obtain the result $`k`$ if the two qubit-state is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ is $`\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _{Aj}A_k^{}A_k)`$, where $`\rho _{Aj}=\mathrm{Tr}_B(|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }_j|)`$ is the reduced density matrix of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ in Alice’s space. Similar expressions hold for the probabilities of Bob’s measurements. Note that $`A_0`$ and $`A_1`$ commute with $`B_0`$ and $`B_1`$.

Together, Alice and Bob have four possible sets of results (Alice’s result is given first, Bob’s second), $`\{0,0\}`$, $`\{0,1\}`$, $`\{1,0\}`$, $`\{1,1\}`$, and we have to decide which sets correspond to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, which to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, and which to failure to decide. Let us first consider what happens if we assume that none of the sets corresponds to failure. In particular, suppose that $`\{0,0\}`$ and $`\{1,1\}`$ correspond to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and $`\{0,1\}`$ and $`\{1,0\}`$ correspond to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$. This implies that if the state is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, then the probability of getting $`\{0,0\}`$ or $`\{1,1\}`$ is zero, and if the state is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, the probability of getting $`\{0,1\}`$ or $`\{1,0\}`$ is zero. Therefore, we have

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0|A_0^{}A_0B_1^{}B_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=\mathrm{\Psi }_0|A_1^{}A_1B_0^{}B_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=0`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1|A_0^{}A_0B_0^{}B_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=\mathrm{\Psi }_1|A_1^{}A_1B_1^{}B_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=0.`$ (7)
These imply the simpler equations

$`A_0B_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=A_1B_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=0`$
$`A_0B_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=A_1B_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=0.`$ (8)
If we now note that

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1|I_AI_B|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1|(A_0^{}A_0+A_1^{}A_1)(B_0^{}B_0+B_1^{}B_1)\mathrm{\Psi }_0,`$
we see from the previous equation that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=0`$. Therefore, if we are able to distinguish the states every time without error, they must be orthogonal.

Now let us suppose that some of the measurement results correspond to a failure to distinguish the states. We will focus on two different cases. In the first we shall assume that two of the four alternatives correspond to failure, and in the second we shall assume that only one does.

### 3.1 Two failure states

Let us assume that $`\{0,0\}`$ corresponds to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, $`\{1,1\}`$ corresponds to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, and both $`\{0,1\}`$ and $`\{1,0\}`$ correspond to failure to distinguish. The condition of no errors implies that

$$A_0B_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0A_1B_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0.$$
(10)
If we apply these conditions to Eq. (9), we find that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\mathrm{\Psi }_1|F|\mathrm{\Psi }_0,$$
(11)
where

$$F=A_0^{}A_0B_1^{}B_1+A_1^{}A_1B_0^{}B_0.$$
(12)
Now let us examine the conditions in Eq. (10) in more detail. We first express $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ in its Schmidt basis

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\underset{j=0}{\overset{1}{}}\sqrt{\lambda _{1j}}|v_{Aj}|v_{Bj},$$
(13)
where $`\{v_{A0},v_{A1}\}`$ and $`\{v_{B0},v_{B1}\}`$ are orthonormal bases for Alice’s and Bob’s spaces, respectively, and $`\lambda _{1j}`$ for $`j=0,1`$ are the eigenvalues of the reduced density matrixes. The condition $`A_0B_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0`$ then implies that

$$\sqrt{\lambda _{10}}A_0|v_{A0}B_0|v_{B0}=\sqrt{\lambda _{11}}A_0|v_{A1}B_0|v_{B1}.$$
(14)
The only way this can be true is if $`A_0|v_{A0}`$ is parallel to $`A_0|v_{A1}`$ and $`B_0|v_{B0}`$ is parallel to $`B_0|v_{B1}`$. Therefore, we can write

$`A_0|v_{A0}=c_0|\eta _A`$ $`B_0|v_{B0}=d_0|\eta _B`$
$`A_0|v_{A1}=c_1|\eta _A`$ $`B_0|v_{B1}=d_1|\eta _B,`$ (15)
where $`c_j`$ and $`d_j`$ are constants and $`\eta _A=\eta _B=1`$. These equation imply that

$`A_0={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{1}{}}}c_j|\eta _Av_{Aj}|=|\eta _Ar_A|`$
$`B_0={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{1}{}}}d_j|\eta _Bv_{Bj}|=|\eta _Br_B|,`$ (16)
where

$$|r_A=\underset{j=0}{\overset{1}{}}c_j^{}|v_{Aj}|r_B=\underset{j=0}{\overset{1}{}}d_j^{}|v_{Bj}.$$
(17)
The condition $`A_0B_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0`$ can now be expressed as

$$(r_A|r_B|)|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0.$$
(18)
We can now do the same thing with the condition that $`A_1B_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=0`$. Expressing $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ in its Schmidt basis we have that

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\underset{j=0}{\overset{1}{}}\sqrt{\lambda _{0j}}|u_{Aj}|u_{Bj},$$
(19)
where $`\{u_{A0},u_{A1}\}`$ and $`\{u_{B0},u_{B1}\}`$ are orthonormal bases for Alice’s and Bob’s spaces, respectively, and $`\lambda _{0j}`$ for $`j=0,1`$ are the eigenvalues of the reduced density matrixes. Applying the same reasoning as before, we find that

$$A_1=|\xi _As_A|B_1=|\xi _Bs_B|,$$
(20)
where $`\xi _A=\xi _B=1`$. We also have that

$$(s_A|s_B|)|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=0.$$
(21)
We can gain more information about the vectors $`|r_A`$, $`|r_B`$, $`|s_A`$, and $`|s_B`$ by substituting the results of the previous paragraphs into Eqs. (6). This gives us that

$$I_A=|r_Ar_A|+|s_As_A|I_B=|r_Br_B|+|s_Bs_B|.$$
(22)
Now let both sides of the first of these equations act on the vector $`|r_A`$,

$$r_A^2|r_A+|s_As_A|r_A=|r_A.$$
(23)
The only way this can be true is if either $`|r_A`$ is parallel to $`|s_A`$ which violates Eq. (22), or if $`s_A|r_A=0`$ and $`r_A=1`$. Therefore, $`|s_A`$ is orthogonal to $`|r_A`$, and both have norm $`1`$. Henceforth, we shall denote $`|s_A`$ by $`|r_A^{}`$, and we have that $`\{r_A,r_A^{}\}`$ is an orthonormal basis for Alice’s space. Similarly, we find that $`\{r_B,r_B^{}\}`$, where $`|r_B^{}=|s_B`$, is an orthonormal basis for Bob’s space.

Now let us examine the failure probabilities. We first express the operator $`F`$, defined in Eq. (12) as

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`(|r_A|r_B^{})(r_A|r_B^{}|)+(|r_A^{}|r_B)(r_A^{}|r_B|)`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`I(|r_A|r_B)(r_A|r_B|)`$
$`(|r_A^{}|r_B^{})(r_A^{}|r_B^{}|).`$
We first note that if Eqs. (18) and (21) are satisfied, then the condition in Eq. (11) is also satisfied. The failure probability if Charlie sends the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0|F|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, and if he sends the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, it is $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1|F|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$. These probabilities can be expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0|F|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`1|(r_A|r_B|)|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1|F|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`1|(r_A^{}|r_B^{}|)|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2.`$ (25)
If each of the states is equally likely, then the total failure probability, $`p_f`$, is given by

$$p_f=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Psi }_0|F|\mathrm{\Psi }_0+\mathrm{\Psi }_1|F|\mathrm{\Psi }_1).$$
(26)
We want to minimize this overall failure probability.

Note that the failure probabilities are unaffected by the choice of the vectors $`|\xi _A,|\xi _B,|\eta _A`$, and $`|\eta _B`$. If we make the choices

$`|\xi _A=|r_A^{}`$ $`|\xi _B=|r_B^{}`$
$`|\eta _A=|r_A`$ $`|\eta _B=|r_B,`$ (27)
then the operators $`A_j`$ and $`B_j`$, where $`j=1,2`$, are projections and the generalized meausrement becomes a von Neumann measurement.

Let us summarize our remaining problem. We want to find a basis for Alice’s space, $`\{|r_A,|r_A^{}\}`$, and one for Bob’s space, $`\{|r_B,|r_B^{}\}`$, that satisfy the conditions

$`(r_A^{}|r_B^{}|)|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`(r_A|r_B|)|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (28)
We can reduce these conditions to the solution of several simple equations. First, expanding $`|r_A^{}`$ and $`|r_B^{}`$ in terms of $`|u_{Aj}`$ and $`|u_{Bj}`$, respectively, we have

$$|r_A^{}=\underset{j=0}{\overset{1}{}}e_j^{}|u_{Aj}|r_B^{}=\underset{j=0}{\overset{1}{}}f_j^{}|u_{Bj}.$$
(29)
The equations in the previous paragraph become

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{1}{}}\sqrt{\lambda _{0j}}e_jf_j=0\underset{j=0}{\overset{1}{}}\sqrt{\lambda _{1j}}c_jd_j=0,$$
(30)
while the conditions $`r_A^{}|r_A=0`$ and $`r_B^{}|r_B=0`$ become

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j_1,j_2=0}{\overset{1}{}}}c_{j_1}e_{j_2}^{}v_{Aj_1}|u_{Aj_2}=0`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j_1,j_2=0}{\overset{1}{}}}d_{j_1}f_{j_2}^{}v_{Bj_1}|u_{Bj_2}=0.`$ (31)
Now define the ratios

$`z_1={\displaystyle \frac{c_1^{}}{c_0^{}}}`$ $`z_2={\displaystyle \frac{d_1^{}}{d_0^{}}}`$
$`z_3={\displaystyle \frac{e_1^{}}{e_0^{}}}`$ $`z_1={\displaystyle \frac{f_1^{}}{f_0^{}}}.`$ (32)
If we now divide Eqs. (30) and (3.1) by the appropriate product of expansion coefficients, e.g. the first of Eqs. (30) is divided by $`e_0f_0`$ and the first of Eqs. (3.1) is divided by $`c_0e_0^{}`$, we find

$`\sqrt{\lambda _{00}}+\sqrt{\lambda _{01}}z_3z_4=0`$
$`\sqrt{\lambda _{10}}+\sqrt{\lambda _{11}}z_1z_2=0`$
$`v_{A0}|u_{A0}+v_{A0}|u_{A1}z_3`$
$`+v_{A1}|u_{A0}z_1^{}+v_{A1}|u_{A1}z_1^{}z_3=0`$
$`v_{B0}|u_{B0}+v_{B0}|u_{B1}z_4`$
$`+v_{B1}|u_{B0}z_2^{}+v_{B1}|u_{B1}z_2^{}z_4=0.`$ (33)
Given two specific states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, these equations can be solved to find the vectors $`|r_A`$, $`|r_A^{}`$, $`|r_B`$, and $`|r_B^{}`$.

Let us now consider two examples. In the first we shall suppose that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ have the same Schmidt bases while in the second the Schmidt bases of the two states will be different.

We begin by assuming that our two states are given by

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\mathrm{cos}\theta _0|00+\mathrm{sin}\theta _0|11`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\mathrm{cos}\theta _1|00+\mathrm{sin}\theta _1|11,`$ (34)
where $`\theta _0`$ and $`\theta _1`$ are both between $`0`$ and $`\pi /2`$. Solving Eqs. (3.1) for these states, we first find the condition $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _0\mathrm{tan}\theta _1=1`$, which implies that $`\theta _1=(\pi /2)\theta _0`$. We also find explicit expressions for the vectors

$`|r_A=c_0^{}(|0+z_1|1)`$
$`|r_B=d_0^{}\left(|0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cot}\theta _1}{z_1}}|1\right)`$
$`|r_A^{}=e_0^{}\left(|0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_1}}|1\right)`$
$`|r_B^{}=f_0^{}(|0+\mathrm{cot}\theta _0z_1^{}|1),`$ (35)
where the normalization constants are given by

$`|c_0|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|z_1|^2}}`$
$`|d_0|^2={\displaystyle \frac{|z_1|^2}{|z_1|^2+(\mathrm{cot}\theta _1)^2}}`$
$`|e_0|^2={\displaystyle \frac{|z_1|^2}{1+|z_1|^2}}`$
$`|f_0|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+(\mathrm{cot}\theta _1)^2|z_1|^2}}.`$ (36)
The quantity $`z_1`$ is at the moment undetermined, but it will be fixed by requiring the failure probability to be a minimum. This probability is now given by

$$p_f=1\frac{|z_1|^2}{2+2|z_1|^2}\frac{(1(\mathrm{cot}\theta _1)^2)^2}{1+(|z_1|\mathrm{cot}\theta _1)^2}\frac{(1(\mathrm{tan}\theta _1)^2)^2}{1+(|z_1|\mathrm{tan}\theta _1)^2},$$
(37)
where the condition $`\theta _0=(\pi /2)\theta _1`$ has been used to eliminate $`\theta _0`$. Setting the derivative of $`p_f`$ with respect to $`|z_1|^2`$ equal to zero, we find an equation that has only one positive solution, $`|z_1|^2=\mathrm{cot}\theta _1`$. Substituting this value into Eq. (37), we find

$$p_f=\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _1)$$
(38)
This failure probability should be compared to that when a single joint measurement can be performed on both qubits of the two-qubit states. In that case, if each of the states is equally likely, then the probability of failing to distinguishing the states is given by the IDP limit

$$p_{fidp}=|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|=\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _1).$$
(39)
Note that this expression is identical to that given in the previous paragraph. Therefore, in this example we can conclude that the failure probability that is achieved by measuring the qubits separately is the same as that when the qubits are measured together.

Now let us see what happens if the states have different Schmidt bases. We shall keep $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ as before, but choose $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ differently,

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\mathrm{cos}\theta _0|00+\mathrm{sin}\theta _0|11`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\mathrm{cos}\theta _1|+x|+x+\mathrm{sin}\theta _1|x|x,`$ (40)
where $`|\pm x=(1/\sqrt{2})(|0\pm |1)`$. Solving Eqs. (3.1) for these states, we first find a quadratic equation for $`z_1`$

$$(1\mathrm{cot}\theta _0)z_1^2(1\mathrm{cot}\theta _1)(1+\mathrm{cot}\theta _0)z_1(1\mathrm{cot}\theta _0)\mathrm{cot}\theta _1=0.$$
(41)
The vectors making up the POVM are given by

$`|r_A`$ $`=`$ $`c_0^{}(|+x+z_1|x)`$
$`|r_B`$ $`=`$ $`d_0^{}\left(|+x{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cot}\theta _1}{z_1}}|x\right)`$
$`|r_A^{}`$ $`=`$ $`e_0^{}(|0+z_3|1)`$
$`|r_B`$ $`=`$ $`f_0^{}\left(|0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cot}\theta _0}{z_3}}|1\right).`$ (42)
The normalization constants are given by

$`|c_0|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|z_1|^2}}`$ $`|e_0|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|z_3|^2}}`$
$`|d_0|^2={\displaystyle \frac{|z_1|^2}{|z_1|^2+\mathrm{cot}^2\theta _1}}`$ $`|f_0|^2={\displaystyle \frac{|z_3|^2}{|z_3|^2+\mathrm{cot}^2\theta _0}},`$ (43)
where

$$z_3=\frac{1\mathrm{cot}\theta _0\mathrm{cot}\theta _1+(1\mathrm{cot}\theta _0)z_1^{}}{1\mathrm{cot}\theta _1}.$$
(44)
The failure probability is given by Eqs. (3.1) and (26), where

$`|(r_A|r_B|)\mathrm{\Psi }_0|^2={\displaystyle \frac{|z_1|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _0}{4(1+|z_1|^2)(|z_1|^2+\mathrm{cot}^2\theta _1)}}`$
$`\left|(1+\mathrm{cot}\theta _0)(1\mathrm{cot}\theta _1)+(\mathrm{cot}\theta _01)\left(z_1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cot}\theta _1}{z_1^{}}}\right)\right|^2`$
$`|(r_A^{}|r_B^{}|)\mathrm{\Psi }_0|^2={\displaystyle \frac{|z_3|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1}{4(1+|z_3|^2)(|z_1|^3+\mathrm{cot}^2\theta _0)}}`$
$`\left|(1+\mathrm{cot}\theta _1)(1\mathrm{cot}\theta _0)+(\mathrm{cot}\theta _11)\left(z_3{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cot}\theta _0}{z_3}}\right)\right|^2.`$ (45)
Specializing to the case $`\theta _0=\pi /2`$ we find that there are two sets of values for $`z_1,\mathrm{}z_4`$. One set is obtained from the other simply by reversing the roles of $`|r_A`$ and $`|r_B`$, and both give the same failure probability, so that we need only consider one of them. Doing so we have that

$`z_1=\mathrm{cot}\theta _1`$ $`z_2=1`$
$`z_3={\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{cot}\theta _1}{\mathrm{cot}\theta _11}}`$ $`z_4=0.`$ (46)
This gives a value for the failure probability of

$$p_f=1\frac{(1\mathrm{cot}\theta _1)^2+(\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cot}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _1)^2}{4(1+\mathrm{cot}^2\theta _1)}.$$
(47)
This can be compared to the failure probability when both qubits are measured together, which corresponds to the case considered by Ivanovic, Dieks and Peres

$$p_{fidp}=|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{sin}\theta _1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _1).$$
(48)
These probabilities are plotted as a function of $`\theta _1`$in Fig. 1, and it can be seen that, as expected, $`p_fp_{fidp}`$. The probabilities are equal at some isolated points, but, in general, there is a cost, which manifests itself as a higher failure probability, associated with determining the state by performing independent measurements on the two particles. This example differs from our previous one in that here there is a difference between $`p_f`$ and $`p_{fidp}`$, whereas there is none when the two states we are trying to distinguish share the same Schmidt basis.

### 3.2 One failure state

Let us now consider the case in which only one of the four measurement alternatives corresponds to failure. In particular, suppose that $`\{0,0\}`$ and $`\{1,1\}`$ correspond to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, $`\{1,0\}`$ corresponds to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, and $`\{0,1\}`$ corresponds to failure. We now have the conditions for our POVM operators

$`A_0B_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0`$ $`A_1B_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0`$
$`A_1B_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=0.`$ (49)
Using the same methods as before, we find that

$`A_0=|r_Ar_A|`$ $`A_1=|r_A^{}r_A^{}|`$
$`B_0=|r_Br_B|`$ $`B_1=|r_B^{}r_B^{}|.`$ (50)
Where we previously had two conditions on the orthonormal bases $`\{|r_A,|r_A^{}\}`$ and $`\{|r_B,|r_B^{}\}`$, we now have three

$`(r_A|r_B|)\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0`$ $`(r_A^{}|r_B^{}|)\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0`$
$`(r_A^{}|r_B|)\mathrm{\Psi }_0=0.`$ (51)
Let us now consider an example. Let us assume that the states we are trying to distinguish are given by Eq. (3.1), that is they have the same Schmidt basis. Employing the same methods and notation as before, we find first that $`\theta _1=\pi /4`$, and that

$`z_1=z_4^{}=\sqrt{\mathrm{tan}\theta _0}`$
$`z_2=z_3^{}=\sqrt{\mathrm{cot}\theta _0}`$ (52)
The failure operator, $`F`$ is now

$$F=A_0^{}A_0B_1^{}B_1=|r_Ar_A||r_B^{}r_B^{}|,$$
(53)
where

$`|r_A=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{tan}\theta _0}}\right)^{1/2}(|0+\sqrt{\mathrm{tan}\theta _0}|1)`$
$`|r_B^{}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{tan}\theta _0}}\right)^{1/2}(|0\sqrt{\mathrm{tan}\theta _0}|1).`$ (54)
If both states are equally probable, then the failure probability for this procedure is given by

$`p_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Psi }_0|F|\mathrm{\Psi }_0+\mathrm{\Psi }_1|F|\mathrm{\Psi }_1)`$ (55)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{cos}\theta _0\mathrm{sin}\theta _0)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}.`$
This probability and $`p_{fidp}`$ are plotted as a function of as a function of $`\theta _0`$ ($`\theta _1`$ has been set equal to $`\pi /4`$) in Fig. 2.

## 4 Secret sharing

There have been a number of theoretical proposals for quantum secret sharing, and one experimental demonstration. The proposals fall into two categories. In the first, quantum mechanics is used to securely distribute a classical shared key. One of these protocols is based on the use of GHZ states  and another makes use of pairs of Bell states in different bases . An experiment based on the GHZ state protocol was carried out by Tittel, Zbinden and Gisin . The second category consists of protocols in which the secret information that is split among several parties is quantum information . The procedure we are considering here is of the first type.

Let us suppose that a third party, Charlie, sends one of two states to Alice and Bob, one qubit to Alice and one to Bob,

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta |00+\mathrm{cos}\theta |11`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta |00+\mathrm{sin}\theta |11.`$ (56)
The procedure we are discussing here is based on the first example in the preceding section. Initially we shall suppose that Alice measures her state in the basis given by

$`|r_A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+\mathrm{cot}\theta )^{1/2}}}(|0+\sqrt{\mathrm{cot}\theta }|1)`$
$`|r_A^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+\mathrm{tan}\theta )^{1/2}}}(|0\sqrt{\mathrm{tan}\theta }|1),`$ (57)
and that Bob measures his particle in the basis

$`|r_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+\mathrm{cot}\theta )^{1/2}}}(|0\sqrt{\mathrm{cot}\theta }|1)`$
$`|r_B^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+\mathrm{tan}\theta )^{1/2}}}(|0+\sqrt{\mathrm{tan}\theta }|1).`$ (58)
By comparing their measurement results, Alice and Bob can determine what state Charlie sent, or that the procedure has failed. Individually, however, they will not be able to make this determination. Hence, Alice and Bob together will share a key with Charlie, individually they will not.

Let us now examine the security of this scheme with regard to eavesdropping, and we will quickly see that we have to modify the simple procedure in the previous paragraph. The reason is that an eavesdropper, Eve, has a perfect cheating strategy. Eve simply captures the particles, and performs the same measurement on them that Alice and Bob would perform. She then sends particles to Alice and Bob consistent with her measurement results. For example, if she finds $`|r_A`$ and $`|r_B`$, she knows the state is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, and she sends a particle in $`|r_A`$ to Alice and a particle in $`|r_B`$ to Bob. Using this approach, Eve will know the key and Alice, Bob, and Charlie will not be aware of her presence.

This strategy of Eve’s can be eliminated if Alice and Bob sometimes measure in the $`\{0,1\}`$ basis. Each of them chooses randomly, with some predetermined probability, in which basis to measure. When they compare their results, they look at the instances in which they both measured in the $`\{0,1\}`$ basis, to see if their results were ever different. If they were, they can conclude that an eavesdropper was present. This defeats the attack proposed for Eve in the previous paragraph, because while the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ have no components along the vectors $`|01`$ and $`|10`$, states such as $`|r_A|r_B`$ do. That means that in order to avoid detection, Eve must send states lying in the subspace spanned by $`|00`$ and $`|11`$, which also means that she will not be able to control the results that Alice and Bob get. This leads to her detection. When she measures the state she receives from Charlie and fails, then she has to guess which state to send on to Alice and Bob. Sometimes she will guess incorrectly, and if Alice, Bob and Charlie publicly compare some fraction of their data, they will notice discrepecies, e.g. Charlie will have sent $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, but Alice and Bob will have detected $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$. These discrepencies would not exist if Eve were not present, and their presence gives her away.

Next, let us see whether this procedure protects against cheating. Suppose that Bob is able to capture both qubits sent by Charlie. He first chooses a basis. If it is $`\{0,1\}`$, he sends a particle to Alice in one of these two states, and throws out the two-qubit state from Charlie (because of his basis choice the results from this state will not contribute to the key). When it comes time to compare results with Alice, if Alice measured the particle Bob sent in the other basis, the results are thrown out, and if she also measured in the $`\{0,1\}`$ basis, Bob simply announces the result corresponding to the particle he sent her. If Bob chose to measure in the $`\{r_A,r_A^{}\}`$ and $`\{r_B,r_B^{}\}`$ bases, then, if he finds $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ he send Alice $`|r_A`$, if $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, he sends $`|r_A^{}`$, and if he fails he sends either $`|r_A`$ or $`|r_A^{}`$. If this is one of the results that is publicly compared, then if Bob’s measurement succeeded, he announces the same state as the one he sent to Alice, and if it failed, the opposite state. Using this method, he knows the key bits, and Alice and Charlie do not know that he knows.

It is possible to fix this somewhat if instead of sending the particles to Alice and Bob simultaneously, Charlie first sends one particle to one party, who measures it and tells Charlie over a public channel that he or she has received and measured the particle. Charlie alternates sending the first particle to Alice and Bob. Now, supposing as before that Bob is the cheater, let us see what happens when the particle is sent to Alice first. Bob grabs the particle that has been sent to Alice, but then he must send her a substitute. If he sends her a particle in one of the states $`|0`$ or $`|1`$, there is no problem, but he cannot do this all of the time, because then no key bits would be generated. If he sends her a particle in either $`|r_A`$ or $`|r_A^{}`$, he can run into a difficulty. Suppose he sent her $`|r_A`$, and when he receives the second particle from Charlie, he finds that the state Charlie sent was $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, which should correspond to Alice measuring $`|r_A^{}`$. If he is to avoid creating a detectable error, he must claim, if this is one of the bits which is publicly revealed, that he measured $`|r_B^{}`$, which corresponds to failure to distinguish. This, however, means that there will be more cases of failure to distinguish than there should be, and Alice and Charlie would be alerted to the fact that the security of the key is questionable.

Instead of sending Alice a single paricle in a specific state, Bob can send Alice one of two particles in a singlet state. This, however, does not help him. From the particle remaining in his posession, he cannot determine which measurement Alice made, because his particle could be in one of four possible states, and these cannot all be orthogonal.

In summary, the procedure outlined here provides protection against eavesdropping, and some protection against cheating. The presence of an eavesdropper leads to errors (misidentification of states) while the presence of a cheater leads to an increased failure rate.

## 5 Conclusion

We have examined the problem of distinguishing between two two-qubit states without error by using local measurements and either no or limited classical communication. In the first case we found that only one of the two states can be identified, the other generates a failure indication. In the second case, for some pairs of states it is possible to identify the states with the lowest possible failure probability (the IDP limit), and for others the failure probability with limited classical communication is higher than the optimal value. Finally, we proposed a secret sharing scheme based on the procedure using limited classical communication.

Natural generalizations of this work are to higher dimensions, to more than two states, and to states with more than two particles. Many of our results rely explicitly on the fact that we are considering qubits, and the extension to qudits is not straightforward. For example, we found that with bipartite qubit states it is not possible to distinguish two non-orthogonal states without using classical communication. We could tell if we had one of the two, but if the other state was sent our procedure would always fail. However, if we consider qutrits, whose basis states are $`|0`$, $`|1`$, and $`|2`$, then the two bipartite states

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0|0+|2|2)`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|1|1+|2|2),`$ (59)
which are not orthogonal, can be distinguished without classical communication. Measuring in the basis $`\{|0,|1,|2\}`$, Alice and Bob will always obtain the same result, and if they obtain $`|0`$, they know that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ was sent, if they obtain $`|1`$, then $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ was sent, and if they obtain $`|2`$, then they have failed. The extension to more than two states also introduces new elements. For example, Ghosh, et al. have shown that it is not possible to deterministically distinguish either three or four orthogonal two-qubit states using only local operations and classical communication . This suggests that there is much still to be learned about distinguishing multipartite states using local operations and classical communication.

## Acknowledgment

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number PHY-0139692 and by a PSC-CUNY grant.

## Appendix

We now want to show that if no classical communication is permitted, then at most one state can be identified. We begin by using the conditions on the states and POVM operators to derive additional, simpler ones. For example, we have that

$$A_0B_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0A_0B_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0.$$
(60)
Acting of the first of these with $`B_0^{}`$, the second with $`B_1^{}`$, adding, and making use of Eq. (1), we find that

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`A_0(I_BB_f^{}B_f)|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ (61)
$`=`$ $`A_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_1,`$
where, in going from the first to the second line, we noted that $`A_0B_f|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0`$. Similarly we find that

$`B_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0`$ $`A_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=0`$
$`B_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=0.`$ (62)
The next step is to express the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$, where $`j=0,1`$, in terms of their Schmidt bases (see Section III)

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{1}{}}}\sqrt{\lambda _{0j}}|u_{Aj}|u_{Bj}`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{1}{}}}\sqrt{\lambda _{1j}}|v_{Aj}|v_{Bj}.`$ (63)
Application of the two conditions on $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ in the previous paragraph imply:

If $`\lambda _{10}0`$ and $`\lambda _{11}0`$, then $`A_0|v_{Aj}=0`$, for $`j=0,1`$, and this implies that $`A_0=0`$. We also have that $`B_0=0`$.

If one of the $`\lambda _{1j}`$’s is zero, and we can assume, without loss of generality, that $`\lambda _{11}=0`$, then we have that $`A_0|v_{A0}=B_0|v_{B0}=0`$.

Similarly, the two conditions on $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ give us:

If $`\lambda _{00}0`$ and $`\lambda _{01}0`$, then $`A_1=B_1=0`$.

If $`\lambda _{01}=0`$, then $`A_1|u_{A0}=B_1|u_{B0}=0`$.

We now have a number of cases to examine. If conditions $`(i)`$ and $`(iii)`$ are true, the only nonzero operators are the failure operators, so that the procedure fails all the time. If conditions $`(ii)`$ and $`(iv)`$ are satisfied we have that the POVM operators $`A_j`$ and $`B_j`$ must be of the form

$`A_0=|\xi _Av_{A1}|`$ $`B_0=|\xi _Bv_{B1}|`$
$`A_1=|\eta _Au_{A1}|`$ $`B_1=|\eta _Bu_{B1}|,`$ (64)
where the vectors $`|\xi _A`$, $`|\xi _B`$, $`|\eta _A`$, and $`|\eta _B`$ are as yet undetermined.

We now examine the consequences of the conditions $`A_0B_f|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=0`$ and $`A_1B_f|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0`$, or

$`A_0|u_{A0}B_f|u_{B0}=0`$
$`A_1|v_{A0}B_f|v_{B0}=0.`$ (65)
The first of these equations implies that either $`v_{A1}|u_{A0}=0`$, which further implies that, up to a constant of modulus one, $`|v_{A0}=|u_{A0}`$, or that $`B_f|u_{B0}=0`$. If the first alternative is true, then both $`A_0`$ and $`A_1`$ acting on either vector $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ gives zero, and the measurement always fails. If this alternative is to be avoided, then we must have $`B_f|u_{B0}=0`$. However, the second equation tells us that, if the measurement does not always fail, that $`B_f|v_{B0}=0`$. These conditions imply that (assuming that $`|u_{B0}|v_{B0}`$; if this is not true the measurement always fails) $`B_f=0`$. We then have that $`I_B=B_0^{}B_0+B_1^{}B_1`$, which can only be true if $`|v_{B1}=|u_{B0}`$ or $`|v_{B0}=|u_{B1}`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0`$. Sumarizing, we can say that if $`(ii)`$ and $`(iv)`$ are satisfied, which implies that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ are product states, then either they are orthogonal, or the measurement always fails.

Finally, let us see what happens if $`(i)`$ and $`(iv)`$ are true (the final alternative, $`(ii)`$ and $`(iii)`$ being true is equivalent). This implies that $`A_0=B_0=0`$, so that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is never detected, and that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is a product state. Using techniques similar to those in the previous paragraphs, we find that

$`A_1=|\eta _Au_{A1}|`$ $`B_1=|\eta _Bu_{B1}|`$
$`A_f=|\xi _Au_{A0}|`$ $`B_f=|\xi _Bu_{B0}|,`$ (66)
where the vectors $`|\xi _A`$, $`|\xi _B`$, $`|\eta _A`$, and $`|\eta _B`$ are undetermined unit vectors. The final conditions are given by using the above expressions in the equations $`A_1B_f|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0`$ and $`A_fB_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0`$ to give

$`(u_{A1}|u_{B0}|)|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`(u_{A0}|u_{B1}|)|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (67)
An example satisfying these conditions is given in Section II.


text:
# Information theoretic aspects in ponderomotive systems

## I Introduction

Ponderomotive systems are physical systems where the electromagnetic pressure force gives rise to relevant effects. The optomechanical coupling between a movable mirror and a radiation field, is realized in such systems when the field is reflected by the moving mirror. This coupling was introduced in the context of quantum limited measurements  and then used in interferometric gravitational-wave detection  as well as in atomic force microscope . Since then, a wide literature has been devoted to such a coupling. In particular, it has been shown that it may lead to nonclassical states of both the radiation field , and the motion of the mirror . The interest about ponderomotive systems also relies on the possibility to investigate, with them, the tricky borderline between the quantum and the classical world . Moreover, recent technical progresses have made this area experimentally accessible .

The appearance of quantum effects in ponderomotive systems, paves the way to use them also for quantum information purposes . These require as main ingredient the entanglement . Furthermore, information processing, in the quantum optical framework, can be implemented when applied to continuous quadratures of electromagnetic modes . Then, the use of a ponderomotive meter for continuous variable entanglement purification has been investigated in Ref.. Furthermore, the possibility to obtain quantum correlated quadratures of the field reflected by a movable mirror has been proposed in Refs. . Here, following the line sketched in Ref., we study a ponderomotive system, namely a radiation field reflected by an oscillating mirror, from the quantum information perspective. In particular, in Section II, we shall show that the mechanical motion of the mirror mediates information between the field modes leading to an effective mode-mode interaction. In Section III, we shall characterize the modes’ entanglement on the basis of recent criteria . We shall also account for the effect of the thermal noise associate to the mirror’s motion. Then, in Section IV, we shall evaluate the performances of such ponderomotive entanglement in possible applications like teleportation  and telecloning . Finally, Section V is for concluding remarks.

## II A ponderomotive system

The model we are going to consider is schematically depicted in Fig.1. It consists of a linear cavity, with an oscillating end mirror, plunged in a thermal reservoir at the equilibrium temperature $`T`$. This completely reflecting mirror, with mass $`m`$, can move back and forth along the cavity axes. When the cavity is empty the moving mirror undergoes harmonic oscillations at frequency $`\omega _m`$, damped at rate $`\gamma _m`$ by the coupling to the external bath. In presence of a radiation field, the cavity length varies under the action of the radiation pressure force, which causes the instantaneous displacement of the mirror.

The resonant frequencies of the cavity are calculated at the equilibrium position of the oscillating mirror, resulting

$$\omega _{cn}=\frac{\pi c}{L}\stackrel{~}{n},$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$ is an arbitrary integer number corresponding to the index $`n`$, $`c`$ is the speed of light, and $`L`$ is the equilibrium cavity length. We consider the possibility to have several input fields at frequencies $`\omega _{0n}\omega _{cn}`$ driving the corresponding cavity modes. In the adiabatic limit in which the mirror frequency is much smaller than the cavity free spectral range $`c/(2L)`$ we can focus only on the driven cavity modes, obtaining the following Hamiltonian

$`H_{tot}`$ $`=`$ $`H_{free}+H_{drive}+H_{int},`$ (3)
$`H_{free}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\omega _{cn}A_n^{}A_n+{\displaystyle \frac{P^2}{2m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\omega _m^2Q^2,`$ (4)
$`H_{drive}`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}\sqrt{\gamma _c}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left(\alpha _n^{in}e^{i\omega _{0n}t}A_n^{}\alpha _n^{in}e^{i\omega _{0n}t}A_n\right),`$ (5)
$`H_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{cn}}{L}}A_n^{^{}}A_nQ,`$ (6)
where the sum must be intended over the driven modes. $`H_{free}`$ is the Hamiltonian for the free motion of the mechanical oscillator (moving mirror) having position $`Q`$ and momentum $`P`$, and of the cavity modes characterized by the ladder operators $`A_n,A_n^{}`$. Instead, $`H_{drive}`$ describes the input fields, with amplitudes $`\alpha _n^{in}`$, entering the cavity through the fixed mirror whose partial transmission determines the input-output rate $`\gamma _c`$. Finally, $`H_{int}`$ represents the ponderomotive interaction between the mirror and the radiation fields . Such interaction is generated by the radiation pressure induced variation of the cavity length, which corresponds to a variation of the frequencies (energy levels) through Eq.(1), that is

$$\delta \omega _{cn}=\frac{\omega _{cn}}{L}L=\frac{\omega _{cn}}{L}Q,$$
(7)
with $`Q=\delta LL`$. Since we shall consider few modes whose $`\stackrel{~}{n}c/(2L)`$ differ not too much each other, we can set $`(\omega _{cn}/L)G,n`$, as the optomechanical coupling constant.

By using Eqs.(1), and accounting for the losses and the noises, we can describe the complete dynamics of the system through the following quantum Langevin equations

$`\dot{Q}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P(t)}{m}},`$ (9)
$`\dot{P}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`m\omega _m^2Q(t)+\mathrm{}G{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}A_n^{}(t)A_n(t)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\gamma _mP(t)\xi (t),`$ (10)
$`\dot{A}_n(t)`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(\omega _{cn}\omega _{0n}\right)A_n(t)+iGA_n(t)Q(t)+\sqrt{\gamma _c}\alpha _n^{in}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _c}{2}}A_n(t)+\sqrt{\gamma _c}a_n^{in}(t),`$ (11)
where we have used the replacements $`A_n(t)A_ne^{i\omega _{0n}t}`$. Furthermore, $`a_n^{in}`$ are the vacuum noise operators associated to the input radiation fields, while $`\xi (t)`$ is the noise operator for the quantum Brownian motion of the mirror. The noise correlations are

$`a_j^{in}(t)a_k^{in}(t^{})`$ $`=\delta (tt^{})\delta _{j,k},`$ (13)
$`\xi (t)\xi (t^{})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m\gamma _m\mathrm{}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \left\{\frac{\omega \left[\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2K_BT}\right)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right]}{\mathrm{exp}\left(i\omega \left(tt^{}\right)\right)}\right\}},`$ (14)
where $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant. It is worth noting that Eq.(14) gives the exact thermal noise correlations at any temperature $`T`$ .

We are now going to study the dynamics of the small fluctuations around the steady state, i.e. the dynamics of the operators

$`q(t)`$ $`=`$ $`Q(t)x,`$ (16)
$`p(t)`$ $`=`$ $`P(t)y,`$ (17)
$`a_n(t)`$ $`=`$ $`A_n\alpha _n,`$ (18)
where the (classical) stationary values are given by

$`x`$ $``$ $`Q_{ss}={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}G}{m\omega _m^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\alpha _n^2,`$ (20)
$`y`$ $``$ $`P_{ss}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$ (21)
$`\alpha _n`$ $``$ $`A_n_{ss}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _n^{in}}{\sqrt{\gamma _c}\left(\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Delta }_n\right)}},`$ (22)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_n=\frac{\omega _{0n}\omega _{cn}+Gx}{\gamma _c},$$
(23)
the (dimensionless) overall detuning due to the frequency mismatch and to the radiation phase shift caused by the stationary displacement $`x`$ of the mirror.

For the sake of simplicity we assume, from now on, symmetric conditions for the various radiation modes, that is, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\alpha _n=\alpha \mathrm{}`$, $`n`$. Then, it is easily recognizable in Eq.(22) the nonlinear relation between input and intracavity intensity field which give rise to the bistable behavior of the system .

Linearizing Eqs.(1) around the steady state (II) we obtain

$`\dot{q}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p(t)}{m}},`$ (25)
$`\dot{p}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`m\omega _m^2q(t)+\mathrm{}G{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[\alpha ^{}a_n(t)+\alpha a_n^{}(t)\right]\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\gamma _mp(t)\xi (t),`$ (26)
$`\dot{a}_n(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(i\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\gamma _ca_n(t)+iG\alpha q(t)+\sqrt{\gamma _c}a_n^{in}(t).`$ (27)
Going into the frequency domain, and eliminating the mirror’s variables we are left with a set of $`2N`$ linear equations ($`N`$ being the number of driven modes, so that $`n=1,\mathrm{},N`$) for the modes quadratures

$`X_n(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_n(\omega )+a_n^{}(\omega )}{\sqrt{2}}},`$ (29)
$`Y_n(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{a_n(\omega )a_n^{}(\omega )}{\sqrt{2}}}.`$ (30)
Such equations can be written in compact form as

$$i\omega 𝐯(\omega )=(\omega )𝐯(\omega )+\sqrt{\gamma _c}𝐯^{in}(\omega )+𝐬(\omega )\xi (\omega ),$$
(31)
where we have introduced the $`2N`$ dimensional vectors

$`𝐯(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`(X_1(\omega ),Y_1(\omega ),\mathrm{},X_N(\omega ),Y_N(\omega ))^T,`$ (33)
$`𝐯^{in}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`(X_1^{in}(\omega ),Y_1^{in}(\omega ),\mathrm{},X_N^{in}(\omega ),Y_N^{in}(\omega ))^T,`$ (34)
$`𝐬(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}G\chi (\omega )(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\alpha ,\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\alpha )^T,`$ (35)
with

$$\chi (\omega )=\frac{1}{m(\omega _m^2\omega ^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}i\gamma _m\omega )},$$
(36)
the mirror’s mechanical response function. Furthermore, $`(\omega )`$ is a $`2N\times 2N`$ matrix written as

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}_d& _o& \mathrm{}& _o\\ _o& _d& \mathrm{}& _o\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ _o& _o& \mathrm{}& _d\end{array}\right),$$
(37)
where $`_d`$ and $`_o`$ are $`2\times 2`$ matrices given by

$`_d`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _c/2& \mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _c\\ \mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _c+2\mathrm{}G^2\chi (\omega )\alpha ^2& \gamma _c/2\end{array}\right),`$ (41)
$`_o`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 2\mathrm{}G^2\chi (\omega )\alpha ^2& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (44)
The useful noise correlations for Eq.(31) come from Eqs.(II), (II) and read

$`X_j^{in}(\omega )X_k^{in}(\omega ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{j,k}\delta (\omega +\omega ^{}),`$ (46)
$`Y_j^{in}(\omega )Y_k^{in}(\omega ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{j,k}\delta (\omega +\omega ^{}),`$ (47)
$`X_j^{in}(\omega )Y_k^{in}(\omega ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\delta _{j,k}\delta (\omega +\omega ^{}),`$ (48)
and

$$\xi (\omega )\xi (\omega ^{})=\left\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2K_BT}\right)\right\}\frac{m\gamma _m\mathrm{}}{\pi }\omega \delta (\omega +\omega ^{}).$$
(49)
Thus Eqs.(31)-(49) completely describe the dynamics of the small fluctuations of radiation modes. Practically, we can see from Eqs.(1) that the mirror mediates information between the radiation modes leading to an effective mode-mode interaction as results from Eqs.(31), (37) and (37).

## III Output fields entanglement

The above discussed mode-mode interaction will presumably lead to entanglement between intracavity modes, which, in turn, should be reflected on the fields outgoing the cavity. On the other hand, only these latter become really useful. Hence, we are going to characterize their correlations. First of all we notice, by the the input-output theory , that

$$𝐯^{out}(\omega )=\sqrt{\gamma _c}𝐯(\omega )𝐯^{in}(\omega ),$$
(50)
then, we introduce the hermitian output quadrature operators

$`R_{X_n^{out}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{X_n^{out}(\omega )+X_n^{out}(\omega )}{2}},`$ (52)
$`R_{Y_n^{out}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Y_n^{out}(\omega )+Y_n^{out}(\omega )}{2}}.`$ (53)
Their correlations are described by the $`2N\times 2N`$ matrix

$`𝒢`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}𝐯^{out}(\omega )\left[𝐯^{out}(\omega )\right]^T+𝐯^{out}(\omega )\left[𝐯^{out}(\omega )\right]^T,`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}𝒦(\omega )𝐯^{in}(\omega )\left[𝐯^{in}(\omega )\right]^T\left[𝒦(\omega )\right]^T`$ (55)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}𝒦(\omega )𝐯^{in}(\omega )\left[𝐯^{in}(\omega )\right]^T\left[𝒦(\omega )\right]^T`$ (56)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _c}{4}}^1(\omega )𝐬(\omega )\left[𝐬(\omega )\right]^T\left[^1(\omega )\right]^T\xi (\omega )\xi (\omega )`$ (57)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _c}{4}}^1(\omega )𝐬(\omega )\left[𝐬(\omega )\right]^T\left[^1(\omega )\right]^T\xi (\omega )\xi (\omega ),`$ (58)
where

$`𝒦(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _c^1(\omega ),`$ (60)
$`(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega (\omega ),`$ (61)
with $``$ the identity $`2N\times 2N`$ matrix. However, the matrix $`𝒢`$ is not symmetric and, moreover, it concerns quadratures with frequency dependent commutator, i.e.,

$$[R_{X_n^{out}}(\omega ),R_{Y_n^{out}}(\omega )]=ic(\omega ),n,$$
(62)
with $`c`$ a real positive definite function of frequency $`\omega `$. Therefore, to easily apply quantum information arguments to our system, we construct from Eqs.(54), (62) a symmetric correlation matrix concerning quadratures with canonical commutation relations, that is

$$𝒱_{j,k}(\omega )=\frac{𝒢_{j,k}(\omega )+𝒢_{k,j}(\omega )}{2c(\omega )}.$$
(63)
By virtue of the linearization procedure adopted in Sec.II we have, for each frequency, a multivariate Gaussian state completely characterized by Eq.(63).

### A Bipartite entanglement

We now restrict the attention to only two mode ($`N=2`$) in order to study the entanglement of a bipartite system. Practically we consider

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cc}_d& _o\\ _o& _d\end{array}\right),$$
(64)
and we introduce the matrices

$$𝒥=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(65)
Then, Eq.(64) leads to

$$𝒱=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒜& 𝒞\\ 𝒞^T& 𝒜\end{array}\right),$$
(66)
where $`𝒜`$ and $`𝒞`$ are $`2\times 2`$ matrices. In this case the Simon’s criterion  is necessary and sufficient for entanglement, and, according to Eq.(19) of Ref. we can define a marker of entanglement as

$$E=1+\left(\mathrm{det}𝒜\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{4}|\mathrm{det}𝒞|\right)^2\mathrm{tr}\left\{𝒜𝒥𝒞𝒥𝒜𝒥𝒞^T𝒥\right\}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{det}𝒜,$$
(67)
so that, if it goes below $`1`$, the state is entangled. Instead, the product criterion introduced in Ref., and reminiscent of nonlocality criterion , gives

$$E=4(𝒜_{11}+𝒞_{11})(𝒜_{22}𝒞_{22}).$$
(68)
Finally, the sum criterion, expressed by Eq.(3) of Ref., can be rewritten as

$$E=\mathrm{tr}\{𝒜\}+\mathrm{tr}\left\{𝒞\right\}.$$
(69)
Then, in Fig.2 we report the marker of entanglement $`E`$ versus $`\omega `$, for the three criteria a) Simon, b) product, c) sum. The parameters values are taken similar to those of the experimental set up of Ref.. They are written in Tab.I. Fig.2 shows that in case of no detuning the product and the sum criteria do not reveal any entanglement, while the Simon criterion do. This proves the weakness of the the entanglement coming in this case from the interaction of only amplitude quadratures as can be evicted from Eqs.(64) and (37). Such type of entanglement, although resistant to thermal effects, is practically useless in information processing like teleportation whose performance are much more related to the product and sum criteria .

Then in Figs.3 and 4 we have only considered the sum criterion and we have shown the beneficial effect of the detuning on the entanglement. As matter of fact it allows interaction of both amplitude and phase quadratures as can be seen in Eq.(64). In particular Fig.4 exhibits the presence of entanglement at low frequencies (according to Ref.) as well as near the mechanical resonance. Neverthless, the latter turns out to be more sensible to the thermal noise. This behavior resembles that of the light squeezing studied in Refs..

### B Tripartite entanglement

Characterization of multipartite entanglement ($`N>2`$) is a more complex issue . In general, multi-party inseparability criteria cannot be formulated in compact form as for the two-party. Here, we consider $`N=3`$, thus the matrix

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}_d& _o& _o& \\ _o& _d& _o& \\ _o& _o& _d& \end{array}\right),$$
(70)
which leads to

$$𝒱=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}𝒜& 𝒞& 𝒞\\ 𝒞^T& 𝒜& 𝒞\\ 𝒞^T& 𝒞^T& 𝒜\end{array}\right).$$
(71)
Although for three-mode Gaussian states there exist a necessary and sufficient separability criterion , its violation does not necessarily witness genuine tripartite entanglement. However, from the symmetry of matrix (71) we easily deduce that the conditions for bipartite entanglement also give tripartite entanglement. As matter of fact a tripartite fully inseparable state is that which cannot be separate for any grouping of the parties . But, due to the symmetry among the parties, if two of them show entanglement according to Sec. III A, then any two of them show entanglement, thus revealing a fully inseparable state.

## IV Applications to remote state transfer

This ponderomotive entanglement find possible applications in quantum information processings with continuous variables . Here, we deal with the possibility of using it for remote state transfer. By referring to Fig.1, the modes outgoing the cavity can be separated and one of them can reach a sending station while the others reach receiving stations. Then, all these modes constitute the quantum channel to exploit for transferring a quantum state from the sending station to the receiving ones. We will analyze in detail the case for $`N=2`$, i.e., teleportation , and $`N=3`$, i.e., telecloning .

### A Teleportation

The standard teleportation protocol for continuous variable  can be described by a convolution of the Wigner functions

$`W_r(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\xi W_s(\xi )K(\beta \xi )},`$ (73)
$`K(\beta \xi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\xi ^{}W(\xi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\xi ^{},\beta \xi ^{})},`$ (74)
where $`W_r`$ is the Wigner function of the received state, $`W_s`$ that of the unknown state to be transferred (sent), and $`W`$ that describing the quantum channel between the two stations, i.e., the two entangled modes characterized by the correlation matrix (66). Here, small greek letters are for complex variables.

By Fourier transforming Eqs.(IV A), we get a simple relation for the characteristic functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, namely

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_r(\lambda )=\mathrm{\Phi }_s(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{K}(\lambda ),$$
(75)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{K}(\lambda )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\kappa K(\kappa )\mathrm{exp}(i\kappa _1\lambda _1i\kappa _2\lambda _2)}`$ (76)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\kappa d^2\mu d^4𝐳\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐳)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\kappa _1\lambda _1i\kappa _2\lambda _2\right)}`$ (77)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{i𝐳(\mu _1,\mu _2,\kappa _1\mu _1,\kappa _2\mu _2)\right\},`$ (78)
where the variables with the subscript $`1`$ ($`2`$) represent the real (imaginary) part of the corresponding complex variables, and $`𝐳`$ is a four dimensional real variables vector. Moreover,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐳)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{4}𝐳𝒱𝐳^T\right\},$$
(79)
is the characteristic function describing the two-mode channel, thus characterized by the matrix $`𝒱`$ given in Eq.(66).

We also consider a Gaussian state to be transferred, so that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_s(\lambda )=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{4}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)𝒟(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)^T\right],$$
(80)
with $`𝒟`$ the $`2\times 2`$ correlation matrix.

Finally, the fidelity of the protocol, resulting from the overlap between the “$`r`$” and the “$`s`$” Wigner functions, can be written in terms of characteristic functions as

$$F\frac{1}{4\pi }d^2\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }_s(\lambda )\mathrm{\Phi }_r^{}(\lambda ).$$
(81)
Then, by using Eqs.(75)-(80), we arrive at (see also )

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2\lambda \mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)𝒟(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)^T\right]}`$ (82)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _1,\lambda _2)𝒱(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _1,\lambda _2)^T\right]`$ (83)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{det\left(2𝒟+^T𝒜+^T𝒞+𝒞^T+𝒜\right)}}}.`$ (84)
In Fig.5 we show the teleportation fidelity as function of $`\omega `$. As a state to be teleported we have chosen the coherent state for which $`𝒟=\mathrm{diag}(1/2,1/2)`$. In such a case the upper bound for the fidelity achievable with only classical means and no quantum resources is $`1/2`$ . Then, we see that this bound is overcame just in correspondence of the minima of Fig.3. Also the behavior of the fidelity in terms of thermal noise reflects that of the entanglement in Fig.4.

### B Telecloning

As a simple extension of the arguments used for teleportation, we can write the Wigner function of the received state (at the two stations) by the convolution

$`\stackrel{˘}{W}_r(\beta ,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\xi W_s(\xi )\stackrel{˘}{K}(\beta \xi ,\eta \xi )},`$ (86)
$`\stackrel{˘}{K}(\beta \xi ,\eta \xi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\xi ^{}W(\xi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\xi ^{},\beta \xi ^{},\eta \xi ^{})},`$ (87)
where $`W`$ is the Wigner function describing the quantum channel between sending and receiving stations, i.e. the three entangled modes characterized by the correlation matrix (71).

The state at one receiving station can be obtained by tracing the received state (86) over the other receiving station. Due to the symmetry, the two possible states coming out coincide. Thus, we can assume

$$W_r(\beta )=d^2\eta \stackrel{˘}{W}_r(\beta ,\eta )=d^2\xi W_s(\xi )K(\beta \xi ),$$
(88)
where now

$$K(\beta \xi )=d^2\eta \stackrel{˘}{K}(\beta \xi ,\eta \xi ).$$
(89)
By again Fourier transforming Eq.(88), we end up with a relation for the characteristic functions identical to Eq.(75),

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_r(\lambda )=\mathrm{\Phi }_s(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{K}(\lambda ),$$
(90)
where now

$`\stackrel{~}{K}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\kappa \mathrm{exp}\left(i\kappa _1\lambda _1i\kappa _2\lambda _2\right)}`$ (91)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\mu d^2\zeta d^6𝐳\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐳)\mathrm{exp}\left\{i𝐳(\mu _1,\mu _2,\kappa _1\mu _1,\kappa _2\mu _2,\zeta _1\mu _1,\zeta _2\mu _2)^T\right\}},`$ (92)
and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐳)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{4}𝐳𝒱𝐳^T\right],$$
(93)
is the characteristic function describing the three-mode channel, thus characterized by the matrix $`𝒱`$ given in Eq.(71), with $`𝐳`$ a 6 dimensional real variables vector.

We again consider a Gaussian state to be transferred, as in Eq.(80). Then, the fidelity, being expressed by Eq.(81), results, by means of Eqs. (80), (90), (91), (93) as

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2\lambda \mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)𝒟(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)^T\right]}`$ (94)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _1,\lambda _2,0,0)𝒱(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _1,\lambda _2,0,0)^T\right]`$ (95)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{det\left(2𝒟+^T𝒜+^T𝒞+𝒞^T+𝒜\right)}}}.`$ (96)
It practically coincides with Eq.(82). However, in this case, $`F`$ is limited above by $`2/3`$ , due to the no-cloning theorem .

In Fig.6 we show the telecloning fidelity as function of $`\omega `$. As state to be telecloned we have choosen again a coherent state for which $`𝒟=\mathrm{diag}(1/2,1/2)`$. Also in this case the upper classical bound for the fidelity is $`1/2`$ . Then, we see that this bound is overcome again in correspondence of the minima of Fig.4.

## V Conclusions

In conclusion, we have studied ponderomotive entanglement, that is entanglement between radiation modes generated by the radiation pressure effects. In doing so we have also provided a comparison between different entanglement criteria. Practically, we have shown that even a classical force, like radiation pressure force, together with macroscopic objects can be used for quantum information purposes. The fidelity achievable in remote state transfer widely overcome the classical bounds, thought not reaching the optimal values. Theoretically, this could be obtained by an optimization of all involved parameters. However, that would require large numerical resources without adding new physics to the problem. So it has been left apart. Instead, we have investigated the role played by the thermal noise related to the mechanical motion of the mirror. We have seen that purely quantum effects can survive up to a temperature $`10`$ K. This is within reach in experiments with really macroscopic mirrors . On the other hand, the use of micro-opto-mechanical-systems (MOMS)  surely guarantees better performances.

Beside all that we want to remark that ponderomotive systems have a foundational interest , and, an information theoretic approach could help us in understanding the tricky borderline between classical and quantum worlds.


text:
# Elsevier instructions for the preparation of a 2-column format camera-ready paper in LaTeX

## 1 FORMAT

Text should be produced within the dimensions shown on these pages: each column 7.5 cm wide with 1 cm middle margin, total width of 16 cm and a maximum length of 19.5 cm on first pages and 21 cm on second and following pages. The document class uses the maximum stipulated length apart from the following two exceptions (i) does not begin a new section directly at the bottom of a page, but transfers the heading to the top of the next page; (ii) never (well, hardly ever) exceeds the length of the text area in order to complete a section of text or a paragraph. Here are some references: .

### 1.1 Spacing

We normally recommend the use of 1.0 (single) line spacing. However, when typing complicated mathematical text automatically increases the space between text lines in order to prevent sub- and superscript fonts overlapping one another and making your printed matter illegible.

### 1.2 Fonts

These instructions have been produced using a 10 point Computer Modern Roman. Other recommended fonts are 10 point Times Roman, New Century Schoolbook, Bookman Light and Palatino.

## 2 PRINTOUT

The most suitable printer is a laser or an inkjet printer. A dot matrix printer should only be used if it possesses an 18 or 24 pin printhead (“letter-quality”).

The printout submitted should be an original; a photocopy is not acceptable. Please make use of good quality plain white A4 (or US Letter) paper size. The dimensions shown here should be strictly adhered to: do not make changes to these dimensions, which are determined by the document class. The document class leaves at least 3 cm at the top of the page before the head, which contains the page number.

Printers sometimes produce text which contains light and dark streaks, or has considerable lighting variation either between left-hand and right-hand margins or between text heads and bottoms. To achieve optimal reproduction quality, the contrast of text lettering must be uniform, sharp and dark over the whole page and throughout the article.

If corrections are made to the text, print completely new replacement pages. The contrast on these pages should be consistent with the rest of the paper as should text dimensions and font sizes.

## 3 TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Tables should be made with ; illustrations should be originals or sharp prints. They should be arranged throughout the text and preferably be included on the same page as they are first discussed. They should have a self-contained caption and be positioned in flush-left alignment with the text margin within the column. If they do not fit into one column they may be placed across both columns (using `\begin{table*}` or `\begin{figure*}` so that they appear at the top of a page).

### 3.1 Tables

Tables should be presented in the form shown in Table 1. Their layout should be consistent throughout.

Horizontal lines should be placed above and below table headings, above the subheadings and at the end of the table above any notes. Vertical lines should be avoided.

If a table is too long to fit onto one page, the table number and headings should be repeated above the continuation of the table. For this you have to reset the table counter with `\addtocounter{table}{-1}`. Alternatively, the table can be turned by $`90^{}`$ (‘landscape mode’) and spread over two consecutive pages (first an even-numbered, then an odd-numbered one) created by means of `\begin{table}[h]` without a caption. To do this, you prepare the table as a separate document and attach the tables to the empty pages with a few spots of suitable glue.

### 3.2 Useful table packages

Modern comes with several packages for tables that provide additional functionality. Below we mention a few. See the documentation of the individual packages for more details. The packages can be found in ’s tools directory.

Various extensions to ’s array and tabular environments.

Automatically break tables over several pages. Put the table in the longtable environment instead of the table environment.

Define your own type of column. Among others, this is one way to obtain alignment on the decimal point.

Smart column width calculation within a specified table width.

Print a page with a wide table or figure in landscape orientation using the sidewaystable or sidewaysfigure environments, and many other rotating tricks. Use the package with the figuresright option to make all tables and figures rotate in clockwise. Use the starred form of the sideways environments to obtain full-width tables or figures in a two-column article.

### 3.3 Line drawings

Line drawings may consist of laser-printed graphics or professionally drawn figures attached to the manuscript page. All figures should be clearly displayed by leaving at least one line of spacing above and below them. When placing a figure at the top of a page, the top of the figure should align with the bottom of the first text line of the other column.

Do not use too light or too dark shading in your figures; too dark a shading may become too dense while a very light shading made of tiny points may fade away during reproduction.

All notations and lettering should be no less than 2 mm high. The use of heavy black, bold lettering should be avoided as this will look unpleasantly dark when printed.

### 3.4 PostScript figures

Instead of providing separate drawings or prints of the figures you may also use PostScript files which are included into your file and printed together with the text. Use one of the packages from ’s graphics directory: graphics, graphicx or epsfig, with the `\usepackage` command, and then use the appropriate commands (`\includegraphics` or `\epsfig`) to include your PostScript file.

The simplest command is:
`\includegraphics{file}`, which inserts the PostScript file file at its own size. The starred version of this command:
`\includegraphics*{file}`, does the same, but clips the figure to its bounding box.

With the graphicx package one may specify a series of options as a key–value list, e.g.:    `\includegraphics[width=15pc]{file}`  `\includegraphics[height=5pc]{file}`  `\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{file}`  `\includegraphics[angle=90,width=20pc]{file}`

See the file grfguide, section “Including Graphics Files”, of the graphics distribution for all options and a detailed description.

The epsfig package mimicks the commands familiar from the package with the same name in 2.09. A PostScript file file is included with the command `\psfig{file=file}`.

Grey-scale and colour photographs cannot be included in this way, since reproduction from the printed CRC article would give insufficient typographical quality. See the following subsections.

### 3.5 Black and white photographs

Photographs must always be sharp originals (not screened versions) and rich in contrast. They will undergo the same reduction as the text and should be pasted on your page in the same way as line drawings.

### 3.6 Colour photographs

Sharp originals (not transparencies or slides) should be submitted close to the size expected in publication. Charges for the processing and printing of colour will be passed on to the author(s) of the paper. As costs involved are per page, care should be taken in the selection of size and shape so that two or more illustrations may be fitted together on one page. Please contact the Author Support Department at Elsevier (E-mail: authorsupport@elsevier.nl) for a price quotation and layout instructions before producing your paper in its final form.

## 4 EQUATIONS

Equations should be flush-left with the text margin; ensures that the equation is preceded and followed by one line of white space. provides the document class option fleqn to get the flush-left effect.

$$H_{\alpha \beta }(\omega )=E_\alpha ^{(0)}(\omega )\delta _{\alpha \beta }+\alpha |W_\pi |\beta $$
(1)
You need not put in equation numbers, since this is taken care of automatically. The equation numbers are always consecutive and are printed in parentheses flush with the right-hand margin of the text and level with the last line of the equation. For multi-line equations, use the eqnarray environment.

For complex mathematics, use the “tensyAMSmath package. This package sets the math indentation to a positive value. To keep the equations flush left, either load the espcrc package *after* the “tensyAMSmath package or set the command `\mathindent=0pt` in the preamble of your article.

References should be collected at the end of your paper. Do not begin them on a new page unless this is absolutely necessary. They should be prepared according to the sequential numeric system making sure that all material mentioned is generally available to the reader. Use `\cite` to refer to the entries in the bibliography so that your accumulated list corresponds to the citations made in the text body.

Above we have listed some references according to the sequential numeric system .