0
$\begingroup$

I have a short Mathematica program:

S[0] = {1, 0, 0}; S[1] = {0, 1, 0}; S[2] = {0, 0, 1};

Omega[0, 0] = (1/Sqrt[3]) Sum[KroneckerProduct[S[s], S[s]], {s, 0, 2}]

w = Exp[2 Pi I/3];

Do[
 If[{k, l} != {0, 0}, 
  Omega[k, l] = 
   (1/Sqrt[3]) 
    Sum[KroneckerProduct[w^(k (s - l)) (S[s] - S[l]), S[s]], {s, 0, 2}] 
     Omega[0, 0]], 
 {k, 0, 2}, {l, 0, 2}]

Do[
 P[k, l] = 
  ArrayReshape[Outer[Times, Omega[k, l], ConjugateTranspose[Omega[k, l]]], {9, 9}], 
 {k, 0, 2}, {l, 0, 2}];

Do[
 Print[{k, l, FullSimplify[Sum[P[k, l][[i, i]], {i, 1, 9}]]}], 
 {k, 0, 2}, {l, 0, 2}]

by which I'm attempting to implement the construction (quoting from the beginning of sec. IV of https://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1403):

We start with a maximally entangled pure state, this is a Bell type state, in a chosen basis $\{0,1,2\}$ \begin{equation*} \Omega _{0 0} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \sum_{s=0}^2 |s\rangle \otimes |s\rangle\,. \end{equation*} On the first subspace, the system of Alice, we act with the Weyl operators, defined by $W_{k,l}|s\rangle = w^{k(s-l)}|s-l\rangle$ with $w=e^{2\pi i/3}$, while Bob's subsystem is always left inert. The indexes $k$ and $l$ run from $0$ to $2$. The other eight Bell states are constructed by acting with the Weyl operators onto the chosen Bell state \begin{equation*} \Omega_{k,l}=W_{k,l}\otimes I_3\; \Omega_{0,0}\,. \end{equation*} With that we can construct nine Bell projectors $P_{k,l}=|\Omega_{k, l}\rangle\langle\Omega_{k,l}|$. The mixtures of these pure states form our object of interest, the magic simplex $W$: \begin{equation*} W\;=\; \{ \quad \sum c_{k l}\;P_{k,l} \; |\; c_{kl}\geq 0 , \quad \sum c_{k l}=1 \quad \}\end{equation*}

However, I'm not presently sure the given program is fully successful in the intended implementation. The trace of $P_{k,l}$ is 1 for $k=0,l=0$ and $\frac{2}{9}$ in the other eight cases (as indicated in the output above), while for a pure state I would expect them to be all 1. Also, I'm not sure as to the use of the ConjugateTranspose in the 2nd Do expression. Further, I also looked into the use of TensorProduct, rather than KroneckerProduct. Also, is the ArrayReshape command in the 2nd Do expression really necessary?

Obviously, this all strongly pertains to the use of physics (Dirac) notation — which I note has been the subject of a number of questions on this site.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Omega[k, l] is not correct: $|s-l \rangle$ is S[s-l], not S[s]-S[l] (where $s-l\in{0,1,2}$): e.g. $s=2,l=1$, then $|s-l \rangle=|1 \rangle$, not S[2]-S[1]; also, I think in your code for $\Omega_{k,l}$, W has already acted on the 1st partite of $\Omega_{00}$, therefore the Omega[0, 0] in the definition of Omega[k, l] is redundant (you can check that your Omega[k,l] for $k,l\neq0$ is not a state vector) $\endgroup$ – egwene sedai Apr 11 at 20:54
  • $\begingroup$ also, it's better to use an array to store the basis vector S[[i]], and the array index of mathematica starts with 1; additionally, it's better to present state vectors as n-by-1 vectors, so e.g. S = Table[Null, {i, 1, 3}]; S[[1]] = {{1}, {0}, {0}}; $\endgroup$ – egwene sedai Apr 11 at 21:03
  • $\begingroup$ did some reading and it looks like the equation may miss a $mod$ (since $s-l$ needs to be in the set of $\{0,1,2\}$), see e.g. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1751-8113/41/23/235303/meta $\endgroup$ – egwene sedai Apr 11 at 21:19
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, the subject of that last comment was also very much bothering me--and essentially compelled me to use S[s] - S[l], and not S[s-l] . I'll check the indicated website. Also, I get to the same final result using the (more natural) code S[0] = {1, 0, 0}; S[1] = {0, 1, 0}; S[2] = {0, 0, 1};Omega[0, 0] = (1/Sqrt[3]) Sum[ Flatten[Outer[Times, S[s], S[s]]], {s, 0, 2}];w = Exp[2 Pi I/3]; Do[ If[{k, l} != {0, 0}, Omega[k, l] = (1/Sqrt[3]) Sum[ Flatten[Outer[Times, w^(k (s - l)) (S[s] - S[l]), S[s]]], {s, 0, 2}] Omega[0, 0]], {k, 0, 2}, {l, 0, 2}]; $\endgroup$ – Paul B. Slater Apr 11 at 23:15
  • $\begingroup$ Do[P[k, l] = Outer[Times, Omega[k, l], Conjugate[Omega[k, l]]], {k, 0, 2}, {l, 0, 2}]; So, no use of ArrayReshape. $\endgroup$ – Paul B. Slater Apr 11 at 23:20
0
$\begingroup$

Consulting the preceding paper, "The state space for two qutrits has a phase space structure in its core", of the three authors (B. Baumgartner, B. C. Hiesmayr and H. Narnhofer) https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0606083, we find in their sec. 3, the explicit representations of the nine Weyl operators $W_{k,l}$, (k, l =0, 1, 2):

[W[0, 0] = IdentityMatrix[3]; W[0, 1] = {{0, 1, 0}, {0, 0, 1}, {1, 0, 0}}; W[0, 2] = {{0, 0, 1}, {1, 0, 0}, {0, 1, 0}}; W[1, 0] = {{1, 0, 0}, {0, w, 0}, {0, 0,Conjugate[w]}};  W[1, 1] = {{0, 1, 0}, {0, 0, w}, {Conjugate[w], 0, 0}}; W[1, 2] = {{0, 0, 1}, {w, 0, 0},{0, Conjugate[w], 0}}; W[2, 0] = {{1, 0, 0}, {0, Conjugate[w], 0}, {0, 0, w}}; W[2, 1] = {{0, 1, 0}, {0, 0, Conjugate[w]}, {w, 0, 0}}; W[2, 2] = {{0, 0, 1}, {Conjugate[w], 0, 0}, {0, w, 0}}]

where $w = e^{\frac{2 i \pi }{3}}$.

Together, with the previously-given assertion, \begin{equation*} \Omega_{k,l}=W_{k,l}\otimes I_3\; \Omega_{0,0}\,, \end{equation*} it appears that the following code achieves the stated goal of constructing the "magical simplex $\mathcal{W}$ of bipartite qutrits"

S[0] = {1, 0, 0}; S[1] = {0, 1, 0}; S[2] = {0, 0, 1}; Omega[0, 0] = (1/Sqrt[3]) Sum[TensorProduct[S[s], S[s]], {s, 0, 2}]; Do[Omega1[k, l] = ArrayReshape[TensorProduct[W[k, l], IdentityMatrix[3] Omega[0, 0]], {9, 9}]/Sqrt[3], {k, 0, 2}, {l, 0, 2}]; Do[P[k, l] = Outer[Times, Omega1[k, l].ConjugateTranspose[Omega1[k, l]]], {k, 0, 2}, {l, 0, 2}]; Do[Print[{k, l, Sum[P[k, l][[i, i]], {i, 1, 9}]}], {k, 0, 2}, {l, 0, 2}]

The last command Do[Print[{k, l, Sum[P[k, l][[i, i]], {i, 1, 9}]}], {k, 0, 2}, {l, 0, 2}] confirms that the traces (sums of diagonal entries) of the nine Bell projectors $P_{k,l}$ are all unity.

(In light of the earlier comments of egwene sedai and me, let us also note the authors' statement that "Throughout this paper the letters $\{s,t,j,k,\ell,m,n,p,q\}$ denote the numbers $0, 1, 2$. Calculations with them are to be understood as ``modulo 3''.")

With this construction of the 8-dimensional simplex, we hope to obtain the Hilbert-Schmidt probability that a member (two-qutrit [$9 \times 9$ density matrix]) of the simplex, \begin{equation*} W\;=\; \{ \quad \sum c_{k l}\;P_{k,l} \; |\; c_{kl}\geq 0 , \quad \sum c_{k l}=1 \quad \}\end{equation*} has a positive partial transpose (PPT) and, further, the (sub)-probability that any member with a PPT is also separable--that is, the convex combination of product (qutrit) states. (Contrastingly, by the famous Peres-Horodecki result, for lower-dimensional $6 \times 6$ and $4 \times 4$ density matrices, the PPT-property is equivalent--not just necessary--for separability to hold. PPT-states that are not separable, are termed "bound entangled".)

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.