Can a two-qubit state be proven to be non-entangled using contraposition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JorisL
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qubit States
Click For Summary
A two-qubit state is defined as non-entangled if it can be expressed as a tensor product of individual qubit states, specifically satisfying the condition a_{00}a_{11} = a_{10}a_{01}. The challenge lies in proving this condition in the reverse direction, particularly when the state is entangled. Attempts to use the expectation of operators did not yield results, leading to the exploration of contraposition to demonstrate that an entangled state negates the original equation. A successful approach involved rearranging the terms and expressing the state in a tensor product form, confirming the non-entangled condition. The discussion highlights the complexities of proving the non-entanglement of two-qubit states using mathematical relationships.
JorisL
Messages
489
Reaction score
189
Hi

I'm going through some course notes for QM.
A state for a 2 qubit system is called non-entangled (or separable) if it can be decomposed in a tensorproduct of 2 single qubit states.

If we write a general state as
|\psi> = a_{00}|00>+a_{01}|01>+a_{10}|10>+a_{11}|11>

A theorem states the following:
A two-qubit state is non-entangled \Leftrightarrow a_{00}a_{11}=a_{10}a_{01}


Getting the right side from the left side is easy, trivial even. By just writing out the tensor product you automatically get this condition.

Proving it the other way around has been difficult for me.
I tried using the fact that the expectation of A\otimes B would give the product of expectations on the one-qubit states. This didn't work as far as I could see.
Then I tried using contraposition i.e. prove that if the state is in fact entangled, the equation would be negated. Here I got stuck since I'm not sure how to do work with a general entangled state. Or would an example, like a Bell state, be enough to conclude the proof? (prolonged staring really makes one doubt his capabilities)

Joris
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Given that a_{00}a_{11}=a_{10}a_{01}, one can rearrange (with assumption that denominators are non-zero)
<br /> \frac{a_{00}}{a_{01}}=\frac{a_{10}}{a_{11}}=\alpha \ldots(\text{say})<br />

Now
<br /> |\psi\rangle = a_{00}|00\rangle + a_{01}|01\rangle + a_{10}|10\rangle + a_{11}|11\rangle \\<br /> = a_{01}|0\rangle \otimes (\alpha |0\rangle + |1\rangle) + a_{11}|1\rangle\otimes(\alpha |0\rangle + |1\rangle)\\= (a_{01}|0\rangle + a_{11}|1\rangle)\otimes (\alpha |0\rangle + |1\rangle).<br />
 
Last edited:
Thanks, exactly what I needed. How could I have missed that :rolleyes:
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 120 ·
5
Replies
120
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K