PH421 Assignment on

Quantum Teleportation

Amit Majumder
Department of Physics,IIT Bombay

October,2019

1
 Abstract

The basics of quantum entanglement,its features

are explained.Then the focus is on Bell states and
the algebra in practice.Quantum teleportation is ex-
plained in a simple yet thorough manner.A success-
ful explanation of 2004 vienna experiment is discussed
where teleportation of a photon took place across 600-
meter distance which was carried out by a team of
Austrian scientists under the leadership of Dr. Anton
Zeilinger of University of Vienna’s Institute of Exper-
imental Physics.

2 2
1 Introduction
In the year 2004,a reamarkable experiment has been carried out by a team of
Austrian scientists.They have succeeded in teleporting a quantum state over
a distance of 600 meters across the Danuber river in Vienna.This experimrnt
is considered as a milestone in the field of quantum teleportation.

This is of course bound to fascinate a physicist’s mind since almost ev-

ery one of us has definitely been reading science fiction novels or watching
similar movies and has sooner or later been confronted with a convenient
device-a teleporter.Imagine how such a device would transform the way we
travel today,But what is the physics behind this phenomenon called
quantum teleportation?

2 Quantum entanglement
Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or
groups of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in ways
such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described indepen-
dently of the state of the others, even when the particles are separated by a
large distance.

Hidden Quantum information: The deep ways that quantum informa-

tion differs from classical information involve the properties, implications,
and uses of quantum entanglement.A bipartite pure state is entangled if its
Schmidt number is greater than one. Entangled states are interesting be-
cause they exhibit correlations that have no classical analog. We will begin
the study of these correlations.
The maximally entangled state of two qubits defined as

3 2 QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT 3
“Maximally entangled” means that when we trace over qubit B to find the
density operator ρA of qubit A, we obtain a multiple of the identity
operator

(and similarly)
1
ρB = 1B
2
This means that if we measure spin A along any axis, the result is
completely random – we find spin up with probability 1/2 and spin down
with probability 1/2. Therefore, if we perform any local measurement of A
or B, we acquire no information about the preparation of the state, instead
we merely generate a random bit. This situation contrasts sharply with
case of a single qubit in a pure state ; there we can store a bit by preparing,
say, either | ↑n⟩ or | ↓n⟩, and we can recover that bit reliably by measuring
along the n-axis. With two qubits, we ought to be able to store two bits,
but in the state |ϕ⟩AB this information is hidden; at least, we can’t acquire
it by measuring A or B.
In fact, |ϕ⟩ is one member of a basis of four mutually orthogonal states for
the two qubits, all of which are maximally entangled — the basis.

We can choose to prepare one of these four states, thus encoding two bits in
the state of the two-qubit system. One bit is the parity bit (|ϕ⟩ or |ψ⟩) –
are the two spins aligned or antialigned? The other is the phase bit (+ or
−) – what superposition was chosen of the two states of like parity. Of
course, we can recover the information by performing an orthogonal
measurement that projects onto the |ϕ+ ⟩, |ϕ− ⟩, |ψ + ⟩, |ψ − ⟩ basis. But if the
two qubits are distantly separated, we cannot acquire this information
locally; that is, by measuring A or measuring B.

What we can do locally is manipulate this information. Suppose that

Alice has access to qubit A, but not qubit B. She may apply σ3 to her
qubit, flipping the relative phase of |0⟩a and |1⟩a .

4 2 QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT 4
This action flips the phase bit stored in the entangled state:

On the other hand, she can apply �1, which flips her spin (|0⟩A � |1⟩A), and
also flips the parity bit of the entangled state:

3 Bell states
The Bell states, a concept in quantum information science, are specific
quantum states of two qubits that represent the simplest (and maximal)
examples of quantum entanglement. The Bell states are a form of entangled
and normalized basis vectors. This normalization implies that the overall
probability of the particle being in one of the mentioned states is 1:
⟨Φ|Φ⟩ = 1⟨Φ|Φ⟩ = 1.

1 One qubit: The state of a single qubit can be written as a

superposition over the possibilities 0 and 1:

ϕ = |α0 ⟩ + |β1 ⟩
Measuring in the standard basis, then, there is probability=

mod α2

that we get 0 and the new state is

|ϕ′⟩ = |0⟩

and probability β 2 that we get 1 and

|ψ′⟩ = |1⟩

More generally, we can measure the qubit in any orthonormal basis simply
by projecting |ψ⟩ onto the twobasis vectors.

5 3 BELL STATES 5
The new state of the system |ψ′⟩ is the outcome of the measurement. This
is known as the Heisenberg picture. The Schrodinger picture is equivalent.
Instead of measuring the system in a rotated basis, we rotate the sys-
tem (in the opposite direction) and measure it in the original, standard basis.

Rotations over a complex vector space are called unitary transformations.

For example, rotation by θ is unitary. Reflection about the line �θ/2 is also
unitary.

2 Two qubits: Now let us examine the case of two qubits. Consider the
two electrons in two hydrogen atoms:

Since each electron can be in either of the ground or excited state,

classically the two electrons are in one of four states – 00, 01, 10, or 11 –
and represent 2 bits of classical information. Quantum mechanically, they
are in a superposition of those four states:

where ∑
2
αij =1
Again, this is just Dirac notation for the unit vector in C 4 :
 
α00
α01 
 
α10 
α11

6 3 BELL STATES 6
where

Measurement: If the two electrons (qubits) are in state |ψ⟩ and we

measure them, then the probability that the first qubit is in state i, and the
second qubit is in state j is

P (i, j) = |αij |2

Following the measurement, the state of the two qubits is

|ψ′⟩ = |ij⟩

. What happens if we measure just the first qubit? What is the probability
that the first qubit is 0? In that case, the outcome is the same as if we had
measured both qubits:

P r(1stbit) = 0 = |α00 |2 + |α01 |2

The new state of the two qubit system now consists of those terms in the
superposition that are consistent with the outcome of the measurement –
but normalized to be a unit vector
α00 |00⟩ + α01 |01⟩
|ϕ⟩ = √
|α00 |2 + |α01 |2

A more formal way of describing this partial measurement is that the state
vector is projected onto the subspace spanned by|00⟩ and |01⟩ with
probability equal to the square of the norm of the projection, or onto the
orthogonal subspace spanned by |10⟩ and |11⟩ with the remaining
probability. In each case, the new state is given by the (normalized)
projection onto the respective subspace.

3 Spooky Action at a Distance Consider a state known as a EPR pair

(also called a Bell state)
1
|ψ − ⟩ = √ (|01⟩ − |10⟩)
2
Measuring the first bit of
|ψ − ⟩
in the standard basis yields a 0 with probability 1/2, and 1 with probability
1/2. Likewise, measuring the second bit of |ψ − ⟩ yields the same outcomes

7 3 BELL STATES 7
with the same probabilities. Measuring one bit of this state yields a
perfectly ran-
dom outcome. However, determining either bit exactly determines the other.

Bell states Including |ψ⟩, there are four Bell states.

These are maximally entangled states on two qubits. They cannot be

product states because there are no cross terms. We can generate the Bell
states with a Hadamard gate and a CNOT gate. Consider the following
diagram:

The first qubit is passed through a Hadamard gate and then both qubits
are entangled by a CNOT gate. If the input to the system is |0⟩ ⊗ |0⟩, then
the Hadamard gate changes the state to

and after the CNOT gate the state becomes

1
√ (|00⟩ + |11⟩)
2
, the Bell state |Φ⟩. In fact, one can verify that the four possible inputs
produce the four Bell states:

8 3 BELL STATES 8
EPR Paradox In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) wrote a
paper ”Can quantum mechanics be complete?” [Phys. Rev. 47, 777,
Available online via PROLA:
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v47/i10/p777_1] For example,
consider coin-flipping. We can model coin-flipping as a random process
giving heads 50% of the time, and tails 50% of the time. This model is
perfectly predictive, but incomplete. With a more accurate experimental
setup, we could determine precisely the range of initial parameters for
which the coin ends up heads, and the range for which it ends up tails.

For Bell state, when you measure first qubit, the second qubit is
determined. However, if two qubits are far apart, then the second qubit
must have had a determined state in some time interval before
measurement, since the speed of light is finite. Moreover this holds in any
basis. This appears analogous to the coin flipping example. EPR therefore
suggested that there is a more complete theory where “God does not throw
dice.”

What would such a theory look like? Here is the most extravagant
framework. . . When the entangled state is created, the two particles each
make up a (very long!) list of all possible experiments that they might be
subjected to, and decide how they will behave under each such experiment.
When the two particles separate and can no longer communicate, they
consult their respective lists to coordinate their actions. But in 1964,
almost three decades later, Bell showed that properties of EPR states were
not merely fodder for a philosophical discussion, but had verifiable
consequences: local hidden variables are not the answer.

9 3 BELL STATES 9
4 Quantum Teleportation
Finally we can discuss quantum teleportation The aim of quantum
teleportation is to convey quantum states themselves, Suppose Alice had
been given a single spin- 12 particle in an unknown state |ψ⟩ and she would
like to convey this state to Bob (one of the reasons for this might be that
Bob has a better measurement apparatus than Alice and could manipulate
|ψ⟩) in a way that Alice isn’t able to). Of course. the easiest way for Alice
would be to simply send the state to Bob (let’s say via a highly delicate
transport mechanism). But, what if Bob is too far away for this
transportation to be efficient (on Mars, for example)? Or. what if Alice
simply doesn’t know where Bob is? Classically, Alice could make copies of
the particle and for instance. transmit them to all places Bob might have
been (if these places would be close). This is not possible. since a
no-cloning theorem forbids copying of quantum states . Quantum
information is therefore nothing like its classical counterpart.

Again, entanglement comes to the rescue. There is a way in which Alice

can divide the information about |ψ⟩, state into two parts. one purely
classical and the other a quantum one. These parts are transmitted via two
separate communication channels. Although entanglement is used in the
process, special relativity is not violated since Bob still requires information
from both channels to accurately replicate lψ⟩ on his location. The speed of
relaying classical, information is, of couree, limited with the speed of light.
Alice’s original is, as we shall see, destroyed in the process. obeying the
no-cloning theorem. The net result of teleportation therefore is: removing
the |ψ⟩ from Alice’s location and appearing at Bob’s at a suitable time later.

−
First,two entangled particles are produced in a Bell |ψ2,3 ⟩ state. The
subscripts label the particles in the pair. first subscripts denotes the first
particle in each of the ket’s. The particle 2 is given to Alice and 3 to Bob,
prior to any teleportation being done Again both particles are kept in some
vessel which does not perturb each one’s states after the entanglement has
been carried outcsuccessfully.

The whole system (the unknown particle and the entangled pair) are in a
product state, i.e. |ψ1 ⟩|Ψ−
2,3 ⟩,having neither experienced quantum
entanglement nor an interaction of any type (Alice had taken precautions).
If she were to measure her part of the entangled pair (or for that matter,
the whole pair), no information would be gained about the |ψ1 ⟩.

10 4 QUANTUM TELEPORTATION 10
She therefore entangles the three particles together.

The unknown state |ψ1 ⟩ can be conveniently written as

|ψ1 ⟩ = a| ↑1 ⟩ + b| ↓1 ⟩

so the state of all three particles is

which can be expressed in a Bell basis as

Now Alice makes a Bell’s measurement and so, entangles the three
particles. It is not hard to see that the four measurement outcomes are
equally likely, each with 14 probability, regardless of the unknown state |ψ1 ⟩.
Furthermore,Bob’s particle, the number 3, will he instantaneously projected
into a state which will depend upon Alice’s measurement. But, since Alice
knows the outcome of her measurement, she can contact Bob via a classical
communication channel and tell him the outcome of her measurement .
Depending on Alice’s findings, he must transform his particle according to
the following table

in order to make an exact replica of Alice’s unknown state (the irrelevant

phase factor has again been omited). Alice is left with an entangled pair of
particles in one of the four Bell states so the no-cloning theorem is not

11 4 QUANTUM TELEPORTATION 11
violated. The teleportation of |ψ1 ⟩ thus has the side effect of producing two
random bits of information.

Omitting further explanation, let’s nevertheless briefly mention some

facts . Since teleportation is a linear operation, it can also be used to
teleport an entangled state. Let the unknown state |ψ1 ⟩ be a part of an
entangled pair with a particle labeled 0. The outcome of the teleportation
will be that the the particles 0 and 3 will be left in a singlet state., although
they Were each a part of a different entangled pair.Also all of what was said
applies to particles with more than 2 orthogonal states. Furthermore ,two
bits of classical information (four possible outcomes) are needed to avoid
sending superluminal messages and if Bob tries to guess Alice’s measurment
and perform his rotations before knowing the outcomes of Alice’s
measurement,this result in Bob reconstructing his |ψ1 ⟩ as a maximally
mixed state of all three particles.Again,a correlation between an input
guessed signal would result in sending informations with superluminal
velocty.

Below figure gives us a schematic diagram of quantum teleportation

12 4 QUANTUM TELEPORTATION 12
5 Vienna Experiment
Now that we have explained the basics of quantum entanglement and
quantum communication, we can see that the theory is not so hard to
understand. Actually doing an experiment is not quite so easy,as one can
only begin to imagine all the difficulties of performing a Bell measurement,
creating a stable pairs of entangled qubit pairs and transporting
unpeurturbed during even laboratory distances. Actually teleporting a
quantum state,across a distance of 800 meters was with present technology
definitely not simple.

We will briefly mention the setup and outcome of the experiment.

Photons were used instead of spin- 12 particles, as their manipulation is much
easir. Spin- 21 rotations that must be performed on Bob the ( receiver’s) part
can be achieved with a suitable setup of various wave plates as is known
from optics. The channel was an 800-metre-long optical fibre installed in a
public sewer system underneath the Danube river in Vienna. The site was
deliberately chosen as it does not undergo ideal laboratory conditions, but
on the contrary experiences temperature fluctuations and other
environmental factors. A pulsed laser was used to pump a β-barium borate
crystal(BBO) that generated the entangled photon pair. Singlet state
photons, also generated by this technique were used as the teleportation
input (Alice’s’ unknown state) and as the trigger for electronic logic,
respectively. The unknown state was guided into a single-mode optical-fibre
beam splitter (BS), connected to polarizing beam splitters (PBS),which
performed the Bell measurement. This scheme allowed the Alice logic to
identify two of the four Bell states (|Ψ− b,c ⟩or|Ψb,c ⟩ ) .The result was conveyed
+

through a classical channel (Radio-Frequency units) to the receiver’s

end(Bob’s logic) which used an electro-optic modulator (EOM) to
transform the photon received via the quantum channel into the unknown
initial state |ψ1 ⟩.If Alice logic observed the |Ψ+b,c ⟩ state,Bob logic applied a
πphase shift between the horizontal and vertical components of the received
photon by applying a voltage pulse on the EOM. The classical signal
arrived about 1.5ms before the quantam photon, because of the reduced
velocity of light in optic fibres. The teleportation achieved an astooishing
90% fidelity for 45° polarized photons with each measurement run lasting
for 28 hours. The results are really amazing,considering that the
experiment was carried out in real world conditions.Without Bob
performing the EOM polariaztion rotation the observed fidelity dropped to
59%,deviating from the expected 50% due to statistical fluctuations,proving
that indeed teleportation has taken place.

13 5 VIENNA EXPERIMENT 13
Fig:Quantum teleportation across Danube River,2004

6 Conclusion
Quantum entanglement is far from being only a theoretical obscurity.As we
have seen it has profound applications in future communications and
computing.Teleportation is the key to quantum parallel computing, albeit
not even a single-processor quantum computer has, to this day, been made,
which could measure up to the standards of present day desktop computers,
not even mentioning supercomputers. The theory is solid, but the practical
difficulties are enormous. Quantum computing and communication has Its
theoretical advantages and is worth pursuing with modern technology.
Dense coding will help with communication error reducing. In this field of
technology is teeportation’s place and future, sadly not in star-trek like
transportation devices. As Anton Zeilinger, the director of Vienna branch
of the Institute of Quantum Optics and Quantum Information and the head
of the team that successfully achieved the Vienna experiment put in an
inter-view ,.

14 6 CONCLUSION 14
 ’.......We are talking about quantum phenomena here; we have
no idea how we could produce these with larger objects And eten
if it was possible, the problems involved would be huge . Firstly:
for physical reasons, the original has to be completely isolated
from its environment for the transfer to work. There has lo
be a total vaccum for it to work. And it is a well-known fact that
this is not particularly healthy for human beings. Secondly: you
would lake all the properties from a person and transfer them
onto another. This means producing a being who no longer has
any hair colour, no eye colour. nix. A man without qualities This
is not only unethical: it’s so crazy that it’s impossible lo
imagine....’

15 6 CONCLUSION 15
 References
[1] R. Ursin ,T. Jennnewein et al.,Quantum Teleportation Across the
Danube, Nature 430,849(2004)

[2] W.K. Wooters, Quantum Entanglement as a Quantifiable

Resource,.Phil. Trans.R. Soc.London A 356,1717(1998)

[3] A.Einstein,B.Podolosky and E. Rosen,Can Quantum-Mechanical

Description of physical Reality Be Considered Complete? ,
Phys.Rev.Lett.47,777(1935)

[4] N. Bohr,Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of physical Reality Be

Considered Complete?,Phys.Rev.Lett.48,699(1935)

[5] J. S. Bell,On the einstein-Podolosky-Rosen Paradox,Physics 1,195(1964)

[6] C. H. Bennett et al.,Teleporting an Unknown Quantum State via Dual

Classical and Einstein-Podolosky-Rosen Channels,Phys.Rev.Lett.
90,1895(1993)

[7] A. S. Kholevo Some estimates of the information transmitted by

quantum communication channel,Probl. Peredachi Inform.9, 3
(1973)(rus)[Probl. Inf. Trans. (USSR) 9,177(1973)]

[8] signandsigth website - Anton Zeilinger , Mathius Pliuss, Regina Hiigli:

Spooky action and beyond
http://www.signandsight.com/features/814.html

16 REFERENCES 16