arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 8 Feb 2016

Transcription

1 An analytical condition for the violation of Mer s inequality by any three qubit state Satyabrata Adhikari 1, and A. S. Majumdar 2, 1 Birla Institute of Technology Mesra, Ranchi , India 2 S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Block JD, Sector-III, Salt Lake, Kolkata , India (Dated: March 28, 2018) Mer s inequality is the generaliation of the Bell-CHSH inequality for three qubit states. The violation of the Mer inequality guarantees the fact that there eists quantum non-locality either between two or three qubits in a three qubit system. In the absence of an analytical result to this effect, in order to check for the violation of Mer s inequality one has to perform a numerical optimiation procedure for even three qubit pure states. Here we derive an analytical formula for the imum value of the epectation of the Mer operator in terms of eigenvalues of symmetric matrices, that gives the imal violation of the Mer inequality for all three qubit pure and mied states. arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 8 Feb 2016 PACS numbers: a, Hk, B I. INTRODUCTION The impossiblity of reproducing the effect of quantum correlations between the outcomes of the distant measurements using local hidden variable theories is known as quantum nonlocality. In 1964, Bell constructed an inequality which is satisfied in the absence of non-local correlations between the results of distant measurements [1]. Eperimental violation of Bell s inequality confirm the eistence of the non-local correlation between the outcome of the measurements. The most well-known form of the Bell inequality is given by Clauser, Horne, Shimony, and Holt (CHSH) and it is known as Bell- CHSH inequality [2]. The Bell-CHSH operator for two qubits is given by B CHSH = â. σ ( + ). σ + â. σ ( ). σ, where â, â,, are unit vectors in R 3. The Bell-CHSH inequality is then given by B CHSH ρ 2, where ρ denotes any two qubit pure or mied state. This inequality is violated by any two qubit pure entangled state, but on the contrary not all two qubit mied entangled states violate the Bell-CHSH inequality. Foundational interest in nonlocality is bolstered through its connection with information theoretic tasks such as teleportation [3]. Quantum nonlocality finds applications in several information theoretic protocols such as device independent quantum key generation [4], quantum state estimation [5], and communication compleity [6], where the amount of violation of the Bell-CHSH inequality is important. In order to obtain the imal violation of the Bell-CHSH inequality, one has to calculate the epectation of the Bell-CHSH operator by imiing over all measurements of spin in the directions â, â,,. Therefore, the problem of imal violation of the Bell- CHSH inequality reduces to an optimiation problem. The optimiation problem for the two qubit system was analytically solved by Horodecki [15] by epressing the value of B ρ in terms of the eigenvalues of the symmetric matri T T ρ T ρ, where T ρ is the correlation matri of the state ρ. Therefore, tapisatya@gmail.com archan@bose.res.in the imal violation of the Bell-CHSH inequality depends on the eigenvalues of the symmetric matri T T ρ T ρ. Like two qubit non-locality, non-locality for three qubit systems has also been studied using various approaches. A generalied form of the Bell-CHSH inequality was obtained for three qubits called Mer s inequality [7] which can be violated by not only genuine entangled three qubit states but also by biseparable states. On the other hand, all genuine entangled three qubit states violate the Svetlichny inequality [8]. There has been quite a bit of recent interest in studying the nonlocality of tripartite systems. A notable direction in this contet is the so-called superactivation of nonlocality [9] which has been investigated also for the case of three qubits [10, 11]. The relation of nonlocality with quantum uncertainty has been ehibited for tripartite systems using fine-graining [12], in the contet of biased [13] and unbiased qauntum games. The security of quantum cryptography is connected with quantum nonlocality [14], that is especially relevant in the contet of device independent quantum key distribution. Violation of the Mer inequality has been computed for several three qubit states such as GHZ and W-states earlier [16 19]. In order to find the imum violation of the Mer inequality for three qubit states one has to tackle the optimiation problem numerically because there does not eist any analytical formula for even pure three qubit states. Motivated by the work of Horodecki [15] in the contet of two qubit systems, in the present work we perform the optimiation problem involved in the Mer inequality analytically and obtain a formula for the imal value of the epectation of the Mer operator in terms of the eigenvalues of symmetric matrices, that gives the imal violation of the Mer inequality not only for pure states but also for mied states. The plan of this paper is as follows. In section-ii, we solve the optimiation problem analytically and obtain the imum value of the epectation of the Mer operator in terms of eigenvalues. In section-iii, we provide a few eamples where the magnitude of the Mer operator is calculated using our derived formular for pure and mied states. Certain concluding remarks are presented in section-iv.

2 II. MAXIMUM VALUE OF THE EXPECTATION OF THE MERMIN OPERATOR IN TERMS OF EIGENVALUES Let B M be the Mer operator defined as [19] B M = â 1. σ â 2. σ â 3. σ â 1. σ 2. σ 3. σ 1. σ â 2. σ 3. σ 1. σ 2. σ â 3. σ (1) where â j and j (j=1,2,3) are unit vectors in R 3, and σ = (σ, σ y, σ ) is the vector of the Pauli matrices. For any three qubit state ρ, the Mer inequality is where with B 2 (2) ρ = 1 8 [I I I + l. σ I I + I m. σ I + I I n. σ + u. σ v. σ I + u. σ I w. σ + I v. σ w. σ + t ijk σ i σ j σ k ] (3) i,j,k=,y, l i = T r(ρ(σ i I I)), m i = T r(ρ(i σ i I)), n i = T r(ρ(i I σ i )), (i =, y, ) (4) u i v i = T r(ρ(σ i σ i I)), u i w i = T r(ρ(σ i I σ i )), v i w i = T r(ρ(i σ i σ i )), (i =, y, ) (5) t ijk = T r(ρ(σ i σ j σ k )), (i, j, k =, y, ) (6) We will now derive the necessary and sufficient condition which tells us that when a three-qubit state ρ violates Mer s inequality. The epectation value of the Mer operator with respect to the state ρ given by (3) is B = T r(b M ρ) = a 1i a 2j a 3k t ijk i,j,k=,y, i,j,k=,y, i,j,k=,y, i,j,k=,y, a 1i b 2j b 3k t ijk b 1i a 2j b 3k t ijk b 1i b 2j a 3k t ijk = (â 1, â T 3 T â 2 ) (â 1, T 3 T 2 ) ( 1, T 3 T â 2 ) ( 1, â T 3 T 2 ) (7) where â s = (a s, a sy, a s ) and s = (b s, b sy, b s ), (s=1,2,3) and (, y) denotes the inner product of two vectors and y and is defined as (, y) = y cosθ, θ being the angle between and y. The superscript T refers to transpose, and T = (T, T y, T ); T = t t y t t y t yy t y, t t y t T y = t y t yy t y t yy t yyy t yy,t = t t y t t y t yy t y t y t yy t y t t y t Theorem-1: If the symmetric matrices T T T, Ty T T y and T T T have unique largest eigenvalues, y and respectively, then Mer s inequality is violated if B = BM T r(b M ρ) = {2, 2 y, 2 } > 2 (8) Proof: In the epression for B given by Eq.(7), we first simplify the vectors â T 3 T â 2, T 3 T 2, T 3 T â 2, â T 3 T 2. We choose the vectors â 2, â 3, 2 and 3 in such a way that they imie the quantity B over all the operators B M. Let us proceed by considering the following cases sequentially: Case-I: In this case we choose the vectors in such a way that the imied epectation value of the Mer operator is given by B (1) = 2. = ( â 3 T â 2, 0, 0) (9) where â 3 is a unit vector along T â 2 and perpendicular to T y â 2 and T â 2. Since â 3 is a unit vector, â 3 = 1. Again, T â 2 2 = (T â 2, T â 2 ) = (â 2, T T T â 2 ). If is the largest eigenvalue of the symmetric matri T T T and â 2 is the corresponding unit vector, then T â 2 2 = (â 2, T T T â 2 ) = (â 2, â along â 2, then T â 2 2 = â T 3 T â 2 = (, 0, 0) (10) = (0, â 3 T y2, 0) (11) where â 3 is the unit vector antiparallel to T y2 and perpendicular to T 2 and T 2. Since â 3 is a unit vector, â Again, T y2 2 = (T y2, T y2 ) = ( 2, Ty T T y2 ). If y is the largest eigenvalue of the symmetric matri Ty T T y and 2 is the corresponding unit vector, then T y2 2 = ( 2, Ty T T y2 ) = ( 2, y 2 ). If 2 is the unit vector along 2, then T y2 2 = y. Thus, â T 3 T 2 = (0, y, 0) (12) = (0, 3 T y2, 0) = (0, y, 0) (13) 2

3 3 where 3 is the unit vector antiparallel to T y2 and perpendicular to T 2 and T 2. Since 3 is a unit vector, T â2 = (( 3, T â 2 ), ( 3, T y â 2 ), ( 3, T â 2 )) = ( 3 T â 2, 0, 0) = (, 0, 0) (14) where 3 is the unit vector along T â 2 and perpendicular to T y â 2 and T â 2. From (7),(10),(12),(13),(14), we have â B (1) = â1, 1 [(â 1, (, 0, 0)) + (â 1, (0, y, 0)) ( 1, (, 0, 0)) + ( 1, (0, y, 0))] = â 1 (, 0, 0) + 1 (, 0, 0) = 2 (15) 1 is the unit vector parallel to (, 0, 0) and perpendicular to (0, y, 0); 1 is the unit vectors antiparallel to (, 0, 0) and perpendicular to (0, y, 0). Case-II: In this case we choose the vectors in such a way that the imied epectation value of the Mer operator is given by B (2) = 2 y. = (0, â 3 T y â 2, 0) (16) where â 3 is the unit vector along T y â 2 and perpendicular to T â 2 and T â 2. Repeating the steps of Case-I, we find â T 3 T â 2 = (0, y, 0) (17) (ii) Similarly, we obtain, (iii) and, (iv) and â T 3 T 2 = (, 0, 0) (18) = ( 3 T 2, 0, 0) = (, 0, 0) (19) T â2 = (( 3, T â 2 ), ( 3, T y â 2 ), ( 3, T â 2 )) = (0, 3 T y â 2, 0) = (0, y, 0) (20) where 3 is the unit vector along T y â 2 and perpendicular to T â 2 and T â 2. Now, from (7),(17),(18),(19),(20), we have B (2) = â1, 1 [(â 1, (0, y, 0)) + (â 1, (, 0, 0)) ( 1, (0, y, 0)) + ( 1, (, 0, 0))] = â 1 (0, y, 0) + 1 (0, y, 0) = 2 y (21) where â 1 is the unit vector parallel to (0, y, 0) and perpendicular to (, 0, 0); 1 is the unit vectors antiparallel to (0, y (, 0, 0)., 0) and perpendicular to Case-III: In this case we choose the vectors in such a way that the imied epectation value of the Mer operator is given by B (3) = 2. Again, repeating the above steps, we find (i) The vector â T 3 T â 2 can be simplified to â T 3 T â 2 = (0, 0, ) (22), (ii) The vector â T 3 T 2 can be simplified to â T 3 T 2 = (, 0, 0) (23) (iii) The vector T 3 T 2 can be simplified to = ( 3 T 2, 0, 0) = (, 0, 0) (24) (iv) The vector T 3 T â 2 can be simplified to T â2 = (( 3, T â 2 ), ( 3, T y â 2 ), ( 3, T â 2 )) = (0, 0, 3 T â 2 ) = (0, 0, ) (25) Now, from (7),(22),(23),(65),(25), we have B (3) = â1, 1 [(â 1, (0, 0, )) + (â 1, (, 0, 0)) ( 1, (0, 0, )) + ( 1, (, 0, 0))] = â 1 (0, 0, ) + 1 (0, 0, ) = 2 (26) where, â 1 is the unit vector parallel to (0, 0, and perpendicular to (, 0, 0); 1 is the unit vec- ) and perpendicular to tors antiparallel to (0, 0, (, 0, 0). )

4 4 Thus finally, the imum epectation value of the Mer operator with respect to the state ρ is given by BM ρ = { B (1), B (2), B (3) } = {2, 2 The Mer inequality is violated if B > 2 {2, 2 {, y y y, 2 } (27), 2 } > 2, } > 1 (28) Hence, proved. Theorem-2: If the symmetric matrices T T T,Ty T T y and T T T have two equal largest eigenvalue, y and respectively then Mer s inequality is violated if B = BM T r(b M ρ) = {4, 4 y, 4 } > 2 (29) Proof: In the epression for B given by Eq. (7), we first simplify the vectors â T 3 T â 2, T 3 T 2, T 3 T â 2, â T 3 T 2. We again consider the following cases: Case-I: We consider the symmetric matri T T T which has two equal largest eigenvalues and choose the unit vectors in such a way that it imies the epectation value of the Mer operator given by B (4) = 4. = ( â 3 T â 2, 0, 0) (30) where â 3 is the unit vector along T â 2 and perpendicular to T y â 2 and T â 2. Since â 3 is a unit vector, â Again, T â 2 2 = (T â 2, T â 2 ) = (â 2, T T T â 2 ). If is the largest eigenvalue of the symmetric matri T T T and â 2 is the corresponding unit eigenvector then T â 2 2 = (â 2, T T T â 2 ) = (â 2, â along â 2 then T â 2 2 = â T 3 T â 2 = (, 0, 0) (31) = ( â 3 T 2, 0, 0) (32) where â 3 is the unit vector antiparallel to T 2 and perpendicular to T y2 and T 2. Since â 3 is the unit vector so â Again, T 2 2 = (T 2, T 2 ) = ( 2, T T T 2 ). Since the matri T T T has two equal largest eigenvalues, so 2 is another corresponding unit eigenvector. Then T 2 2 = ( 2, T T T 2 ) = ( 2, 2 ). If 2 is the unit vector along T 2 2 = 2 then â T 3 T 2 = (, 0, 0) (33) = ( 3 T 2, 0, 0) = (, 0, 0) (34) where 3 is the unit vector antiparallel to T 2 and perpendicular to T y2 and T 2. T â2 = (( 3, T â 2 ), ( 3, T y â 2 ), ( 3, T â 2 )) = ( 3 T â 2, 0, 0) = (, 0, 0) (35) where 3 is the unit vector antiparallel to T â 2 and perpendicular to T y â 2 and T â 2. From (7),(31),(33),(34),(35), we have B (4) = â1, 1 [(â 1, (, 0, 0)) + (â 1, (, 0, 0)) + ( 1, (, 0, 0)) + ( 1, (, 0, 0))] = 2 â 1 (, 0, 0)) (, 0, 0)) = 4 (36) where â 1 and 1 is the unit vector along (, 0, 0). Case-II: Here we consider the symmetric matri Ty T T y which has two equal largest eigenvalues y and choose the unit vectors in such a way that it imies the epectation value of the Mer operator given by B (5) = 4 y. = (0, â 3 T y â 2, 0) (37) where â 3 is the unit vector along T y â 2 and perpendicular to T â 2 and T â 2. Since â 3 is a unit vector, â Again, T y â 2 2 = (T y â 2, T y â 2 ) = (â 2, Ty T T y â 2 ). If y is the largest eigenvalue of the symmetric matri Ty T T y and â 2 is the corresponding unit eigenvector then T y â 2 2 = (â 2, Ty T T y â 2 ) = (â 2, y â along â 2 then T y â 2 2 = y. Thus, â T 3 T â 2 = (0, y, 0) (38)

5 5 = (0, â 3 T y2, 0) (39) where â 3 is the unit vector antiparallel to T y2 and perpendicular to T 2 and T 2. Since â 3 is a unit vector so â Again, T y2 2 = (T y2, T y2 ) = ( 2, Ty T T y2 ). Since the matri Ty T T y has two equal largest eigenvalues y, so let us consider 2 be another corresponding unit eigenvector. Then T y2 2 = ( 2, Ty T T y2 ) = ( 2, y 2 ). If 2 is the unit vector along T y2 2 = y. Thus, 2, then â T 3 T 2 = (0, y, 0) (40) = (0, 3 T y2, 0) = (0, y, 0) (41) where 3 is the unit vector antiparallel to T y2 and perpendicular to T 2 and T 2. T â2 = (( 3, T â 2 ), ( 3, T y â 2 ), ( 3, T â 2 )) = (0, 3 T y â 2, 0) = (0, y, 0) (42) where 3 is the unit vector antiparallel to T y â 2 and perpendicular to T â 2 and T â 2. From (7),(38),(40),(41),(42), we have B (5) = â1, 1 [(â 1, (0, y, 0)) + (â 1, (0, y, 0)) + ( 1, (0, y, 0)) + ( 1, (0, y, 0))] = 2 â 1 (0, y, 0)) (0, y, 0)) = 4 y (43) where â 1 and 1 is the unit vector along (0, y, 0). Case-III: Here we consider the symmetric matri Ty T T y which has two equal largest eigenvalues y and choose the unit vectors in such a way that it imies the epectation value of the Mer operator, given by B (6) = 4. (i) The vector â T 3 T â 2 can be simplified as = (0, 0, â 3 T â 2 ) (44) where â 3 is the unit vector along T â 2 and perpendicular to T â 2 and T y â 2. Since â 3 is a unit vector, â Again, T â 2 2 = (T â 2, T â 2 ) = (â 2, T T T â 2 ). If is the largest eigenvalue of the symmetric matri T T T and â 2 is the corresponding unit eigenvector, then T â 2 2 = (â 2, T T T â 2 ) = (â 2, â along â 2, then T â 2 2 =. Thus, â T 3 T â 2 = (0, 0, ) (45) = (0, 0, â 3 T 2 ) (46) where â 3 is the unit vector antiparallel to T 2 and perpendicular to T 2 and T y2. Since â 3 is a unit vector, â Again, T 2 2 = (T 2, T 2 ) = ( 2, T T T 2 ). Since the matri T T T has two equal largest eigenvalues, let us consider 2 to be another corresponding unit eigenvector. Then T 2 2 = ( 2, T T T 2 ) = ( 2, 2 ). If 2 is the unit vector along 2, then T 2 2 =. Thus, â T 3 T 2 = (0, 0, ) (47) = (0, 0, 3 T y2 ) = (0, 0, ) (48) where 3 is the unit vector antiparallel to T 2 and perpendicular to T 2 and T y2. T â2 = (( 3, T â 2 ), ( 3, T y â 2 ), ( 3, T â 2 )) = (0, 0, 3 T y â 2 ) = (0, 0, ) (49) where 3 is the unit vector antiparallel to T â 2 and perpendicular to T â 2 and T y â 2. From (7),(45),(47),(48),(49), we have B (6) = â1, 1 [(â 1, (0, 0, )) + (â 1, (0, 0, )) + ( 1, (0, 0, )) + ( 1, (0, 0, ))] = 2 â 1 (0, 0, )) (0, 0, )) = 4 (50)

6 6 where â 1 and 1 is the unit vector along (0, 0, ). Thus, the imum epectation value of the Mer operator with respect to the state ρ is given by BM ρ = { B (4), B (5), B (6) } = {4, 4 The Mer inequality is violated if BM ρ = {4, 4 Thus { y y, 4 } (51), 4 } > 2 (52), y, } > 1 2. Hence, proved. Theorem-3: If T T T has two equal largest eigenvalues and Ty T T y and T T T has unique largest eigenvalue y and respectively, then Mer s inequality is violated if BM ρ = {4, 2 y, 2 } > 2 (53) Proof: In the epression for B given by Eq. (7), we first simplify the vectors â T 3 T â 2, T 3 T 2, T 3 T â 2, â T 3 T 2. Case-I: In this case we choose the vectors in such a way that it imies the epectation value of the Mer operator, given by B (7) = 4. = ( â 3 T â 2, 0, 0) (54) where â 3 is the unit vector along T â 2 and perpendicular to T y â 2 and T â 2. Since â 3 is a unit vector, â Again, T â 2 2 = (T â 2, T â 2 ) = (â 2, T T T â 2 ). If is the largest eigenvalue of the symmetric matri T T T and â 2 is the corresponding unit eigenvector, then T â 2 2 = (â 2, T T T â 2 ) = (â 2, â along â 2, then T â 2 2 = â T 3 T â 2 = (, 0, 0) (55) = ( â 3 T 2, 0, 0) (56) where â 3 is the unit vector antiparallel to T 2 and perpendicular to T y2 and T 2. Since â 3 is a unit vector, â Again, T 2 2 = (T 2, T 2 ) = ( 2, T T T 2 ). Since the matri T T T has two equal largest eigenvalues, so 2 is another corresponding unit eigenvector. Then T 2 2 = ( 2, T T T 2 ) = ( 2, 2 ). If 2 is the unit vector along 2, then T 2 2 = â T 3 T 2 = (, 0, 0) (57) = ( 3 T 2, 0, 0) = (, 0, 0) (58) where 3 is the unit vector antiparallel to T 2 and perpendicular to T y2 and T 2. T â2 = (( 3, T â 2 ), ( 3, T y â 2 ), ( 3, T â 2 )) = ( 3 T â 2, 0, 0) = (, 0, 0) (59) where 3 is the unit vector antiparallel to T â 2 and perpendicular to T y â 2 and T â 2. From (7),(55),(57),(58),(59), we have B (7) = â1, 1 [(â 1, (, 0, 0)) + (â 1, (, 0, 0)) + ( 1, (, 0, 0)) + ( 1, (, 0, 0))] = 2 â 1 (, 0, 0)) (, 0, 0)) = 4 (60) where â 1 and 1 is the unit vector along (, 0, 0). Case-II: In this case we choose the vectors in such a way that it imies the epectation value of the Mer operator, given by B (8) = 2 y. = (0, â 3 T y â 2, 0) (61) where â 3 is the unit vector along T y â 2 and perpendicular to T â 2 and T â 2. Since â 3 is a unit vector, â 3 = 1. Again, T y â 2 2 = (T y â 2, T y â 2 ) = (â 2, Ty T T y â 2 ). If y is the largest eigenvalue of the symmetric matri Ty T T y and â 2 is the corresponding unit vector then T y â 2 2 = (â 2, Ty T T y â 2 ) = (â 2, y â along â 2, then T y â 2 2 = y. Thus, â T 3 T â 2 = (0, y, 0) (62) = ( â 3 T 2, 0, 0) (63) where â 3 is the unit vector antiparallel to T 2 and perpendicular to T y2 and T 2. Since â 3 is a unit vector, â Again, T 2 2 = (T 2, T 2 ) =

7 7 ( 2, T T T 2 ). If is the largest eigenvalue of the symmetric matri T T T and 2 is the corresponding unit vector, then T 2 2 = ( 2, T T T 2 ) = ( 2, 2 ). If 2 is the unit vector along 2, then T 2 2 = â T 3 T 2 = (, 0, 0) (64) = ( 3 T 2, 0, 0) = (, 0, 0) (65) where 3 is the unit vector antiparallel to T 2 and perpendicular to T y2 and T 2. Since 3 is a unit vector, T â2 = (( 3, T â 2 ), ( 3, T y â 2 ), ( 3, T â 2 )) = (0, 3 T y â 2, 0) = (0, y, 0) (66) where 3 is the unit vector along T y â 2 and perpendicular to T â 2 and T â 2. From (7),(62),(64),(65),(66), we have B (8) = â1, 1 [(â 1, (0, â y, 0)) + (â 1, (, 0, 0)) ( 1, (0, y, 0)) + ( 1, (, 0, 0))] = â 1 (0, y, 0) + 1 (0, y, 0) = 2 y (67) 1 is the unit vector parallel to (0, y, 0) and perpendicular to (, 0, 0); 1 is the unit vectors antiparallel to (0, y, 0) and perpendicular to (, 0, 0). Case-III: In this case we choose the vectors in such a way that it imies the epectation value of the Mer operator, given by B (9) = 2. = (0, 0, â 3 T â 2 ) (68) where â 3 is the unit vector along T â 2 and perpendicular to T â 2 and T y â 2. Since â 3 is a unit vector, â 3 = 1. Again, T â 2 2 = (T â 2, T â 2 ) = (â 2, T T T â 2 ). If is the largest eigenvalue of the symmetric matri T T T and â 2 is the corresponding unit vector then T â 2 2 = (â 2, T T T â 2 ) = (â 2, â along â 2, then T â 2 2 =. Thus, â T 3 T â 2 = (0, 0, ) (69) = ( â 3 T 2, 0, 0) (70) where â 3 is the unit vector antiparallel to T 2 and perpendicular to T y2 and T 2. Since â 3 is a unit vector, â Again, T 2 2 = (T 2, T 2 ) = ( 2, T T T 2 ). If is the largest eigenvalue of the symmetric matri T T T and 2 is the corresponding unit vector then T 2 2 = ( 2, T T T 2 ) = ( 2, 2 ). If 2 is the unit vector along 2 then T 2 2 = â T 3 T 2 = (, 0, 0) (71) = ( 3 T 2, 0, 0) = (, 0, 0) (72) where 3 is the unit vector antiparallel to T 2 and perpendicular to T y2 and T 2. Since 3 is a unit vector, T â2 = (( 3, T â 2 ), ( 3, T y â 2 ), ( 3, T â 2 )) = (0, 0, 3 T â 2 ) = (0, 0, ) (73) where 3 is the unit vector along T â 2 and perpendicular to T â 2 and T y â 2. From (7),(69),(71),(72),(73), we have â B (9) = â1, 1 [(â 1, (0, 0, )) + (â 1, (, 0, 0)) ( 1, (0, 0, )) + ( 1, (, 0, 0))] = â 1 (0, 0, ) + 1 (0, 0, ) = 2 (74) 1 is the unit vector parallel to (0, 0, ) and perpendicular to (, 0, 0); 1 is the unit vectors antiparallel to (0, 0, ) and perpendicular to (, 0, 0). Thus, the imum epectation value of the Mer operator with respect to the state ρ is given by BM ρ = { B (7), B (8), B (9) } = {4, 2 y, 2 } (75)

8 8 Mer inequality is violated if BM ρ = {4, 2 y, 2 } > 2 (76) Thus {2, y, } > 1. Hence, proved. Corollary-1: If Ty T T y has two equal largest eigenvalues y and T T T and T T T have unique largest eigenvalues and respectively, then Mer s inequality is violated if BM ρ = {2, 4 y, 2 } > 2 (77) Corollary-2: If T T T has two equal largest eigenvalues, and T T T and Ty T T y have unique largest eigenvalue and y respectively, then Mer s inequality is violated if BM ρ = {2, 2 y, 4 } > 2 (78) Corollary-3: If T T T and Ty T T y have two equal largest eigenvalues and y respectively, and T T T has unique largest eigenvalue, then Mer s inequality is violated if BM ρ = {4, 4 y, 2 } > 2 (79) Corollary-4: If T T T and T T T have two equal largest eigenvalue and, respectively and Ty T T y has unique largest eigenvalue y, then Mer s inequality is violated if BM ρ = {4, 2 y, 4 } > 2 (80) Corollary-5: If Ty T T y and T T T have two equal largest eigenvalue y and respectively, and T T T has unique largest eigenvalue, then Mer s inequality is violated if BM ρ = {2, 4 y, 4 } > 2 (81) III. EXAMPLES Eample-1: The generalied GHZ state can be written in terms of Pauli matrices as ρ GGHZ = 1 8 [I I I + I σ σ + σ I σ + σ σ I + (α 2 β 2 )(σ I I + I σ I + I I σ ) + 2αβ(σ σ σ σ σ y σ y σ y σ σ y σ y σ y σ )], α 2 + β 2 = 1 (82) The matrices T T T,T T y T y are given by T T T = Ty T T y = 4α2 β α 2 β 2 0 (83) The matri T T T is a ero matri. The largest eigenvalues of the matrices T T T,T T y T y are given by = 4α 2 β 2 y = 4α 2 β 2 (84) The imum epectation value of the Mer operator with respect to the state ρ GGHZ is given by B GGHZ = 8αβ (85) Therefore, the generalied GHZ state violates Mer s inequality if 2αβ > 1 2 (86) The same result has been found numerically by Scarani and Gisin [16]. Eample-2: Let us consider a pure state which is a coherent superposition of the W state and a separable state 000. The superposed state can be epressed as Ψ W,S = 1 p W + p 000, 0 p 1 (87) where W = 1 3 ( ). In this case the symmetric matrices T T T,T T y T y,t T T take the form 4 9 (1 p) p(1 p) 3 2 T T T = p(1 p) (1 p)(1 + 2p) Ty T T y = (1 p) (1 p)2 4 T T 9 (1 p)(1 + 2p) 0 f T = (1 p)2 0 (88) f 0 g where f = p(1 p) p 1 p(2p 1) and g = 4 3 p(1 p) + (2p 1)2. The largest eigenvalues of the matrices T T T,Ty T T y,t T T are given by = (1 p)( p p 3p2 ) y = 4 (1 p)2 9 = p4 640p p 2 232p p p (89)

9 9 The imum epectation value of the Mer operator with respect to the state Ψ W,S is given by BM Ψ W,S Ψ = 4 y 0 p 0.43 BM Ψ W,S Ψ = 2, 0.43 p 0.45 BM Ψ W,S Ψ = 2, 0.45 p 1 (90) It can be easily seen from figs.1(a), fig.1(b), fig.1(c) that the state Ψ W,S violates Mer s inequality when 0 p This result was obtained in [19]. matrices T T T,Ty T T y,t T T. Since in this case the matrices Ty T T y,t T T have two equal largest eigenvalues, and T T T has a unique largest eigenvalue, one has B M ϱ = {2, 4 y, 4 } (92) where = p p p4 32p p 2, y = p p2, and = (1 p) 2. It follows from Eq.(92) that B M ϱ = 4(1 p), 0 p = p p2, 0.43 p 1 (93) Fig.2(a) and Fig.2(b) clearly show that the mied state ϱ violates Mer s inequality for all values of the parameter p, i.e., 0 p 1. FIG. 2: Violation of the Mer inequality versus the state parameter p for the mied state given by Eq.(91) FIG. 1: Violation of the Mer inequality versus the state parameter p for the pure state given by Eq.(87) IV. CONCLUSIONS Eample-3: Let us consider a mied state ϱ which is described by the density operator ϱ = p ψ GHZ ψ + (1 p) ψ W ψ (91) where ψ GHZ = 1 2 ( ) and ψ W = 1 3 ( ). Our task is to find out the range of the parameter p for which ϱ violates the Mer inequality. Hence, we have to calculate the largest eigenvalues of the symmetric In this work we have studied Mer s inequality for three qubit states, the violation of which predicts the eistence of quantum correlations between the outcomes of the distant measurements on three qubit systems. Prior to this work there did not eist in the literature any closed form epression that gives the imal violation of the Mer inequality. Motivated by the analogous criterion for two qubit systems [15], we have here presented some analytical formulae in terms of eigenvalues of symmetric matrices, that provide conditions for

10 10 violating the Mer inequality by both pure and mied arbitrary three qubit states. Our results are useful in obtaining the violation of Mer s inequality because using them one does not need to perform optimiation procedures over spin measurements in all possible directions. We have illustrated our results with a few eamples of pure and mied states, confirg the range of violation of the Mer inequality obtained in earlier works [17, 19]. Acknowledgements: ASM acknowledges support from the project SR/S2/LOP-08/2013 of DST, India. [1] S. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964). [2] J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969). [3] D. Cavalcanti, A. Acn, N. Brunner, and T. Vrtesi, Phys. Rev. A 87, (2013) [4] A. Acin, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, (2007). [5] C.-E. Bardyn, T. C. H. Liew, S. Massar, M. M. McKague, V. Scarani, Phys. Rev. A 80, (2009) [6] H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, S. Massar, R. Wolf, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 665 (2010). [7] N. D. Mer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1838 (1990). [8] G. Svetlichny, Phys. Rev. D 35, 3066 (1987). [9] C. Palauelos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, (2012). [10] P. Caban, A. Molenda, and K. Trciska Phys. Rev. A 92, (2015). [11] B. Paul, K. Mukherjee, D. Sarkar, arxiv: [quantph]. [12] T. Pramanik and A. S. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. A 85, (2012). [13] A. Dey, T. Pramanik, A. S. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. A 87, (2013). [14] N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 145 (2002). [15] R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and M. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A 200, 340 (1995). [16] V. Scarani, and N. Gisin, J. Phys. A 34, 6043 (2001). [17] V. Scarani, and N. Gisin,, Phys. Rev. A 65, (2001). [18] C. Emary, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. A 69, (2004). [19] D. P. Chi, K. Jeong, T. Kim, K. Lee, and S. Lee, Phys. Rev. A 81, (2010).