arxiv: v2 [quant-ph] 18 Apr 2017

Transcription

1 Measuring higher-imensional Entanglement Chanan Datta,,, Pankaj Agrawal,,, an Sujit K Chouhary, Institute of Physics, Sachivalaya Marg, Bhubaneswar 75005, Oisha, Inia. Homi Bhabha National Institute, Training School Complex, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai , Inia. arxiv: v [quant-ph] 8 Apr 07 We stuy local-realistic inequalities, Bell-type inequalities, for bipartite pure states of finite imensional quantum systems quits. There are a number of propose Bell-type inequalities for such systems. Our interest is in relating the value of Bell-type inequality function with a measure of entanglement. Interestingly, we fin that one of these inequalities, the Son-Lee-Kim inequality, can be use to measure entanglement of a pure bipartite quit state an a class of mixe two-quit states. Unlike the majority of earlier schemes in this irection, where number of observables neee to characterize the entanglement increases with the imension of the subsystems, this metho nees only four observables. We also iscuss the experimental feasibility of this scheme. It turns out that current experimental set ups can be use to measure the entanglement using our scheme. PACS numbers: U, Hk, Bg, Mn I. INTRODUCTION In a much celebrate paper, J. S. Bell establishe that any realistic interpretation of quantum theory is boun to be nonlocal []. Bell establishe this by means of an inequality which is violate by the singlet state of a pair of qubits. Later, it was shown that some other states also violate this inequality an thus forbi local-realistic escription for them. All these le to a very natural question whether this contraiction between quantum theory an local-realism is typical or it is restricte to some very special cases. Answer to this question came in 99 when Nicolas Gisin [] showe that any pure entangle state of a bipartite system violates a version of Bell s inequality, Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt CHSH) inequality [3]. Thus all pure bipartite states are nonlocal. The maximum quantum violation of this inequality is. It is known as the Tsirelson s boun [4], which a two-qubit maximally entangle state attains for a particular measurement setting. This leas to another interesting question is there any relation between violation of Bell s inequality an amount of entanglement? In the case of two-qubit entangle states, it can be shown that there exist measurement settings for which value of the Bell-CHSH operator increases with the entanglement of the state. Is this also the case for two-quit > ) entangle state? We answer this question also in affirmative. Entanglement in higher imensional systems is important from both funamental an practical point of view. Higher imensional entanglement provies important avantages in quantum communication than the conventional qubit entanglement. It provies more security against eavesropping in cryptography [5], it can be use to increase the channel-capacity via superense-coing chanan@iopb.res.in agrawal@iopb.res.in sujit@iopb.res.in [6] an is more robust against environmental noise [7] than the conventional two-qubit entanglement. However, for practical applications of these protocols, experimental preparation, etection an quantification of higher imensional entangle state is of crucial importance. The violation of Bell-type inequalities can etect the presence of entanglement in such systems. Therefore, Bell-type inequalities in higher imensional system have generate much interest in recent years [8 5]. One of the approaches to obtain Bell-type inequality in higher imension employs a projection of multilevel own to ichotomic one [, 8]. But sometimes it is also important to know whether it enables to probe genuine highimensionality or not [9, 0, 6]. In 00, Collins, Gisin, Linen, Massar, an Popescu introuce [9] an inequality henceforth will be referre to as CGLMP inequality) which is known to be the only tight inequality [7] for higher imensional systems. But, this inequality is not maximally violate for a maximally entangle state of such systems [8]. Interestingly, in 006, Son, Lee an Kim introuce another set of Bell-type inequalities for quit systems hereafter, the SLK inequality) [0] which is maximally violate for a maximally entangle state of two-quit. We show that for a particular measurement setting, the Bell-SLK function efine below) is zero for prouct states. Thus, a nonzero value of this function immeiately suggests that the measure state is entangle. Interestingly, for this setting, the value of the Bell- SLK function increases with the concurrence [9, 0] of the pure bipartite entangle states. Thus, the SLK test can serve as a measure of entanglement for pure bipartite states. The situation about mixe bipartite states of quits is complicate. One nees a reliable entanglement measure for a general mixe state of quits. Even for general bipartite qubit mixe states, the relation between entanglement an the value of CHSH function is not known. However, we fin a relation between the entanglement of a class of mixe states, isotropic states, an the value of the Bell-SLK function for the state. We further explore the relationship between the entanglement, as measure using negativity, an the value of

2 the Bell-SLK function for a maximally entangle state passe through noisy channels. The wiely aopte metho for measuring entanglement of a state is the quantum state tomographic reconstruction []. In this metho, a complete set of observables is measure on the system to reconstruct its state an thus to calculate the entanglement. Though, successfully implemente for lower-imensional systems [], this metho is not suitable for systems of higher imension. This is because the number of observables to be measure increases ramatically with the imension of the system [3]. However, there are suggestions to characterize the state with less number of observables, but most of these methos are for two-qubit systems [4]. For higher imensional systems, the alternative suggestions, though reuces the number of observables in comparison to the traitional tomography), but the number is still high an increases with the imension of the subsystems [5]. In case of bipartite systems, the number of measurements neee is of the orer of 4 is imension of each subsystem) [6]. Moreover, the implementation of these observables in an experiment is also an issue to be taken proper consieration[7]. The measurement of the Bell-SLK function can be a metho to measure entanglement of a pure bipartite state. Unlike the earlier schemes where number of observables neee epens on imension of subsystems, this scheme nees measurement of only four observables to calculate the entanglement of any pure bipartite state. Moreover, this new scheme can be implemente in laboratories with the existing technology. The paper is organize as follows. In Section II, we, iscuss the SLK test an obtain a relation between the Bell-SLK function an the concurrence. We exten the stuy to mixe states in Section III. The way to measure the Bell-SLK function an hence the concurrence in laboratories is briefly iscusse in Section IV. We conclue in Section V. II. THE SLK INEQUALITY AND CONCURRENCE In the SLK test, two far separate observers Alice an Bob, can inepenently choose one of the two observables enote by A, A for Alice an B, B for Bob. Measurement outcomes of the observables are elements of the set, V = {, ω,, ω }, where ω = exp πi/). In a variant of SLK inequality [], the Bell-SLK function, I SLK, is given by I SLK = ω n/4 C, n + ω 3n/4 C, n n= +ω n/4 C n, + ω n/4 C n,) + c.c., ) ω = expπi/), c.c. is for complex conjugate, C n a,b = A n ab n b. The assumption of local-realism implies I SLK I max SLK LR), where Imax SLK LR) = 3 cot π 4 ) 3π cot 4 []. By using Fourier transformation, we write Bell- SLK function in joint probability space as [, 8] I SLK = fα)[p A = B + α) +P B = A + α + ) + P A = B + α) +P B = A + α)], ) where sums insie the probabilities are moulo sums, an fα) = cot[ π α + 4 )] ). 3) We now calculate the value of the Bell-SLK function for an arbitrary pure two-quit state ψ = i c i ii an for the measurement settings originally given in [9]. The nonegenerate eigenvectors of the operators Âa, a =,, an ˆB b, b =,, are respectively k A,a = ω k+δa)j j, l B,b = ω l+ɛb)j j, 4) where δ = 0, δ = /, ɛ = /4 an ɛ = /4. The joint probabilities in ) can be calculate as P A = B + α) = P B = A + α + ) = P A = B + α) = P B = A + α) = c p c q ω α+/4)p q), c p c q ω α+/4)p q), c p c q ω α+/4)p q), Putting these probabilities in ), we get I SLK = 4 fα) c p c q ω α+/4)p q). 5) c p c q ω α+/4)p q). 6) From the ientity ) k cot k+ )π = [30], we can k=0 k=0 4 obtain another ientity cot 4k+ 4 )π =. Therefore, we get fα) = 0. We can then rewrite 6) as

3 3 I SLK = 4 = 4 fα) p q p q π c p c q 4 )p q) cot[ π 4 )] π c p c q 4 )p q). 7) To evaluate it further, we now nee to fin following two sums an πm 4 ), 8) πm π 4 ) cot 4 ), 9) where we have replace p q by m an integer). Using trigonometrical ientity in [3], we obtain πm 4 ) πm )πm ) = + sin πm ec πm = 0, 0) i.e, the first sum 8) is equal to zero. To calculate the sum 9), we will nee two sums that are not available in well known mathematics hanbooks. Motivate by this, we have recently obtaine a number of trigonometric functions sums [3]. Here we nee corollaries of the theorems in [3]. So we only inicate how to obtain one sum. Other is obtaine in the similar manner. Proposition: With a an k being positive integer such that a < k, an 0 < b <, k πaj k cot πj k + πb) = k [ba k)π] ec bkπ), ) Proof: To obtain the sum, we will use the metho of resiues. We take the complex function as [33] g z) = eπiaz cot πz + πb) e πikz e πiaz cot πz + πb) e πikz. ) Let us now consier the integral πi C g z)z, where C is a contour which is positively oriente inente rectangle with vertices at ±ir an ± ir, with R > ɛ, an with semicircular inentations of raius ɛ < b to the left of both 0 an. Since the perio of g z) is, the integrals along the intene vertical sies of C cancel. Here we have taken a such that 0 < a < k. g z) tens to 0 uniformly for 0 x as y. Hence, πi C g z)z = 0. We, next, calculate the resiue at ifferent poles of g z). g has simple poles at z = 0 an z = j/k, j k. The corresponing resiues can be calculate as Resg, 0) = πik cotπb), k πaj Resg, j/k) = cot πj + πb). 3) πik k k j= There is another pole insie the contour simple pole at z = b +. The resiue at this point is Resg, b + ) = i [ba k)π] ec bkπ). 4) π As the integral is zero, the sum of the resiues must be zero. We, thus, get k πaj k cot πj k + πb) = k [ba k)π] ec bkπ). 5) This completes the proof [34]. Similarly, we can obtain, with a an k being positive integer such that a < k, an 0 < b <. k sin πaj k cot πj k + πb) = k sin [ba k)π] ec bkπ). 6) Using above two results an sum an ifference formula for ines, we fin. πm π 4 ) cot 4 ) =. 7) This sum is remarkably simple. We note that the value of this sum is inepenent of m. This is crucial in relating the value of the Bell-SLK function an entanglement. Eqs. 3), 7), 0) an 7) together imply I SLK = 4 p q c p c q. 8) This sum is proportional to the concurrence of the state. The concurrence, C, for a two-quit pure state is efine as [9] C = c p c q. 9) p q This is a generalization of the concurrence for a system of two qubits [0]. Using this, we finally get I SLK = )C. 0)

4 4 Thus, we obtain an interesting relation between concurrence an the value of the Bell-SLK function for a particular measurement setting. Value of this function is zero for prouct states whereas it increases linearly with the concurrence for pure entangle states [35]. This gives a way to measure the entanglement of a pure entangle state. The entanglement can be calculate by measuring the Bell-SLK function for the state for the above, given in 4), measurement setting. III. CASE OF MIXED STATES A. Isotropic States As iscusse earlier, the case of mixe states even for bipartite qubit systems is far from simple. In the case of mixe bipartite quit states, one nees a proper measure of entanglement. For bipartite mixe states, the concurrence Cρ) is calculate by the convex-roof extension of the pure-state concurrence, i.e., by minimizing the average value of the concurrence mentione in Eq. 9)) over all ensemble ecompositions of the mixe state ρ: { } Cρ) = inf {p i, ψ i } i p i C ψ i ) i p i ψ i ψ i = ρ Interestingly, in [36], this concurrence has been shown to be an entanglement monotone. However, ue to extremization involve in the calculation, the concurrence in the close form has been obtaine only for a special class of mixe state, namely, for the isotropic states. For a two-quit system, isotropic states are convex mixtures of the maximally entangle state, Ψ + = jj, ) with a maximally mixe state I = I I/. These states can be written as ρ F = F I Ψ + Ψ + ) + F Ψ + Ψ +, ) where F is the fielity of ρ F an Ψ + satisfying 0 F. These states are separable for F / [37]. In the following, we calculate the Bell-SLK function for these states. The Bell-SLK function I SLK given in Eq. )) consists of four probabilities. Here, we calculate one of the probabilities, P A = B + α), other probabilities can be calculate similarly. P A = B + α) = Tr [ ˆP A = B + α)ρ F ] = F Tr[ ˆP A = B + α)i ] + F Tr[ ˆP A = B + α) Ψ + Ψ + ] ; 3). where ˆP A = B + α) stans for appropriate projector. The first part of the above sum can be calculate as Tr [ ˆP A = B + α)i ] = ω l+α)i j) ω l+/4)p q) i,j,p,q,l,m,n m i j m n p q n = 4) whereas the secon part as Tr [ ˆP A = B + α) Ψ + Ψ + ] = Ψ + ˆP A = B + α) Ψ + = 3 ω l+α)r s) ω l+/4)p q) i,j,l,r,s,p,q i r i p s j q j = ω α+/4)i j). 5) i,j The other three joint probabilities when calculate, come out to be equal to the probability calculate above. The Bell-SLK function, I SLK can now be obtaine, by putting for these probabilities in Eq. ), as: I SLK = ) F 4 ) F 4 Using the fact that fα) + i,j, fα)ω α+/4)i j).6) fα) = 0 This has been shown in Section II.), the Bell-SLK function reas I SLK = ) F 4 i,j, fα)ω α+/4)i j). 7) Proceeing now in a manner similar as in section II), we get the Bell-SLK function as I SLK = + F ). 8) The concurrence Cρ F ) for isotropic states with some normalization) has been calculate in [36] as { 0, F /, Cρ F ) = F, / F. 9) Using Eq.9) in Eq. 8), we can be rewrite the later equation to rea as { I SLK = + F ), F /, + )CρF ) + ) ), / F. 30)

5 5 Thus, we get an interesting relation between the Bell- SLK function an the concurrence for isotropic states. It can easily be checke that for F /, i.e. for the separable isotropic states, the value of the Bell-SLK function is upper boune by the + ). A value larger than this boun, immeiately suggests that the isotropic states unergoing the sai Bell-SLK measurements are entangle an their entanglement increases with the value of the Bell-SLK function. B. Maximally Entangle state through a noisy channel In this section, we will consier another class of mixe states that are obtaine when particles in a maximally entangle state pass through noisy channels. This is often a real laboratory situation. As we have alreay mentione there is no close from of concurrence for a general mixe state of two quits; so here we use another measure of entanglement, calle negativity [38]. The negativity of a state ρ is efine as N ρ) = ρt B, 3) amplitue amping channel can be represente in terms of Kraus operators as [40] K 0 = p 0, 0 0 p K = 0 p , K = 0 0 p 0 0 0, where p is the channel parameter. For simplicity we take same channel on both sies. We fin that, without noise, the value of I SLK is an negativity is N =. At 90% purity purity varies with the channel parameter, p) I SLK = an negativity is N = 0.9. So the value of negativity is about 8% lower. However, it turns out that there is still a relationship between the value of the Bell-SLK function an entanglement for such states. From the value of the Bell-SLK function we can infer the entanglement of the state in terms of negativity. This is clear from FIG. that looking at the I SLK curve, we can fin state s negativity at any purity. 5 4 where represents the trace norm an ρ T B is the partial transpose of the state ρ with respect to the subsystem B. For a pure state ψ = i c i ii the negativity can be written as [39] ISLK & 3 I SLK N ψ ψ ) = c p c q, 3) p q where c i are the Schmit coefficients. So it is same as concurrence for a pure state. Therefore, we can write 0) also as I SLK = )N. 33) Let s say a party prepares a maximally entangle state an sens it to two istant parties by some noisy channels. The state will no longer be a pure state. Since we can compute negativity for a mixe state, we can explore the relationship between negativity an the value of the Bell-SLK function. We can also fin how robust is the measurement of entanglement of a pure state using the Bell-SLK function. We will stuy this situation in = 3 taking two well known channels the amplitue amping an the phase amping channels.. Amplitue amping Let us consier a maximally entangle state ψ = ). Two qutrits are sent to istant parties through amplitue amping channels. For a qutrit, Purity FIG.. Change in the Bell-SLK function an negativity with purity for a maximally entangle two-qutrit state passe through the amplitue amping channel.. Phase amping Let us now consier the case when the two qutrits in a maximally entangle state pass through phase amping channels separately. The Kraus operators for the phase amping channel are [40] K 0 = p an K = p ω 0, ω where ω = e πi 3 an p is the channel parameter. We o the same analysis as for the amplitue amping channel. At 90% purity I SLK = 5.09 an N = 0.9. Both values ecrease by about 8%, as compare to the starting pure state. However, as before, from FIG., we notice an interesting relationship between entanglement an the value of the Bell-SLK function. If we measure the I SLK value

6 6 for the state, we can easily etermine the entanglement of the state in terms of negativity. ISLK & I SLK Purity FIG.. Change in the Bell-SLK function an negativity with purity for a maximally entangle two-qutrit state passe through the phase amping channel. IV. AN EXPERIMENTAL SCHEME Interestingly, this SLK test can be performe in laboratories with the present ay s technology [, 3]. One technique to encoe a state of a quit is to use the orbital angular momentum OAM) states of photons [4]. Higher imensional bipartite entanglement is generate through spontaneous parametric own conversion SPDC) [, 4]. In [], Daa et al. have employe the same measurement setting as in Eq. 4) to obtain the violation of CGLMP inequality for bipartite quit systems with imensions up to twelve. One can use the same experimental set up to measure the Bell-SLK function instea of the CGLMP function as one in []) in orer to fin the amount of entanglement present in a pure bipartite state. In this case, four observables are to be measure. However, in this experimental set up, the measurement of each observable requires ) experimental settings. The number of settings varies linearly with respect to the imension. In principle, it might be possible to reuce the number of settings to measure an observable with outcomes. In [3], Lo et al. employ a ifferent experimental set up.they simulate quits using multiple pairs of polarization-entangle photons. They also measure four observables with ) experimental settings for each observable an emonstrate the violation of CGLMP inequality up to = 6. Though violation of the CGLMP inequality can etect the presence of entanglement, but this violation cannot be use to measure the amount of entanglement present in the bipartite state, at least, for the employe setting. This is because, for these settings, CGLMP inequality is not maximally violate for a maximally entangle state of two quits [8]. It is also known [8] that CGLMP inequality is violate maximally by a partially entangle state. Therefore, it is unlikely that CGLMP function measurement can help in measuring the amount of entanglement in a two-quit state. As is known, the choice of measurement setting is important. There are measurement settings, for which even maximally entangle state may not violate an inequality. One of the key mathematical reason for the relation 0) to exist is that the sum 7) is inepenent of m. In the case of CGLMP inequality, the function fα) is ifferent, therefore a ifferent sum occurs. That sum is not inepenent of m. Therefore, such a relation oes not exist for the CGLMP inequality. However the measurement of the Bell-SLK function can help us in fining the amount of entanglement in a pure two-quit state. V. CONCLUSION In conclusion, we have stuie Bell-type inequalities for bipartite quit systems. There are many such localrealistic inequalities present in the literature. We have argue that one such inequality, namely the SLK inequality, can be useful in measuring the entanglement present in such systems. This also aresses an important question in entanglement theory: How to measure amount of entanglement for a bipartite state experimentally. The earlier methos for measuring entanglement requires number of observables to increase with imension of the subsystems. In contrast, the scheme presente here requires only four observables to be measure to fin the amount of entanglement present in a bipartite pure state. The scheme also works for a class of bipartite mixe quit states isotropic states. We have also consiere the case of mixe states which are obtaine after applying phase or amplitue amping channels on two qutrits which are in maximally entangle state. It appears that for such states one can also measure entanglement, as characterize by negativity. We have also iscusse the experimental feasibility of our scheme. Current state-of-the-art allows experimental measurement of these observables as in Eq. 4)) with settings to measure possible outcomes of each observable [3]. Improvements in the experimental set up may allow the measurement of each observable with fewer settings. VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENT S.K.C. acknowleges support from the Council of Scientific an Inustrial Research, Government of Inia Scientists Pool Scheme).

7 7 [] J. S. Bell Physics ); J. S. Bell Rev. Mo. Phys ). [] N. Gisin Phys. Lett. A ). [3] J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett ). [4] B. S. Tsirelson Lett. Math. Phys ). [5] H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci an A. Peres Phys. Rev. Lett ); D. Bruss an C. Macchiavello Phys. Rev. Lett ); T. Durt, N. J. Cerf, N. Gisin an M. Zukowski Phys. Rev. A ); T. Durt, D. Kaszlikowski, J. L. Chen an L. C. Kwek Phys. Rev. A ). [6] C. Wang, F.-G. Deng, Y.-S. Li, X.-S. Liu an G. L. Long Phys. Rev. A ). [7] M. L. Almeia, S. Pironio, J. Barrett, G. Toth, an A. Acin, Phys. Rev. Lett ); L. Sherian an V. Scarani Phys. Rev. A ). [8] N. Gisin an A. Peres Phys. Lett. A ). [9] D. Collins, N. Gisin, N. Linen, S. Massar, an S. Popescu Phys. Rev. Lett ). [0] W. Son, J. Lee an M. S. Kim Phys. Rev. Lett ). [] S.-W. Lee, J. Ryu, an J. Lee Journal of the Korean Physical Society, Vol. 48 No. 6, ). [] A. C. Daa, J. Leach, G. S. Buller, M. J. Pagett an E. Anersson Nature Physics ). [3] H.-P. Lo et al. Sci. Rep. 6, ). [4] C. Bernhar, B. Bessire, A. Montina, M. Pfaffhauser, A. Stefanov an S. Wolf J. Phys A: Math. Theor pp) 04). [5] J.-L. Chen, D.-L. Deng, an M.-G. Hu, Phys. Rev. A R) 008). [6] N. J. Cerf, S. Massar an S. Pironio Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, ). [7] L. Masanes, Quantum Inf. Comput. Vol. 3, No. 4, ). [8] A. Acin, T. Durt, N. Gisin an J. I. Latorre Phys. Rev. A ). [9] P. Rungta, V. Buzek, C. M. Caves, M. Hillery, an G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. A ). [0] W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett ). [] D. F. V. James, P. G. Kwiat, W. J. Munro, an A. G. White Phys. Rev. A ); M. Cramer et al. Nat. Commun ); M. Mohammai, A. M. Brańczyk, an D. F. V. James Phys. Rev. A ); T. Jullien et al. Nat. Lett ). [] A. G. White, D. F. V. James, P. H. Eberhar, an P. G. Kwiat Phys. Rev. Lett ); J. M. G. Sancho an S. F. Huelga Phys. Rev. A ); W. Laskowski, D. Richart, C. Schwemmer, T. Paterek, an H. Weinfurter Phys. Rev. Lett ). [3] J. T. Barreiro et al. Nat. Phys ). [4] P. Horoecki Phys. Rev. Lett ); F. Mintert, M. Kuś, an A. Buchleitner Phys. Rev. Lett ); S. P. Walborn, P. H. Souto Ribeiro, L. Daviovich, F. Mintert an A. Buchleitner Nat. Lett ). [5] D. Giovannini, J. Romero, J. Leach, A. Duley, A. Forbes, an M. J. Pagett Phys. Rev. Lett ); J. Chen, H. Dawkins, Z. Ji, N. Johnston, D. Kribs, F. Shultz, an B. Zeng Phys. Rev. A ); F. Tonolini, S. Chan, M. Agnew, A. Linsay an J. Leach Sci. Rep ). [6] If a priori, it is known that the state is pure, then we nee only ) measurements to reconstruct the state [43]. [7] D. Gross, Y.-K. Liu, S. T. Flammia, S. Becker, J. Eisert Phys. Rev. Lett ); S. T Flammia, D. Gross, Y. -K. Liu, J. Eisert New J. Phys ); T. B. Jackson, M. Sc. Thesis, Univ. of Guelph 03), Chap.. [8] S.-W. Lee, Y. W. Cheong, an J. Lee, Phys. Rev. A ). [9] T. Durt, D. Kaszlikowski, an M. Zukowski, Phys. Rev. A ). [30] H. A. Hassan, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 339, 8 008). [3] I. S. Grashteyn, an I. M. Ryzhik, Table of integrals, series, an proucts. 7th e. Acaemic Press, page 36. [3] C. Datta an P. Agrawal, Mathematics 5, 3 07). [33] B.C. Bernt an B. P. Yeap, Avances in Applie Mathematics ). [34] The proof of the theorem can be extene for any nonintegral real value of b. The same result will hol. We note that the sum itself is not efine when bk is an integer, as one of its term iverges. However, this is not the case here, because here bk = which is not an integer. 4 [35] In =, the SLK inequality reuces to familiar CHSH [3] inequality, so this relation hols for CHSH inequality also. [36] P. Rungta, an C.M. Caves, Phys. Rev. A ). [37] P. Rungta, W.J. Munro, K. Nemoto, P. Deuar, G.J. Milburn, an C.M. Caves, in Directions in Quantum Optics: A Collection of Papers Deicate to the Memory of Dan Walls, eite by H.J. Carmichael, R.J. Glauber, an M.O. Scully Springer, Berlin, 00), p. 49; M. Horoecki an P. Horoecki, Phys. Rev. A 59, ). [38] G. Vial, an R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 65, ). [39] S. Lee, D. P. Chi, S. D. Oh, an J. Kim, Phys. Rev. A 68, ). [40] M. Ramzan, an M. K. Khan, Quant. Inf. Process., 443 0); G. Jaeger, an K. Ann, J. Mo. Opt. 54, ). [4] A.Vaziri, G.Weihs, an A. Zeilinger J. Opt. B Quantum Semiclassical Opt. Vol. 4, 47 00). [4] A. Mair, A. Vaziri, G. Weihs, an A. Zeilinger, Nature Lonon) 4, 33 00). [43] R. T. Thew, K. Nemoto, A. G. White, an W. J. Munro, Phys. Rev. A ).