Home | About Journal | Web Links | E-mail Alerts | RSS RSS Icon | Browse

Strengthened Bell inequalities for entanglement verification

Source: Phys. Rev. A 80, 034302 (2009); doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.80.034302

Published 30 September 2009

KEYWORDS and PACS
Keywords
PACS
  • 03.67.Mn
    Entanglement measures, witnesses, and other characterizations (quantum information)
  • 03.65.Ud
    Entanglement and quantum nonlocality
  • YEAR: 2009
RELATED DATABASES

To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.
To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.
PUBLICATION DATA
Publisher:
AIP is a member of CrossRef APS
Pavel Lougovski1 and S. J. van Enk1,2
1Department of Physics and Oregon Center for Optics, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403, USA
2Institute for Quantum Information, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
Bell inequalities were meant to test quantum mechanics vs local hidden variable models, but can also be used to verify entanglement. For entanglement verification purposes one assumes the validity of quantum mechanics as well as quantum descriptions of one's measurements. With the help of these assumptions it is possible to derive a strengthened Bell inequality whose violation implies entanglement. We generalize known examples of such inequalities by relating the expectation value of the Bell operator to a particular quantitative measure of entanglement, namely, the negativity. Moreover, we obtain statistics illustrating the fact that violating a given (strengthened or not) Bell inequality is a much more rare feat for a quantum state of two qubits than it is to be entangled. ©2009 The American Physical Society
History: Received 3 August 2009; published 30 September 2009
Permalink: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v80/e034302

REFERENCES (14)

For access to fully linked references, you need to log in. For access to fully linked references, you need to Log in.
  1. J. Clauser, M. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969)
  2. J. F. Clauser and M. Horne, Phys. Rev. D 10, 526 (1974)
  3. S. J. van Enk, N. Lütkenhaus, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. A 75, 052318 (2007).
  4. S. M. Roy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 010402 (2005).
  5. G. A. Durkin and C. Simon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 180402 (2005).
  6. C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996).
  7. F. Verstraete and H. Verschelde, Phys. Rev. A 66, 022307 (2002).
  8. G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 (2002).
  9. K. Zyczkowski, P. Horodecki, A. Sanpera, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. A 58, 883 (1998).
  10. F. Verstraete and M. M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 170401 (2002).
ADVERTISEMENT