 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |

© Nature
Publishing
Group
2006 |
|  |
|
Quantum teleportation is the transmission and reconstruction of the state of a quantum system an idea that was demonstrated experimentally by Dik Bouwmeester and colleagues in 1997. As their principal teleportation resource, the team used a pair of entangled photons; to effect the teleportation, they initiated a measurement involving one photon of the pair and a third photon. As a consequence of this interaction, the state of polarization of the third photon was transferred perfectly to the second photon of the entangled pair. In principle, this process should work even if the teleportation takes place over an arbitrarily large distance.
Nature 390,
575579 (1997)
| click
here for a PDF version (518 K) |
| Experimental quantum
teleportationDik Bouwmeester, Jian-Wei Pan, Klaus Mattle,
Manfred Eibl, Harald Weinfurter & Anton Zeilinger Institut
für Experimentalphysik, Universität Innsbruck, Technikerstr. 25, A-6020
Innsbruck, Austria Quantum teleportationthe transmission
and reconstruction over arbitrary distances of the state of a quantum systemis
demonstrated experimentally. During teleportation, an initial photon which carries
the polarization that is to be transferred and one of a pair of entangled photons
are subjected to a measurement such that the second photon of the entangled pair
acquires the polarization of the initial photon. This latter photon can be arbitrarily
far away from the initial one. Quantum teleportation will be a critical ingredient
for quantum computation networks. The dream of teleportation
is to be able to travel by simply reappearing at some distant location. An object
to be teleported can be fully characterized by its properties, which in classical
physics can be determined by measurement. To make a copy of that object at a distant
location one does not need the original parts and piecesall that is needed
is to send the scanned information so that it can be used for reconstructing the
object. But how precisely can this be a true copy of the original? What if these
parts and pieces are electrons, atoms and molecules? What happens to their individual
quantum properties, which according to the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
cannot be measured with arbitrary precision? Bennett et al.1
have suggested that it is possible to transfer the quantum state of a particle
onto another particlethe process of quantum teleportationprovided
one does not get any information about the state in the course of this transformation.
This requirement can be fulfilled by using entanglement, the essential feature
of quantum mechanics2. It describes correlations
between quantum systems much stronger than any classical correlation could be. The
possibility of transferring quantum information is one of the cornerstones of
the emerging field of quantum communication and quantum computation3.
Although there is fast progress in the theoretical description of quantum information
processing, the difficulties in handling quantum systems have not allowed an equal
advance in the experimental realization of the new proposals. Besides the promising
developments of quantum cryptography4 (the first
provably secure way to send secret messages), we have only recently succeeded
in demonstrating the possibility of quantum dense coding5,
a way to quantum mechanically enhance data compression. The main reason for this
slow experimental progress is that, although there exist methods to produce pairs
of entangled photons6, entanglement has been demonstrated
for atoms only very recently7 and it has not been
possible thus far to produce entangled states of more than two quanta. Here
we report the first experimental verification of quantum teleportation. By producing
pairs of entangled photons by the process of parametric down-conversion and using
two-photon interferometry for analysing entanglement, we could transfer a quantum
property (in our case the polarization state) from one photon to another. The
methods developed for this experiment will be of great importance both for exploring
the field of quantum communication and for future experiments on the foundations
of quantum mechanics. The problemTo make the problem of transferring
quantum information clearer, suppose that Alice has some particle in a certain
quantum state | y
and she wants Bob, at a distant location, to have a particle in that state. There
is certainly the possibility of sending Bob the particle directly. But suppose
that the communication channel between Alice and Bob is not good enough to preserve
the necessary quantum coherence or suppose that this would take too much time,
which could easily be the case if | y
is the state of a more complicated or massive object. Then, what strategy can
Alice and Bob pursue? As mentioned above, no measurement that
Alice can perform on | y will
be sufficient for Bob to reconstruct the state because the state of a quantum
system cannot be fully determined by measurements. Quantum systems are so evasive
because they can be in a superposition of several states at the same time. A measurement
on the quantum system will force it into only one of these statesthis is
often referred to as the projection postulate. We can illustrate this important
quantum feature by taking a single photon, which can be horizontally or vertically
polarized, indicated by the states |
and | .
It can even be polarized in the general superposition of these two states
where a
and b are two complex numbers satisfying |
a |2 + | b |2 = 1. To
place this example in a more general setting we can replace the states |
and |
in equation (1) by |0
and |1 , which refer
to the states of any two-state quantum system. Superpositions of |0 and
|1 are called qubits
to signify the new possibilities introduced by quantum physics into information
science8.If a photon in state
|y
passes through a polarizing beamsplittera device that reflects (transmits)
horizontally (vertically) polarized photonsit will be found in the reflected
(transmitted) beam with probability |a|2
(|b|2). Then the general state |y
has been projected either onto |
or onto |
by the action of the measurement. We conclude that the rules of quantum mechanics,
in particular the projection postulate, make it impossible for Alice to perform
a measurement on |y
by which she would obtain all the information necessary to reconstruct the state. The
concept of quantum teleportationAlthough the projection postulate in quantum
mechanics seems to bring Alice's attempts to provide Bob with the state |y
to a halt, it was realised by Bennett et al.11
that precisely this projection postulate enables teleportation of |y
from Alice to Bob. During teleportation Alice will destroy the quantum state at
hand while Bob receives the quantum state, with neither Alice nor Bob obtaining
information about the state |y .
A key role in the teleportation scheme is played by an entangled ancillary pair
of particles which will be initially shared by Alice and Bob. Suppose
particle 1 which Alice wants to teleport is in the initial state |y 1
= a| 1
+ b| 1
(Fig. 1a), and the entangled pair of particles 2 and 3 shared
by Alice and Bob is in the state:
 | Figure
1 Scheme showing principles involved in quantum teleportation (a)
and the experimental set-up (b). a, Alice has a quantum system,
particle 1, in an initial state which she wants to teleport to Bob. Alice and
Bob also share an ancillary entangled pair of particles 2 and 3 emitted by an
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) source. Alice then performs a joint Bell-state measurement
(BSM) on the initial particle and one of the ancillaries, projecting them also
onto an entangled state. After she has sent the result of her measurement as classical
information to Bob, he can perform a unitary transformation (U) on the other ancillary
particle resulting in it being in the state of the original particle. b,
A pulse of ultraviolet radiation passing through a nonlinear crystal creates the
ancillary pair of photons 2 and 3. After retroflection during its second passage
through the crystal the ultraviolet pulse creates another pair of photons, one
of which will be prepared in the initial state of photon 1 to be teleported, the
other one serving as a trigger indicating that a photon to be teleported is under
way. Alice then looks for coincidences after a beam splitter BS where the initial
photon and one of the ancillaries are superposed. Bob, after receiving the classical
information that Alice obtained a coincidence count in detectors f1 and f2 identifying
the |y- 12
Bell state, knows that his photon 3 is in the initial state of photon 1 which
he then can check using polarization analysis with the polarizing beam splitter
PBS and the detectors d1 and d2. The detector p provides the information that
photon 1 is under way. |
high-resolution version | |
That
entangled pair is a single quantum system in an equal superposition of the states
| 2| 3
and | 2| 3.
The entangled state contains no information on the individual particles; it only
indicates that the two particles will be in opposite states. The important property
of an entangled pair is that as soon as a measurement on one of the particles
projects it, say, onto |
the state of the other one is determined to be | ,
and vice versa. How could a measurement on one of the particles instantaneously
influence the state of the other particle, which can be arbitrarily far away?
Einstein, among many other distinguished physicists, could simply not accept this
"spooky action at a distance". But this property of entangled states
has now been demonstrated by numerous experiments (for reviews, see refs 9,10).
The
teleportation scheme works as follows. Alice has the particle 1 in the initial
state |y 1
and particle 2. Particle 2 is entangled with particle 3 in the hands of Bob. The
essential point is to perform a specific measurement on particles 1 and 2 which
projects them onto the entangled state:  This
is only one of four possible maximally entangled states into which any state of
two particles can be decomposed. The projection of an arbitrary state of two particles
onto the basis of the four states is called a Bell-state measurement. The state
given in equation (3) distinguishes itself from the three other maximally entangled
states by the fact that it changes sign upon interchanging particle 1 and particle
2. This unique antisymmetric feature of |y- 12
will play an important role in the experimental identification, that is, in measurements
of this state. Quantum physics predicts1
that once particles 1 and 2 are projected into |y- 12,
particle 3 is instantaneously projected into the initial state of particle 1.
The reason for this is as follows. Because we observe particles 1 and 2 in the
state |y- 12
we know that whatever the state of particle 1 is, particle 2 must be in the opposite
state, that is, in the state orthogonal to the state of particle 1. But we had
initially prepared particle 2 and 3 in the state |y- 23,
which means that particle 2 is also orthogonal to particle 3. This is only possible
if particle 3 is in the same state as particle 1 was initially. The final state
of particle 3 is therefore:
We note that during the Bell-state measurement particle 1 loses
its identity because it becomes entangled with particle 2. Therefore the state
|y 1
is destroyed on Alice's side during teleportation. This result
(equation (4)) deserves some further comments. The transfer of quantum information
from particle 1 to particle 3 can happen over arbitrary distances, hence the name
teleportation. Experimentally, quantum entanglement has been shown11
to survive over distances of the order of 10 km. We note that in the teleportation
scheme it is not necessary for Alice to know where Bob is. Furthermore, the initial
state of particle 1 can be completely unknown not only to Alice but to anyone.
It could even be quantum mechanically completely undefined at the time the Bell-state
measurement takes place. This is the case when, as already remarked by Bennett
et al.1, particle 1 itself is a member of
an entangled pair and therefore has no well-defined properties on its own. This
ultimately leads to entanglement swapping12,13. It
is also important to notice that the Bell-state measurement does not reveal any
information on the properties of any of the particles. This is the very reason
why quantum teleportation using coherent two-particle superpositions works, while
any measurement on one-particle superpositions would fail. The fact that no information
whatsoever is gained on either particle is also the reason why quantum teleportation
escapes the verdict of the no-cloning theorem14.
After successful teleportation particle 1 is not available in its original state
any more, and therefore particle 3 is not a clone but is really the result of
teleportation. A complete Bell-state measurement can not only
give the result that the two particles 1 and 2 are in the antisymmetric state,
but with equal probabilities of 25% we could find them in any one of the three
other entangled states. When this happens, particle 3 is left in one of three
different states. It can then be brought by Bob into the original state of particle
1 by an accordingly chosen transformation, independent of the state of particle
1, after receiving via a classical communication channel the information on which
of the Bell-state results was obtained by Alice. Yet we note, with emphasis, that
even if we chose to identify only one of the four Bell states as discussed above,
teleportation is successfully achieved, albeit only in a quarter of the cases. Experimental
realizationTeleportation necessitates both production and measurement
of entangled states; these are the two most challenging tasks for any experimental
realization. Thus far there are only a few experimental techniques by which one
can prepare entangled states, and there exist no experimentally realized procedures
to identify all four Bell states for any kind of quantum system. However, entangled
pairs of photons can readily be generated and they can be projected onto at least
two of the four Bell states. We produced the entangled photons
2 and 3 by parametric down-conversion. In this technique, inside a nonlinear crystal,
an incoming pump photon can decay spontaneously into two photons which, in the
case of type II parametric down-conversion, are in the state given by equation
(2) (Fig. 2)6.  | Figure
2 Photons emerging from type II down-conversion (see text). Photograph
taken perpendicular to the propagation direction. Photons are produced in pairs.
A photon on the top circle is horizontally polarized while its exactly opposite
partner in the bottom circle is vertically polarized. At the intersection points
their polarizations are undefined; all that is known is that they have to be different,
which results in entanglement. |
high-resolution version | |
To
achieve projection of photons 1 and 2 into a Bell state we have to make them indistinguishable.
To achieve this indistinguishability we superpose the two photons at a beam splitter
(Fig. 1b). Then if they are incident one from each side, how
can it happen that they emerge still one on each side? Clearly this can happen
if they are either both reflected or both transmitted. In quantum physics we have
to superimpose the amplitudes for these two possibilities. Unitarity implies that
the amplitude for both photons being reflected obtains an additional minus sign.
Therefore, it seems that the two processes cancel each other. This is, however,
only true for a symmetric input state. For an antisymmetric state, the two possibilities
obtain another relative minus sign, and therefore they constructively interfere15,16.
It is thus sufficient for projecting photons 1 and 2 onto the antisymmetric state
|y- 12
to place detectors in each of the outputs of the beam splitter and to register
simultaneous detections (coincidence)1719. To
make sure that photons 1 and 2 cannot be distinguished by their arrival times,
they were generated using a pulsed pump beam and sent through narrow-bandwidth
filters producing a coherence time much longer than the pump pulse length20.
In the experiment, the pump pulses had a duration of 200 fs at a repetition rate
of 76 MHz. Observing the down-converted photons at a wavelength of 788 nm and
a bandwidth of 4 nm results in a coherence time of 520 fs. It should be mentioned
that, because photon 1 is also produced as part of an entangled pair, its partner
can serve to indicate that it was emitted. How can one experimentally
prove that an unknown quantum state can be teleported? First, one has to show
that teleportation works for a (complete) basis, a set of known states into which
any other state can be decomposed. A basis for polarization states has just two
components, and in principle we could choose as the basis horizontal and vertical
polarization as emitted by the source. Yet this would not demonstrate that teleportation
works for any general superposition, because these two directions are preferred
directions in our experiment. Therefore, in the first demonstration we choose
as the basis for teleportation the two states linearly polarized at 45°
and +45° which are already superpositions of the horizontal and vertical polarizations.
Second, one has to show that teleportation works for superpositions of these base
states. Therefore we also demonstrate teleportation for circular polarization. ResultsIn
the first experiment photon 1 is polarized at 45°. Teleportation should work
as soon as photon 1 and 2 are detected in the |y- 12
state, which occurs in 25% of all possible cases. The |y- 12
state is identified by recording a coincidence between two detectors, f1 and f2,
placed behind the beam splitter (Fig. 1b). If
we detect a f1f2 coincidence (between detectors f1 and f2), then photon 3 should
also be polarized at 45°. The polarization of photon 3 is analysed by passing
it through a polarizing beam splitter selecting +45° and 45° polarization.
To demonstrate teleportation, only detector d2 at the +45° output of the polarizing
beam splitter should click (that is, register a detection) once detectors f1 and
f2 click. Detector d1 at the 45° output of the polarizing beam splitter
should not detect a photon. Therefore, recording a three-fold coincidence d2f1f2
(+45° analysis) together with the absence of a three-fold coincidence d1f1f2
(45° analysis) is a proof that the polarization of photon 1 has been
teleported to photon 3. To meet the condition of temporal overlap,
we change in small steps the arrival time of photon 2 by changing the delay between
the first and second down-conversion by translating the retroflection mirror (Fig.
1b). In this way we scan into the region of temporal overlap at the beam splitter
so that teleportation should occur. Outside the region of teleportation,
photon 1 and 2 each will go either to f1 or to f2 independent of one another.
The probability of having a coincidence between f1 and f2 is therefore 50%, which
is twice as high as inside the region of teleportation. Photon 3 should not have
a well-defined polarization because it is part of an entangled pair. Therefore,
d1 and d2 have both a 50% chance of receiving photon 3. This simple argument yields
a 25% probability both for the 45° analysis (d1f1f2 coincidences) and
for the +45° analysis (d2f1f2 coincidences) outside the region of teleportation.
Figure 3 summarizes the predictions as a function of the delay.
Successful teleportation of the +45° polarization state is then characterized
by a decrease to zero in the 45° analysis (Fig. 3a),
and by a constant value for the +45° analysis (Fig. 3b).  | Figure
3 Theoretical prediction for the three-fold coincidence probability between
the two Bell-state detectors (f1, f2) and one of the detectors analysing the teleported
state. The signature of teleportation of a photon polarization state at +45°
is a dip to zero at zero delay in the three-fold coincidence rate with the detector
analysing -45° (d1f1f2) (a) and a constant value for the detector analysis
+45° (d2f1f2) (b). The shaded area indicates the region of teleportation. |
high-resolution version | |
The
theoretical prediction of Fig. 3 may easily be understood by
realizing that at zero delay there is a decrease to half in the coincidence rate
for the two detectors of the Bell-state analyser, f1 and f2, compared with outside
the region of teleportation. Therefore, if the polarization of photon 3 were completely
uncorrelated to the others the three-fold coincidence should also show this dip
to half. That the right state is teleported is indicated by the fact that the
dip goes to zero in Fig. 3a and that it is filled to a flat
curve in Fig. 3b.
We note that equally
as likely as the production of photons 1, 2 and 3 is the emission of two pairs
of down-converted photons by a single source. Although there is no photon coming
from the first source (photon 1 is absent), there will still be a significant
contribution to the three-fold coincidence rates. These coincidences have nothing
to do with teleportation and can be identified by blocking the path of photon
1.The probability for this process to yield spurious two- and
three-fold coincidences can be estimated by taking into account the experimental
parameters. The experimentally determined value for the percentage of spurious
three-fold coincidences is 68% ± 1%. In the experimental graphs of Fig.
4 we have subtracted the experimentally determined spurious coincidences.
 | Figure
4 Experimental results. Measured three-fold coincidence rates d1f1f2 (45°)
and d2f1f2 (+45°) in the case that the photon state to be teleported is polarized
at +45° (a and b) or at 45° (c and d).
The coincidence rates are plotted as function of the delay between the arrival
of photon 1 and 2 at Alice's beam splitter (seeFig. 1b). The
three-fold coincidence rates are plotted after subtracting the spurious three-fold
contribution (see text). These data, compared with Fig. 3, together
with similar ones for other polarizations (Table 1) confirm
teleportation for an arbitrary state. |
high-resolution version | |
Table
1 Visibility of teleportation in three fold coincidences
Polarization | Visibility |
+45° | 0.63 ± 0.02 | 45° | 0.64
± 0.02 | 0° | 0.66 ± 0.02 |
90° | 0.61 ± 0.02 | Circular | 0.57
± 0.02 | The
experimental results for teleportation of photons polarized under +45° are
shown in the left-hand column of Fig. 4; Fig.
4a and b should be compared with the theoretical predictions shown in Fig.
3. The strong decrease in the 45° analysis, and the constant signal
for the +45° analysis, indicate that photon 3 is polarized along the direction
of photon 1, confirming teleportation.
The results for photon
1 polarized at 45° demonstrate that teleportation works for a complete
basis for polarization states (right-hand column of Fig. 4).
To rule out any classical explanation for the experimental results, we have produced
further confirmation that our procedure works by additional experiments. In these
experiments we teleported photons linearly polarized at 0° and at 90°,
and also teleported circularly polarized photons. The experimental results are
summarized in Table 1, where we list the visibility of the dip
in three-fold coincidences, which occurs for analysis orthogonal to the input
polarization. As mentioned above, the values for the visibilities
are obtained after subtracting the offset caused by spurious three-fold coincidences.
These can experimentally be excluded by conditioning the three-fold coincidences
on the detection of photon 4, which effectively projects photon 1 into a single-particle
state. We have performed this four-fold coincidence measurement for the case of
teleportation of the +45° and +90° polarization states, that is, for two
non-orthogonal states. The experimental results are shown in Fig. 5. Visibilities
of 70% ± 3% are obtained for the dips in the orthogonal polarization states.
Here, these visibilities are directly the degree of polarization of the teleported
photon in the right state. This proves that we have demonstrated teleportation
of the quantum state of a single photon.  | Figure
5 Four-fold coincidence rates (without background subtraction). Conditioning
the three-fold coincidences as shown in Fig. 4 on the registration of photon 4
(see Fig. 1b) eliminates the spurious three-fold background.
a and b show the four-fold coincidence measurements for the case
of teleportation of the +45° polarization state; c and d show
the results for the +90° polarization state. The visibilities, and thus the
polarizations of the teleported photons, obtained without any background subtraction
are 70% ± 3%. These results for teleportation of two non-orthogonal states
prove that we have demonstrated teleportation of the quantum state of a single
photon. |
high-resolution version | |
The
next steps
In our experiment, we used pairs of polarization entangled photons
as produced by pulsed down-conversion and two-photon interferometric methods to
transfer the polarization state of one photon onto another one. But teleportation
is by no means restricted to this system. In addition to pairs of entangled photons
or entangled atoms7,21, one
could imagine entangling photons with atoms, or phonons with ions, and so on.
Then teleportation would allow us to transfer the state of, for example, fast-decohering,
short-lived particles, onto some more stable systems. This opens the possibility
of quantum memories, where the information of incoming photons is stored on trapped
ions, carefully shielded from the environment. Furthermore,
by using entanglement purification22a scheme
of improving the quality of entanglement if it was degraded by decoherence during
storage or transmission of the particles over noisy channelsit becomes possible
to teleport the quantum state of a particle to some place, even if the available
quantum channels are of very poor quality and thus sending the particle itself
would very probably destroy the fragile quantum state. The feasibility of preserving
quantum states in a hostile environment will have great advantages in the realm
of quantum computation. The teleportation scheme could also be used to provide
links between quantum computers. Quantum teleportation is not
only an important ingredient in quantum information tasks; it also allows new
types of experiments and investigations of the foundations of quantum mechanics.
As any arbitrary state can be teleported, so can the fully undetermined state
of a particle which is member of an entangled pair. Doing so, one transfers the
entanglement between particles. This allows us not only to chain the transmission
of quantum states over distances, where decoherence would have already destroyed
the state completely, but it also enables us to perform a test of Bell's theorem
on particles which do not share any common past, a new step in the investigation
of the features of quantum mechanics. Last but not least, the discussion about
the local realistic character of nature could be settled firmly if one used features
of the experiment presented here to generate entanglement between more than two
spatially separated particles23,24. Received
16 October; accepted 18 November 1997. - Bennett,
C. H. et al. Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classic and
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 18951899
(1993).
- Schrödinger, E. Die gegenwärtige
Situation in der Quantenmechanik. Naturwissenschaften 23, 807812;
823828; 844849 (1935).
- Bennett, C. H. Quantum
information and computation. Phys. Today 48(10), 2430, October
(1995).
- Bennett, C. H., Brassard, G. & Ekert, A.
K. Quantum Cryptography. Sci. Am. 267(4), 5057, October (1992).
- Mattle,
K., Weinfurter, H., Kwiat, P. G. & Zeilinger, A. Dense coding in experimental
quantum communication. Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 46564659 (1996).
- Kwiat,
P. G. et al. New high intensity source of polarization-entangled photon
pairs. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 43374341 (1995).
- Hagley,
E. et al. Generation of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen pairs of atoms. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 79, 15 (1997).
- Schumacher,
B. Quantum coding. Phys. Rev. A 51, 27382747 (1995).
- Clauser,
J. F. & Shimony, A. Bell's theorem: experimental tests and implications. Rep.
Prog. Phys. 41, 18811927 (1978).
- Greenberger,
D. M., Horne, M. A. & Zeilinger, A. Multiparticle interferometry and the superposition
principle. Phys. Today August, 2229 (1993).
- Tittel,
W. et al. Experimental demonstration of quantum-correlations over more
than 10 kilometers. Phys. Rev. Lett. (submitted).
- Zukowski,
M., Zeilinger, A., Horne, M. A. & Ekert, A. "Event-ready-detectors"
Bell experiment via entanglement swapping. Phys. Rev. Lett. 71,
42874290 (1993).
- Bose, S., Vedral, V. &
Knight, P. L. A multiparticle generalization of entanglement swapping, preprint.
- Wootters,
W. K. & Zurek, W. H. A single quantum cannot be cloned. Nature 299,
802803 (1982).
- London, R. Coherence
and Quantum Optics VI (eds Everly, I. H. & Mandel, L.) 703708 (Plenum,
New York, 1990).
- Zeilinger, A., Bernstein, H. J. &
Horne, M. A. Information transfer with two-state two-particle quantum systems.
J. Mod. Optics 41, 23752384 (1994).
- Weinfurter,
H. Experimental Bell-state analysis. Europhys. Lett. 25, 559564
(1994).
- Braunstein, S. I., & Mann, A. Measurement
of the Bell operator and quantum teleportation. Phys. Rev. A 51,
R1727R1730 (1995).
- Michler, M., Mattle, K.,
Weinfurter, H. & Zeilinger, A. Interferometric Bell-state analysis. Phys.
Rev. A 53, R1209R1212 (1996).
- Zukowski,
M., Zeilinger, A. & Weinfurter, H. Entangling photons radiated by independent
pulsed sources. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 755, 91102 (1995).
- Fry,
E. S., Walther, T. & Li, S. Proposal for a loophole-free test of the Bell
inequalities. Phys. Rev. A 52, 43814395 (1995).
- Bennett,
C. H. et al. Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation
via noisy channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 722725 (1996).
- Greenberger,
D. M., Horne, M. A., Shimony, A. & Zeilinger, A. Bell's theorem without inequalities.
Am. J. Phys. 58, 11311143 (1990).
- Zeilinger,
A., Horne, M. A., Weinfurter, H. & Zukowski, M. Three particle entanglements
from two entangled pairs. Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 30313034 (1997).
Acknowledgements.
We thank C. Bennett, I. Cirac, J. Rarity, W. Wootters and P. Zoller for discussions,
and M. Zukowski for suggestions about various aspects of the experiments. This
work was supported by the Austrian Science Foundation FWF, the Austrian Academy
of Sciences, the TMR program of the European Union and the US NSF. Correspondence
and requests for materials should be addressed to D.B. (e-mail: Dik.Bouwmeester@uibk.ac.at). |
return to
looking back index page | |