Quick Navigation
Topics
Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations
Open Quantum Systems Decoherence
Quantum Simulation
Tight lower bound to the geometric measure of quantum discord
arXiv
Authors: Ali Saif M. Hassan, Behzad Lari, Pramod S. Joag
Year
2010
Paper ID
10925
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
105
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Dakic, Vedral and Brukner \[Physical Review Letters \tf{105},190502 (2010)\] gave a geometric measure of quantum discord in a bipartite quantum state as the distance of the state from the closest classical quantum (or zero discord) state and derived an explicit formula for a two qubit state. Further, S.Luo and S.Fu \[Physical Review A \tf{82}, 034302 (2010)\] obtained a generic form of this geometric measure for a general bipartite state and established a lower bound. In this brief report we obtain a rigorous lower bound to the geometric measure of quantum discord in a general bipartite state which dominates that obtained by S.Luo and S.Fu.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Simulation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2010 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Dakic, Vedral and Brukner [Physical Review Letters tf105,190502 (2010)] gave a geometric measure of quantum discord in a bipartite quantum state as the distance of the state...
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.