Monogamy inequalities for entanglement using continuous variable measurements

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Abstract

We consider three modes AA, BB and CC and derive continuous variable monogamy inequalities that constrain the distribution of bipartite entanglement amongst the three modes. The inequalities hold for all such tripartite states, without the assumption of Gaussian states, and are based on measurements of two conjugate quadrature phase amplitudes XiX_{i} and PiP_{i} at each mode i=A,Bi=A,B. The first monogamy inequality is DBA+DBC≥1D_{BA}+D_{BC}\geq1 where DBA<1D_{BA}<1 is the widely used symmetric entanglement criterion, for which DBAD_{BA} is the sum of the variances of (XA−XB)/2(X_{A}-X_{B})/2 and (PA+PB)/2(P_{A}+P_{B})/2. A second monogamy inequality is EntBAEntBC≥1(1+(gBA(sym))2)(1+(gBC(sym))2)Ent_{BA}Ent_{BC}\geq\frac{1}{\left(1+(g_{BA}^{(sym)})^{2}\right)\left(1+(g_{BC}^{(sym)})^{2}\right)} where EntBA<1Ent_{BA}<1 is the EPR variance product criterion for entanglement. Here EntBAEnt_{BA} is a normalised product of variances of XB−gBA(sym)XAX_{B}-g_{BA}^{(sym)}X_{A} and PB+gBA(sym)PAP_{B}+g_{BA}^{(sym)}P_{A}, and gBA(sym)g_{BA}^{(sym)} is a parameter that gives a measure of the symmetry between the moments of AA and BB. We also show that the monogamy bounds are increased if a standard steering criterion for the steering of BB is not satisfied. We illustrate the monogamy for continuous variable tripartite entangled states including the effects of losses and noise, and identify regimes of saturation of the inequalities. The monogamy relations explain the experimentally observed saturation at DAB=0.5D_{AB}=0.5 for the entanglement between AA and BB when both modes have 50\% losses, and may be useful to establish rigorous bounds of correlation for the purpose of quantum key distribution protocols.

Explore this paper’s authors, topics and related work.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Reviews 0

Write a reviewWrite

No reviews yet.

Discussion 0

Add a commentWrite

No comments yet.