Question: Unambiguous discrimination between two non-orthogonal states

In summary, the conversation discusses a VCSEL laser emitting photon pulses with Poisson distribution and having two non-orthogonal states of polarization. The question is how to obtain the upper bound of the probability of a conclusive result for N photon pulses using generalized POVM measurements. The paper "Unambiguous quantum measurement of nonorthogonal states" by B. Huttner, A. Muller, J. D. Gautier, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin is suggested as a reference for the case of one photon pulses. The problem is related to security in a B92 quantum key distribution protocol.
  • #1
PabloArteaga
3
0
TL;DR Summary
I want to know the upper bound for unambiguous discrimination probability between two non-orthogonal states in the particular case of two possible states of N photons with a particular state of polarization each one.
Consider a VCSEL laser that emits photon pulses with Poisson distribution for the number of photons per pulse. The power of the VCSEL has been set low so the mean photon number "u" is u<1. Consider this photon pulses can take two non-orthogonal states of polarization (for example: state 0 with 45º inear polarization and state 1 with 90º linear polarization) with equal probablility. I know the two possible states and its probabilities, but I don't know the state of polarization of each pulse, and I want to measure with generalized POVM measurements to unambiguously discriminate betweeen the two possible states. I know there are three possible results: 1, 0 or incoclusive result, and I want to know the upper bound of the probability of a conclusive result. I know this upper bound for the single photon pulses case, which depends on the two possible states of polarization. My doubt is: how can I obtain this upper bound for N photon pulses? Is it possible to generalize the sigle photon case for the N photon one?

Relevant information:
- I have very basic knowledge of quantum physics.

If you can help me with an answer or some bibliography I will be grateful.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This is more a question about VCSEL lasers: how do they emit light at 2 different specific polarizations?

Also: the photon characteristics are different when the photon number is not fixed (as in your example). You wouldn't be able to precisely specify N=1 versus N=2 for example. I assume you are familiar with Fock states (where photon number IS fixed)?
 
  • #3
You can consider fixed N and that there are two possible polarization states, the question is more about the probability of the unambiguous measurement.

You can check "Unambiguous quantum measurement of nonorthogonal states", B. Huttner, A. Muller, J. D. Gautier, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin. PHYSICAL REVIEW A, vol.54, no. 5, 1996. Where they consider the case for one photon pulses. What I want to know is how to generalize this for N photon pulses.
 
  • #4
PabloArteaga said:
You can consider fixed N and that there are two possible polarization states, the question is more about the probability of the unambiguous measurement.

You can check "Unambiguous quantum measurement of nonorthogonal states", B. Huttner, A. Muller, J. D. Gautier, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin. PHYSICAL REVIEW A, vol.54, no. 5, 1996. Where they consider the case for one photon pulses. What I want to know is how to generalize this for N photon pulses.

I found a version of your citation which is not behind a paywall:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hugo_Zbinden/publication/13375059_Unambiguous_quantum_measurement_of_nonorthogonal_states/links/0c960524a700289781000000.pdf

However, I don't exactly follow how it connects to your VCSEL laser, which I guess is supposed to yield the kind of states as described in the 1996 paper. Or perhaps that doesn't even matter to your question, you are just considering the problem in general.
 
  • #5
The problem is a security problem in a B92 quantum key distribution protocol, in which you have this scenario. You can atenuate the laser signal in order to emit single photon pulses with high probability, but there is a little probability of multiple photon emision. An eavesdropper can use the multiphoton pulses to obtain information. To guarantee the security of the key, you must know the information an eavesdropper could have obtained. To do that you need to know the probability of unambiguous discrimination between polarization states for the N photon pulses, which is the doubt I have.
 

1. What is meant by "unambiguous discrimination"?

Unambiguous discrimination refers to the ability to accurately distinguish between two non-orthogonal quantum states with certainty. This means that there is no overlap or ambiguity between the two states, and they can be clearly identified as separate entities.

2. Why is it important to be able to discriminate between non-orthogonal states?

In quantum mechanics, non-orthogonal states are often used to represent different quantum states or information. Being able to accurately discriminate between these states is crucial for tasks such as quantum communication and quantum computing, where the correct identification of states is necessary for successful operations.

3. How is unambiguous discrimination achieved?

Unambiguous discrimination can be achieved through various methods, such as quantum measurements, quantum state tomography, and quantum information processing techniques. These methods involve manipulating and measuring the quantum states to extract information and make accurate distinctions between them.

4. What are the challenges in achieving unambiguous discrimination between non-orthogonal states?

One of the main challenges in unambiguous discrimination is the presence of noise and decoherence, which can cause errors in measurements and affect the accuracy of discrimination. Additionally, the complexity and fragility of quantum systems can also pose challenges in achieving unambiguous discrimination.

5. Can unambiguous discrimination be achieved with 100% accuracy?

No, it is not possible to achieve 100% accuracy in unambiguous discrimination between non-orthogonal states due to the inherent limitations and uncertainties in quantum mechanics. However, with advanced techniques and technologies, scientists are constantly striving to improve the accuracy and efficiency of discrimination methods.

Similar threads

Replies
28
Views
556
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
13
Views
645
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
728
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
49
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
52
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
787
Back
Top