Quick Navigation

Topics

Open Quantum Systems Decoherence

Relativistically covariant state-dependent cloning of photons

arXiv
Authors: K. Bradler, R. Jauregui

Year

2007

Paper ID

50129

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

96

Citations

N/A

Abstract

The influence of the relativistic covariance requirement on the optimality of the symmetric state-dependent 1 -> 2 cloning machine is studied. Namely, given a photonic qubit whose basis is formed from the momentum-helicity eigenstates, the change to the optimal cloning fidelity is calculated taking into account the Lorentz covariance unitarily represented by Wigner's little group. To pinpoint some of the interesting results, we found states for which the optimal fidelity of the cloning process drops to 2/3 which corresponds to the fidelity of the optimal classical cloner. Also, an implication for the security of the BB84 protocol is analyzed.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Open Quantum Systems & Decoherence research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2007 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • The influence of the relativistic covariance requirement on the optimality of the symmetric state-dependent 1 -> 2 cloning machine is studied.

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 #50129 #68456 Analytic Properties of the Jost... #68455 Mediative Fuzzy Logic: From Typ... #68453 Weak wave turbulence as a precu... #68449 Scale-Invariant Open Quantum Sy...

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.