Quick Navigation
Topics
Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations
Detecting entanglement of random states with an entanglement witness
arXiv
Authors: Marko Znidaric, Tomaz Prosen, Giuliano Benenti, Giulio Casati
Year
2007
Paper ID
49920
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
102
Citations
N/A
Abstract
The entanglement content of high-dimensional random pure states is almost maximal, nevertheless, we show that, due to the complexity of such states, the detection of their entanglement using witness operators is rather difficult. We discuss the case of unknown random states, and the case of known random states for which we can optimize the entanglement witness. Moreover, we show that coarse graining, modeled by considering mixtures of m random states instead of pure ones, leads to a decay in the entanglement detection probability exponential with m. Our results also allow to explain the emergence of classicality in coarse grained quantum chaotic dynamics.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Entanglement Theory & Quantum Correlations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2007 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- The entanglement content of high-dimensional random pure states is almost maximal, nevertheless, we show that, due to the complexity of such states, the detection of their...
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.