Proposal for Research

Aim: - Although there are many types of qubit technology has advanced by leaps and bounds in
the past decade, it still lags many competing model quantum systems, such as issues of
measurement. There had been no measurement system for qubits which allowed stable,
deterministic, or more accurate and minimum uncertain measurement of the qubit state. Without
this capability, it had been difficult or impossible to getting information by quantum system. In
particular, it was impossible to observe one of the most basic manifestations of the effects of
quantum measurement.
The aim of this project is to demystify the quantum
entanglement and geometry representation of entangled state on Majorana sphere by Majorana
representation of entanglement. The final result could be the classical model constructed to
represent quantum entangled states. By the measurement, outcome of entangled states could be
more stable, deterministic, accurate and minimum uncertain. Thus, this approach might provide a
new vantage point to examine the entanglement from the perspective of classical concepts we are
all accustomed to.

Significance: - Being the fundamental resource in a wide range of situations in quantum

information processing, entanglement is considered as a `standard currency' for quantum
information tasks, and it is highly desirable to know which states of a given system exhibit a high
or maximal amount of entanglement. When it comes to multipartite states this question becomes
complicated. There are different types of entanglement, alongside which there are many different
ways to quantify entanglement, each of which may capture a different desirable quality of a state
as a resource.
Multipartite entanglement plays an important role in quantum error correction and quantum
computation. The quantification of multipartite entanglement is still an open problem even for a
pure multipartite state.

Why Measure the State?

Aside from the question of how to measure the state of a quantum system, it is useful to ask why one
would want to measure the state of a quantum s system. Of what use is knowing the state? An answer to
this question is that once the state is obtained, distributions or moments of quantities can be calculated,
even though they have not been directly measured. Indeed, one can calculate moments of quantities that
do not correspond to Hermitian operators, and thus cannot even in principle be directly measured. For
example, some early measurements demonstrated the ability to measure photon number distributions at
the single-photon level, even though the detectors used had noise levels that were too large to directly
measure these distributions [37]. Distributions of optical phase have been measured, even though there
is no known experimental apparatus capable of directly measuring this phase directly [34, 37]. Expectation
values of the number-phase commutator [n, ] have been measured, even though this operator is not
Hermitian, and thus cannot be directly observed [37]. Furthermore, even if the full quantum state is not
measured, the same basic idea of performing many measurements corresponding to different
observables can yield important information about optical fields. For example, one can obtain
information, with high time-resolution (on the time scale of 10s of fs), on the photon statistics of light
propagation in scattering media [38], light emitted by edge-emitting lasers [39], or vertical-cavity surface-
emitting lasers [50] and the performance optical communication systems [48, 94] We will discuss some of
this work here. Waves are delocalized in superconductor it is very difficult to interpret the states
because of higher degree of freedom. Although entanglement drastically reduces the wave
function's dimensionality [4] and could be localized behaviors of the quantum states by the
standing wave.

Measurement plays a vital role in the practice of science. This is especially so

in the case of quantum mechanics, where the measurement process is fundamental to the
formulation of the theory. A crucial feature of quantum mechanics is that a measurement of one
variable of a system erases information about the corresponding conjugate variable. The classic
example is that determining the position of a particle disturbs its momentum, and vice versa. These
measurements, known as strong measurements, collapse the wave function such that no additional
information can be obtained.
The existence of quantum correlations is a fundamental difference
between quantum and classical physics. Entanglement is one kind of quantum correlation that is
stronger than all existing classical correlations. Its understanding has led to the development of
communication protocols like quantum teleportation [1] and quantum cryptography [2], and
enables measurements with a precision that exceeds the standard quantum limit [3]. For Quantum
Information Science, entanglement is a valuable resource [4].

MOTIVATION
Entanglement is a fascinating phenomenon on two accounts:
(1) Its implications about the nature of reality
(2) Its uses in technological progress.
(1) Entanglement is an effect that clearly distinguishes quantum mechanics from the classical
physics model of the world, so it lends itself as a good phenomenon to discuss the general
conceptual problems in quantum mechanics. The interpretation of entanglement revolves around
issues of realism and what is known as Einstein Locality, the idea that two events can be
sufficiently separated so that the outcome of one of them could not affect the outcome of the other.
(2) Computer components are getting increasingly small. If this trend continues at the current rate
(given by Moores Law) the size of information processing units will be comparable to that of
atoms around 2015. Hence quantum physical effects will impact on the performance of computers
at this stage. This is one of the reasons for scientists to model a computer as a quantum system (a
Quantum Computer), with super positions, entanglement etc. Strikingly such a computer would
be significantly more powerful. Other uses of entangled states include teleportation, super dense
coding and quantum key distribution. The latter is currently being commercialized.

Objective: -
1. Stable quantum state from multiple entangled Qubits (unstable, fragile, easily decoherence
by environment).
2. Graphically representation for multi entangled qubits
3. Minimization of Uncertainty
4. Deterministic outcome
 5. Accurate or 100 % result

Literature Review: -
Until now, a variety of different entanglement measures have been proposed for multipartite
setting. Among them are the (global) robustness of entanglement [1], the geometric measure [2]
and the relative entropy of entanglement [3, 4]. The robustness measures the minimal noise
(arbitrary state) that we need to add to make the state separable. The geometric measure is the
distance of the state to the closest product state in terms of the fidelity. The relative entropy of
entanglement is a valid entanglement measure for the multipartite state; it is the relative entropy
of the state under consideration to the closest fully separable state.

Robustness of entanglement: - In the quest to completely describe entanglement in the

general case of a finite number of parties sharing a physical system of finite-dimensional Hilbert
space an entanglement magnitude is introduced for its pure and mixed states: robustness. It
corresponds to the minimal amount of mixing with locally prepared states which washes out all
entanglement. It quantifies in a sense the endurance of entanglement against noise and jamming.
It is based on a simple physical operation: mixing with locally prepared states. It does not
increase on average when the parties, classically communicated, act locally on the subsystems.
The robustness quantifies the endurance of entanglement with respect to local mixing by asking
about the minimal amount of entanglement-free mixing needed to wipe out all entanglement. It
can be interpreted as a quantification of intelligent jamming of entanglement, intelligent meaning
that the parties know the entangled state and thus tailor the jamming accordingly, so that a
minimal amount suffices. An auxiliary and useful magnitude will be the random robustness,
which can be interpreted as the robustness of entanglement with respect to mixing with white
noise. While we explain and analyze robustness a few more general results will be presented:
convexity of entanglement measures
is put on firmer grounds, a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for consistency with the
fundamental law of quantum information processing is presented, and a weak version for the
composition law of entanglement magnitudes for a state describing a system which consists of
two uncorrelated nonlocal entangled subsystems is suggested.
Consider a composite system Q with N local subsystems such that the dimension n of its Hilbert
space H is finite. Let us recall that, according to whether they can be expressed as a convex
combination of pure product states or not, one can distinguish between separable and entangled
states. Thus for { }=1. the Hilbert spaces of the local subsystems( =
=1 , separable
states r s can be written as
= ||,
Where > 0, = 1 | =
=1 | , | ,

Relative Entropy of Entanglement: - The relative entropy of entanglement measure is less

based on the paradigm of teleportation and maximally entangled pairs than the previous
measures. It is instead a measure of how far a state is from being separable. The relative entropy
of entanglement ERE is given by
 () =
( )
Where D is some distance measure like the trace distance. S is the set of separable states and
( ) refers to some distance measure between the states and. A suitable distance
function is the relative entropy.
( ) = { }

This corresponds to a measure of how different/ distinguishable the two probability functions and are
[28]. The relative entropy of entanglement satisfies the first three conditions according to analytical
proofs but it is unclear whether the fourth (additivity) is satisfied. A physical insight gained from this is
that for so called Werner states the relative entropy of entanglement is, in general, less than the
entanglement of formation. From the first law and the nature of EF this implies that one cannot distill out
as much entanglement as it took to create this state, i.e. it is an irreversible process.

Geometry measurement of Entanglement:-

The geometric measure of entanglement measures the maximum overlap between a given state
and the set of separable states, or equivalently, the set of pure product states, and is defined as

2 () =
() = | ||,

() = 2()

Here SEP denotes the set of separable states, and PRO the set of pure product states that fully
factorize log has base 2 throughout this article. Any pure product state maximizing Eq. (1) is a
closest product state of.

Relevant Theory:-
Measurement plays a vital role in the practice of science. This is especially
so in the case of quantum mechanics, where the measurement process is fundamental to the
formulation of the theory. A crucial feature of quantum mechanics is that a measurement of one
variable of a system erases information about the corresponding conjugate variable. The classic
example is that determining the position of a particle disturbs its momentum, and vice versa. These
measurements, known as strong measurements, collapse the wave function such that no additional
information can be obtained.
The existence of quantum correlations is a fundamental difference
between quantum and classical physics. Entanglement is one kind of quantum correlation that is
stronger than all existing classical correlations. Its understanding has led to the development of
communication protocols like quantum teleportation [1] and quantum cryptography [2], and
enables measurements with a precision that exceeds the standard quantum limit [3]. For Quantum
Information Science, entanglement is a valuable resource [4].
QUANTUM SUPERPOSITION:-
The heart of quantum mechanics is the superposition principle 6. According to superposition
principle two or more states may be superposed and give a new state 7. This is also define that
the quantum superposition of a quantum system can be any linear superposition of those two
and more states.

Superposition can be represented mathematically in the following form as

|> = |0> + |1> (1)

Where for example,

is amplitude of state |0>

is amplitude of state |1>

and are complex number and ||2+||2=1 (State of Normalization).

If there is a k-level quantum system then superposition state is defined as

| = 0 |0 + 1 |1 + 1 | 1, (2)

Where,1 2
=0 | | =1

A superposition is the basic unit of information in quantum computers .It is known as a Qubit.

HOW THE MEASUREMENT OF A SUPERPOSITION STATE IS DONE:-

Figure 1. Measurement of superposition state.

There are our main interest is measuring the quantum state |>. It is unknown what a
superposition state itself is, but it can be seen in classical states with their probability 8. If
measuring a Qubit, then the state of the Qubit after measurement will be |0> with
2
probability| |2, and |1>with probability| | as shown in figure 1.

QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT:-
Consider two three level quantum systems A and B and let HA and HB denote the corresponding
Hilbert. Suppose now that we are interested in the composite system AB made up of A and B.
The composite system Hilbert space HAB is a tensor product of HA and HB:
=
Which means that if |A HA and |B HB denote state vectors of A and B, respectively, then the
joint system is in the state
| = ||
Note however, that a general vector from HAB cannot be written this way. We call an element
| HAB a separable state if there are | HA and | HB such that = | | . If
this is not the case we call | an entangled state or simply no separable state.

There are two three level quantum system have |1 , |2 |3 denote as basis in HA and
|1 , |2 |3 denote the basis in HB .Then
| | , i= 1, 2, 3 and j=1, 2, 3
Define a basis in 33 dimension space HAB. It means that an arbitrary vector | HAB may be
represented as follows:
| = 3 3 | (| | )
With |ij C. Now, given a state | HAB is it separable or entangled? To answer this question
let us observe that for every | in HAB.
Qutrit: -
For one qutrit any state vector | has the form

| = ( ), | = ( , , )

Where the complex numbers a=a1+ia2, b = b1+ib2 and c=c1+ic2 satisfy the normalization condition
| = |a|2+|b|2+|c|2=1

Fig. 1 Qutrit system has three energy level in which quantum states associated with probabilistic
distribution form.

The 33 density matrix of the pure state | gives as

 ||2
= | = ( ||2 )
||2
The trace of the density matrix is

Tr = |a|2+|b|2+|c|2=1
Let|1, |2 and |3 be an orthonormal basis for a first qutrit system |3 .A pure state is
superposition of their sub-states. Normalization and a choice for the arbitrary overall phase allow
us to write these four parameters for any pure state | as
|3 = 1 |1 + 2 |2 + |3

0 , , 0 1, 2 2
2
Where and determine the magnitudes of the components of qutrit states, while it can be
interpreted by 1 2 as the quantum phase associated with qutrit.

Monogamy of entanglement: -
Monogamy is one of the most fundamental properties of quantum entanglement. It restricts the
share ability of quantum correlations among parties and is of essential importance in many
quantum information processing protocols, including quantum cryptography and entanglement
distillation.
To study the dynamics of pairwise interactions, in which the monogamy of bipartite
quantum entanglement distribution plays a crucial role, if two quantum states are maximally
quantum correlated then they cannot be correlated with other quantum states.

The Geometric measure of entanglement: -The geometric measure of entanglement

is a distance like entanglement measure for pure multipartite states that assesses the
entanglement of a state in terms of its remoteness from the set of separable states [29]. It is
defined as the maximal overlap of a given pure state with all pure product states [3, 30, 31] and
is also defined as the geodesic distance with respect to the Fubini-Study metric [32]. Here we
present it in the inverse logarithmic form of the maximal overlap, which is more convenient in
relation to other entanglement measures:
1
(|) = | 2 (|( |)|2 )
EG is non-negative and zero iff | is a product state. We denote a product state closest to j i by
| | HSEP, and it should be noted that a given | can have more than one closest
product state. Indeed, we will usually deal with entangled states that have several closest product
states. Due to its compactness, the normalized, pure Hilbert space of a finite-dimensional system
(e.g. n qudits) always contains at least one state | with maximal entanglement, and to each
such state relates at least one closest product state. The task of determining maximal
entanglement can be formulated as a max-min problem, with the two extrema not necessarily
being unambiguous:
 1
= | | 2 (|( |)|2 ) , ,
1
= |2 (|( |)|2 ),

1
=2 ( | ).
|( )|2
It is often more convenient to define(|) = | |||, so that we obtain =
2 (1 2 ). Because of the monotonicity of the relationship, the task of finding the maximally
entangled state is equivalent to solving the min-max problem

|(|) = | | ||| .

The geometric measure Eg has close links to other distance-like entanglement measures, namely
the relative entropy of entanglement ER [66, 119] and the logarithmic robustness of entanglement
ERob = log2(1+R), where R is the usual global robustness of entanglement [139, 140]. Between
these measures the inequalities
(|) (|) (|)

Hold for all pure states. These inequalities do not hold for mixed states, but a generalization is
possible by defining () = () (), where S() = () is the von Neumann
entropy, which is zero for all pure states:
() ().
()

For pure states the relationship (2.5) implies that the GM is a lower bound for both the relative
entropy of entanglement and the logarithmic robustness of entanglement. For stabilizer states
(e.g. GHZ state), Dicke states (e.g. W state), permutation-antisymmetric basis states [83, 134,
143] and symmetric states with totally invariant MP distributions [85] (which will be discussed
in Section 3.1.3) the three distance-like entanglement measures coincide
= =

This equivalence is intriguing because the three measures have different interpretations.
As an entropic quantity, ER has information theoretic implications, while ERob measures the
resistance of entanglement against arbitrary noise.

Majorana Representation: -
The condensed matter physics community has been galvanized by the apparent experimental
discovery of Majorana modes. These entities, whose existence had been anticipated theoretically,
dramatically expand the known possibilities of quantum behavior. They could become important
components in quantum engineering; specifically, they might provide the basic elements the
qubits for a quantum computer
The analogy to spin proves inadequate, however, when we come to describe systems of several
identical mode-icules. Crucially, the emergent Majorana" degrees of freedom attached to
separate mode-icules, unlike ordinary spins, are not entirely independent. On the contrary: Those
emergent degrees of freedom are, unavoidably, highly entangled. Here a different analogy may
be helpful. When we have a system containing several electrons, their states are not entirely
independent. Specifically, multi-electron states are constrained by the Pauli Exclusion Principle,
which forbids two electrons from occupying the quantum state, and more generally by Fermi
statistics. Majorana degrees of freedom display a considerably more intricate and interesting
form of entanglement. The quantum state of 2n mode-icules is described by a 2n-dimensional
wave function, whereas 2n independent spins would require 22n dimensions. This constraint
arises because mode icules are no abelian anyons (as opposed to fermions or bosons). Although
entanglement drastically reduces the wave function's dimensionality, it remains exponentially
large. Interchange of mode-icules is accompanied by complicated but perfectly predictable
evolution of their wave functions in Hilbert space, described by the mathematics of Clifford
algebra.
By means of the Majorana representation any symmetric state wave function of n qubits |
can be uniquely composed, up to an unphysical global phase, from a sum over all permutations
of n indistinguishable single qubit states{|1 , , | }, with Sn being the symmetric
group of n elements.

| = |(1) |(2) |() ,


with | = |0 + |1 , and = ! =1 |() .
2 2

Here is a global phase, and the normalization factor K is in general different for
different| . The qubits | are uniquely determined by the choice of | and they determine
the normalization factor K, any n qubit state | can be unambiguously visualized by a multiset
of n points (each of which has a Bloch vector pointing in its direction) on the surface of S2. We
call these points the Majorana points (MPs), and the sphere on which they lie the Majorana
sphere.