You're viewing papers too quickly. Please wait a moment.<br>This helps keep the archive available for everyone.

Quick Navigation

Topics

Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations Quantum Foundations

Multipartite positive-partial-transpose inequalities exponentially stronger than local reality inequalities

arXiv
Authors: Koji Nagata

Year

2007

Paper ID

49634

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

73

Citations

N/A

Abstract

We show that positivity of {\it every} partial transpose of N-partite quantum states implies new inequalities on Bell correlations which are stronger than standard Bell inequalities by a factor of 2(N-1)/2. A violation of the inequality implies the system is in a bipartite distillable entangled state. It turns out that a family of N-qubit bound entangled states proposed by Dür {\[Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 230402 (2001)\]} violates the inequality for Ngeq 4.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2007 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • We show that positivity of it every partial transpose of N-partite quantum states implies new inequalities on Bell correlations which are stronger than standard Bell...

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

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #49634 #69013 Quantum correlations and cohere... #69036 CARVE-Q: Quantum-Proposed, Clas... #69035 A Modular Approach to Succinct ... #69032 Beyond the Canonical Protocol: ...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

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.