9.

16
Section 9.4: Introduction to Quantum Teleportation
Science fiction depicts teleportation as a method of deconstructing an object,
transmitting it as a form of RF or light waves, and reconstructing it again at a distant
location. I wish we could do the same. We transmit qbits of information but not the
physical particle itself. This is especially astonishing since any observation of a particle
storing the qbit must cause the wave function to collapse and the observer would not
know the exact qbit from the single measurement. Teleportation allows the full original
qbit as a superposition to be reconstructed at a distant location. It opens the way for a
quantum computer to operate on a qbit of information and move it through a distance
after possibly performing an operation.
We first examine Bells theorem that draws a distinction between the classical and
quantum worlds. It gives a condition that can be checked as to whether the physical
world conforms to a local vs. nonlocal theory.
Topic 9.4.1: Local versus Non-Local
All of physics (until the 1960s) is based on the notion of a local universe. This
means that an action must have some cause in the immediate vicinity. For example,
gravity exerts an influence on a nearby mass through the gravitational force at the
position of the mass. Modern physics postulates the existence of gravitons that mediate
the gravitational force between two masses. In this view, the direct interaction of the
graviton with the mass at the location of this mass produces the force. Similarly, the
electric field produces a force on a charge by virtue of photons. In either case, we often
envision the lines of force as radiating from one object to another. The contact of the
object with the force-lines produces a force.
Additionally, the theory of special relativity
divides space-time into two regions, namely, the time-
like and space-like regions. The regions come from the
fact that a signal cannot travel faster than the speed of
light. Consider a single spatial dimension x and a source
of disturbance situated at x=0. What points x could
possibly experience the disturbance at time t? The
maximum possible rate the distance could move away
from x=0 must be the speed of light c so that x ct =
gives the maximum possible distance the effects of the
disturbance could move. The time-like region
ct x ct + in Figure 9.4.1 marks the space-time
position of events that can be causally related to an event
occurring at x=0=t. The speed of light limits the slope of
any path followed by a particle or a signal from an event. The space-like regions cannot
be casually related since signals of any kind cannot reach the points there without
exceeding the speed of light.
The locality of the universe requires the cause to be at the position of the event.
The cause can only be the effect of another cause so long as they fall within the Time-like
portion of the light cone. We next set-up a situation whereby two correlated particles
Figure 9.4.1: The light-cone with
the vertex at x=0=t.
9.17
separate and occupy positions within each others space-like region. The collapse of the
wave function for one particle produces a collapse for the other. Apparently the collapse
connects the two space-like points. This means that some type of disturbance traveled
faster than the speed of light. Physical signals dont behave this way. Furthermore, the
interaction must be non-local since the cause does not appear to have a physical
intermediary.
Topic 9.4.2: EPR Paradox
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) posed a thought experiment in an attempt to
show that the quantum theory does not fully describe nature; they expected some
variables must be hidden.
Suppose a source produces two electrons (or photons) with correlated spin as
shown in Figure 9.4.2. The source puts the electrons in an entangled (i.e., non-separable)
state given by
01 10
2

= (9.4.1)
We cannot say that electron 1 has spin up or down and
the same for electron 2 because this last equation cannot
be separated into distinct states for the two particles. We
can say that if electron 1 is found in state 0 (say spin up) then electron 2 must be in
state 1 (spin down) as shown by the 01 ket in Equation 9.4.1. Similarly, ket 10
indicates that electron 1 occupies state 1 and therefore electron 2 occupies state 0 .
The source sends the two electrons far across space, say several light years.
During this time, the electron states remain entangled. According to the quantum theory,
a measurment of the spin state of particle 1 causes the wave function to collapse. The
effect instantly travels across space so that particle 2 must be in a collapsed state.
Regardless of the matter between the two particles, be it stars or gold, observing electron
1 in say 0 immediately forces electron 2 into 1 .
EPR objected to this effect on the basis of special relativity. They claimed the
two electrons could not coordinate their collapse since it would require a signal to travel
faster than the speed of light. From their point of view, the source places electrons 1 and
2 into motion with predefined spin. When observer 1, Alice, makes a measurement of
electron 1, she finds the predetermined state of the electron. If the source placed electron
1 in state 0 then naturally electron 2 must be in state 1 . In this way, a signal does not
need to travel faster than light and we dont need to worry that the collapse of the wave
function is anything more than a mathematical artifact.
Bell came up with an argument that shows the conditions under which the
quantum interpretation is correct. Later, a number of researchers showed the quantum
interpretation was in fact the best explanation.
Figure 9.4.2: A source produces
correlated electrons.
9.18
Topic 9.4.3: Bells Theorem
A variety of versions of Bells Theorem have been developed. A large number
use optical polarizers and rotation angles to calculate probabilities. These developments
provide greater physical intuition and show a range of values for which the classical
theory fails. However, we only need one such value to indicate physical reality is not
local. In its most basic form, Bells theorem is a simple math-only proof regarding
probability. The theorem implicitly assumes locality and independent events. The genius
of the work comes from comparing the results with the predictions of quantum theory.
Suppose we have 4 classical random variables A, B, C, D where Alice deals with
A,B and Bob deals with C,D. Further assume that these random variables can only have
values of 1 . Consider the sum of products
( ) ( ) AC BC BD AD A B C B A D + + = + + (9.4.2)
Since A, B 1 = then either ( ) A B C 0 + = or ( ) B A D 0 = but not both. Therefore the
sum of products must have the value
AC BC BD AD 2 + + = (9.4.3)
and hence, the expected value of the sum of products must satisfy
AC BC BD AD AC BC BD AD 2 + + = + + + (9.4.4)
Now compute the same quantity in a quantum setting. Assume the two electrons
live in the entangled state in Equation 9.4.2. Identify the following observables
( ) 1
z
A =
( ) 1
x
B =
( ) ( )
( )
2 2
z x
C 2 =
( ) ( )
( )
2 2
z x
D 2 = (9.4.5)
where
x z
, represent the Pauli spin operators for the x and z directions, and the
superscripts refer to observer 1, alice, and to observer 2, bob. When a measurement is
made of any of the quantities A, B, C, D, the wave function collapses to one of the eigen
vectors for the respective operator and gives a value of 1 . Furthermore we can see that
1
AC
2
=
1
BC
2
=
1
BD
2
=
1
AD
2

= (9.4.6)
The first relation, for example, in Equation 9.4.6 comes from
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
1 2 2
z z x
1 2 1 2
z z z x

1
AB 01 10 01 10
2 2 2
+
(
= = + +

with quantities of the form
( ) 1
z
01 1 01 = + since
( ) 1
z
0 1 0 = + etc. Combining the
terms in Equation 9.4.6 produces
AC BC BD AD AC BC BD AD 2 2 + + = + + = + (9.4.7)
Clearly, the quantum theory does not reproduce the results of the classical theory as can
be seen by comparing Equations 9.4.7 and 9.4.4. Aspect experimentally verified the
discrepancy. We conclude that either the observables do no not have well defined values
or there exists an element of non-locality.
9.19
Topic 9.4.4: Quantum Teleportation
Suppose Alice wants to send a qbit in an
arbitrary superposition state to Bob. We might as
well assume the qbit is encoded on a spin particle
such as an electron. This would be somewhat
equivalent to having a backplane that transports
qbits around a computer or perhaps a signal
transport system for communications around the
country. Unfortunately, if Alice has a single qbit
then any measurement will cause the superposition
to collapse and Alice will only observe a single
value and not the entire superposition. She will
only be able to transmit that single value to Bob
and neither Alice nor Bob will be able to
reconstruct the original qbit.
Suppose Alice wants to transmit a data qbit
given by
a
a 0 b 1
b
| |
= +
|
\ .
(9.4.8)
where 0 represents spin up and logic 0, and 1
represents spin down and logic 1. A method exists
to transmit this qbit as shown in Figure 9.4.3. Alice prepares an entangled spin state with
electrons 2 and 3 given by
2 3 2 3
23
0 1 1 0 01 10
2 2

= = (9.4.9)
Alice then combines electrons 1 and 2 producing the combined wave function as
the direct product
{ } { }
23
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
a b
0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
2 2
= = + (9.4.10)
Because she will combine electrons 1 and 2, she uses uses the Bell basis set defined by
{ }
A
1 2 1 2
1
0 1 1 0
2
=
{ }
B
1 2 1 2
1
0 1 1 0
2
= + (9.4.11a)
{ }
C
1 2 1 2
1
1 1 0 0
2
=
{ }
D
1 2 1 2
1
1 1 0 0
2
= + (9.4.11b)
Writing the three electron combination in Equation 9.4.10 in terms of the Bell basis
produces
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
A B
3 3 3 3
C D
3 3 3 3
a 0 b 1 a 0 b 1
1
2
a 1 b 0 a 1 b 0

+ + +

=
`
+ + +

)
(9.4.12)
Alice sends particle 3 (uncollapsed) to Bob via the quantum channel Q in Figure
9.4.3. She makes a measurement of the combined system of particles 1 and 2. The
particles drop into one of the four basis vectors appearing in Equation 9.4.11. She then
Figure 9.4.3: Setup for quantum
teleportation that uses a conventional C
and quantum Q communications
channel.
9.20
sends a conventional message to Bob via a conventional communications channel C in
Figure 9.4.3. The message contains the name of the state in Equations 9.4.11 to which
particles 1 and 2 collapsed. Bob has four choices for the state that particle 3 might
occupy from Equation 9.4.12
Alices State State for Particle 3 Bobs Operator
A

3 3
a
a 0 b 1
b
| |

|

\ .
1 0
0 1
| |
|
\ .
B

3 3
a
a 0 b 1
b
| |
+
|
+
\ .
1 0
0 1
| |
|
\ .
C

3 3
b
a 1 b 0
a
+ | |
+
|
+
\ .
0 1
1 0
| |
|
\ .
D

3 3
b
a 1 b 0
a
| |

|
+
\ .
0 1
1 0
| |
|
\ .
Bob uses the convention information to apply an operation to the received
particle. If Alice says that particles 1 and 2 dropped to state B, then Bob applies the
corresponding operation to correct the qbit and thereby reconstruct the original data qbit.