arxiv:quant-ph/ v1 27 May 2004

Transcription

1 arxiv:quant-ph/ v1 27 May 2004 Separability condition for the states of fermion lattice systems and its characterization Hajime Moriya Abstract We introduce a separability condition for the states of fermion lattice systems. It shares similar characterizations about the state correlation between a pair of disjoint subsystems with that for the tensor-product systems. We propose two seemingly natural non-separable degrees for the fermion lattice system based on our generalization of the entanglement of formation to an arbitrary, namely not necessarily independent pair of finite-dimensional subsystems imbedded in a composite system. We show the equivalence of their zero (non-zero) value and the separability (nonseparability). A class of even mixed states with a fermionic correlation giving rise to the non-separability is studied. The usage of the same formula just as the entanglement of formation is inappropriate for the fermion system, since it does not detect the non-separability between the fermion pair of subsystems for those states. Mailing address: Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHÉS), Le Bois-Marie, 35, route de Chartres F Bures-sur-Yvette, FRANCE. moriya@ihes.fr 1

2 1 Introduction In the study of state correlation for a composite system such as entanglement and separability, the subsystems located on the disjoint regions or having the distinct degrees of freedom are usually assumed to satisfy the locality, typically as the tensor-product systems. Our question is what may happen on that study if the subsystems are non-local. In this note we take up the bipartite fermion lattice system, which is a typical example failing the local commutativity. We show how the different algebraic structures given by CAR and by tensor-product will give the change on the general formulation of separability and non-separability providing a class of states having a characteristic state correlation for CAR. We address our setting and motivation to avoid possible misunderstandings. The entanglement of indistinguishable multiparticles under the fermionic statistics has been studied by several authors, see e.g. [8] and its references. Though it is interesting for its own sake, it is in principle a different subject from ours. We respect the CAR algebraic structure very much and regard it as the starting point. We identify the subalgebra generated by the creation and annihilation operators with their indexes in some region I as the subsystem attached to I. This formulation is in accord with the philosophy of C -algebraic statistical mechanics [2] [5]. We use the mathematical terminology state to mean the positive linear functional on the systems. The discussion here does not restrict it to the physical realizable one, however, our main concern is even states. Let N be an ordered index set, say a lattice of integers ordered by inclusion. The canonical anticommutation relations (CAR) are {a i, a j} = δ i,j 1, {a i, a j } = {a i, a j } = 0, i, j N, (1) where {A, B} = AB + BA (anticommutator), and denotes the adjoint of the operator. For each I of N, we are given the subalgebra A(I) generated by all a i and a i in I. Note that A(I) contains unobservables (non-self-adjoint elements), non-gauge invariant elements, and odd elements (which will be defined in the next paragraph). In a concrete physical model, we may consider the spin degree of freedom for each lattice i N; for example, in the Hubbard models there are two fermions at each lattice site representing the two components of a spin 1/2 fermion. However, this kind of generalization does not produce any essential change in our discussion, and we take the above simple setting. The automorphism uniquely determined by Θ(a i ) = a i, Θ(a i) = a i (2) is called the even-odd transformation. The even and odd parts of A(I) are { A(I) ± A A(I) } Θ(A) = ±A. For any A A(I) we have the decomposition of its even and odd parts: A = A + + A, A ± 1 2( A ± Θ(A) ) A(I)±. 2

3 In this note we always assume that the cardinality I is finite, and hence A(I) is isomorphic to the 2 I 2 I full matrix algebra. Define v I i I v i, v i a i a i a i a i. (3) This v I is an even self-adjoint unitary operator implementing Θ, Ad(v I )(A) = Θ(A), A A(I). (4) It will make sense at least theoretically to talk about the state correlation between a pair subsystems without locality, as long as they have no non-trivial element in their intersection. Nevertheless, when we consider such a non-local pair of subsystems, we should be cautious about the terminologies such as entanglement and separability established in the tensor-product case. We remark that one of the basic property (or desiderata) of entanglement, the non-increasing property under local operations, is not inherent in the fermion systems due to the lack of the locality, while this property should be and is always fulfilled for the tensor product systems and is called LOCC or LQCC in the field of quantum information. (However, if we restrict the local operations to the even elements, LOCC holds in much the same way as in the tensor-product systems.) For the fermion systems, we shall refrain from using entanglement for now without firm ground on its definition. On the contrary, our separability condition for the fermion systems seems to have a good reason to be called so by its natural properties similar to those for the tensor product systems. We give a generalization of entanglement of formation [4] for general finitedimensional bipartite systems. In terms of it, we propose two seemingly natural definitions for the non-separable degree between A(I) and A(J) with I J = of the fermion lattice system. There is the other definition which adopts the same formula as the entanglement of formation for the tensor-product case to the present fermion lattice system and will be referred to as the entanglement of formation as well. We characterize the separability and non-separability of the fermion system by using our non-separable degrees. For an arbitrary pure even state, our definitions reduce to the entanglement of formation. However, for some class of non-separable even mixed states (which will be explained in the next paragraph), our both definitions take non-zero values, while the entanglement of formation takes exactly 0. Therefore we conclude that the entanglement of formation does not provide a correct characterization of the separability between A(I) and A(J) which are coupled by CAR. The characteristic state correlation of the above mentioned states is due to the fermion hopping between sites. The effect of the fermion hopping on the state correlation was studied in [8]; the entanglement (defined as the linear entropy on the site) of the ground state for a Hubbard model is given as a function of the hopping coefficient. Though our model is rather artificial, it has simple and explicit correlation functions between the disjoint subsystems: The 3

4 product state correlation between even elements plus the fermionic correlation between odd elements. As a byproduct, we show that the separability between the pair of subsystems coupled by CAR always implies that between the pair of subsystems coupled by tensor-product (given by the Jordan-Wigner transformation on the CAR pair) while the converse implication does not hold. 2 Separability Condition Let I and J be mutually disjoint, and ω be a state on A(I J). To introduce a separability condition of ω between A(I) and A(J), we need the notion of state extension which was automatic for the tensor product systems but non-trivial for the fermion systems [6] [7] [3]. We now explain it in the present setting. For a state ω of A(I J), we denote its restrictions to A(I) and to A(J) by ω 1 and ω 2, respectively. Conversely, we are given a pair of states ω 1 on A(I) and ω 2 on A(J). If there exists a state ω on the total system A(I J) such that its restriction to A(I) is equal to ω 1 and that to A(J) is equal to ω 2, then ω is called a state extension of ω 1 and ω 2. If the following product formula holds ω(a 1 A 2 ) = ω 1 (A 1 )ω 2 (A 2 ) (5) for all A 1 A(I) and A 2 A(J), then ω is called the product state extension of ω 1 and ω 2 and is denoted by ω 1 ω 2. It is deserved to note that the product property in the converse order, namely ω(a 2 A 1 ) = ω 2 (A 2 )ω 1 (A 1 ). (6) is a consequence of (5) as we confirm it in Lemma 1. We say that the state ω of A(I J) satisfies the separability between A(I) and A(J), or the state ω is a separable state between A(I) and A(J), if there exist a set of states {ω 1,i } on A(I), a set of states {ω 2,i } on A(J), and some positive numbers {λ i } such that i λ i = 1, satisfying ω(a 1 A 2 ) = i λ i ω 1,i ω 2,i (A 1 A 2 ) (7) for all A 1 A(I) and A 2 A(J). We emphasize that this requires the existence of ω 1,i ω 2,i for each pair of ω 1,i and ω 2,i. For the tensor product systems there always exists the product state extension for any pair of prepared states on disjoint regions. On the contrary, for the fermion systems, if the prepared states are both noneven, there is no product state extension as shown in Theorem 1 (1) of [3]. This fact immediately implies the following statement which will play a crucial role. Lemma 1. Let ω be a separable state between A(I) and A(J). Then for any A 1 A(I) and A 2 A(J), ω(a 1 A 2 ) = 0. (8) 4

5 Proof. By definition, ω has the following decomposition into the affine sum of product states: ω(a 1 A 2 ) = i λ i ω 1,i ω 2,i (A 1 A 2 ). Take odd elements for A 1 = A 1 and A 2 = A 2 and suppose that ω(a 1 A 2 ) 0. Then there exists some product state ω 1,i ω 2,i such that ω 1,i ω 2,i (A 1 A 2 ) = ω 1,i (A 1 )ω 2,i (A 2 ) 0. (9) For A 1 A(I), both A 1 + A 1 and i(a 1 A 1 ) are self-adjoint elements in A(I). Since A 1 can be written as their linear combination, the expectation value of at least one of them for ω 1,i must be non-zero. Hence for the equality (9), we may assume that A 1 = A 1, ω 1,i(A 1 ) 0 for some A 1 A(I). And similarly we assume A 2 = A 2, ω 2,i(A 2 ) 0 for some A 2 A(J). Hence both ω 1,i (A 1 ) and ω 2,i (A 2 ) are non-zero real numbers, accordingly ω 1,i (A 1 )ω 2,i (A 2 ) is non-zero real value. On the other hand, by CAR, (A 1 A 2 ) = A 2 A 1 = A 2 A 1 = A 1 A 2. Therefore A 1 A 2 is skew self-adjoint and ω 1,i ω 2,i (A 1 A 2 ) must be pure imaginary. We now have a pure imaginary ω 1,i ω 2,i (A 1 A 2 ) and non-zero real ω 1,i (A 1 )ω 2,i (A 2 ) which contradict with (9). 3 The characterization of Separability In this section, we introduce some quantities which measure the non-separability of the states between A(I) and A(J). The von Neumann entropy of the density matrix D is given by Tr ( D log D ), (10) where Tr denotes the trace which takes the value 1 on each minimal projection. The von Neumann entropy of the state ω is given by (10) with its density matrix and is denoted by S(ω). We shall now consider a rather general setting, since it will be convenient for the comparison of variant definitions and the observation of the dependence on the choice of pairs of subsystems for a state fixed. Let C be a C -algebra and A and B be its finite-dimensional subalgebras which have only scalar elements Cid in common. (It is said that the pair A and B satisfy the extended-independence.) We do not restrict ourselves to the case where C is generated by A and B; the total system C may be bigger than the algebra generated by A and B. For a state ω on C, define E γ C (ω, A, B) inf ω= λ i ω i ω i S γ (A(I J)) i ) λ i (1/2S(ω i A ) + 1/2(ω i B ), (11) 5

6 where γ indicates which type of state decompositions to be considered, namely, the subspace S γ (A(I J)) of the state space of C to which each component ω i in the state decomposition of ω should belong. If we take the infimum over the total state space of C, we write it simply by E C (ω, A, B). If we take the invariant states under some group action α only, we write it by EC α (ω, A, B). We employ this definition as a generalization of the entanglement formation (which actually reduces to the entanglement formation for the tensor product pairs as we will see) and apply it to the fermion system. Let ω be a state of A(I J). Our first non-separable degree of ω between A(I) and A(J) is defined by E A(I J) (ω, A(I), A(J)), i.e. ) E A(I J) (ω, A(I), A(J)) inf ω= λ i (1/2S(ω i A(I) ) + 1/2(ω i A(J) ), (12) λ iω i i where the infimum is taken over all the state decompositions of ω in the state space of A(I J). For any pure state ω of A(I J), it reduces to E A(I J) (ω, A(I), A(J)) = 1/2S(ω A(I) ) + 1/2S(ω A(J) ). (13) We explain why we have taken the average of the entropies on I and J. As shown in [6] [7], their may exist the asymmetry of marginal entropies of some pure states if they are noneven. We have constructed a noneven pure state ψ on A(I J) with I = {i}, J = {j} and i j such that ψ A(I) is a pure state and ψ A(J) is a tracial state giving 0 = S(ψ A(I) ) S(ψ A(J) ) = log 2 in [6]. Similarly for any real number l such that 0 l 1, define ) E A(I J),l (ω, A(I), A(J)) inf λ i (ls(ω i A(I) ) + (1 l)s(ω i A(J) ). (14) ω= λ iω i i For any l, the state decomposition to attain E A(I J),l (ω, A(I), A(J)) is given among pure state decompositions of ω due to the concavity of von Neumann entropy. We take l = 1/2 for our definition for the convenience. Any l other than 1 nor 0 will work for the possible non-separable degree of the fermion system, however, l = 1 and l = 0 do not. For l = 1 and l = 0, we denote them especially as E A(I J) (ω, A(I)) E A(I J),l=1 (ω, A(I), A(J)), E A(I J) (ω, A(J)) E A(I J),l=0 (ω, A(I), A(J)). (15) In what follows if there is only one subsystem in the argument of E γ C (, ), it should be understood that the marginal entropies are taken solely on it. We see that E A(I J) (ω, A(I)) and E A(I J) (ω, A(J)) have much the same formulae as the entanglement of formation defined for the tensor-product case [4]. We clarify this feature in the following. Let A(I I J) A(I) A(I J), A(J I J) A(J) A(I J), (16) 6

7 where the prime indicates the commutant. Let us consider E A(I J) (ω, A(I), A(I I J)). The tensor-product structure A(I J) = A(I) A(I I J) assures S(ω i A(I) ) = S(ω i A(I I J)). for any pure state ω i on A(I J). We thus obtain E A(I J) (ω, A(I), A(I I J)) = E A(I J) (ω, A(I)). (17) In the similar manner, we have E A(I J) (ω, A(J), A(J I J)) = E A(I J) (ω, A(J)). (18) When we talk about the state correlation, (entanglement, separability and whatever), we should make sure which pair of subsystems we are looking at. The relation (17) expresses that E A(I J) (ω, A(I)) describes the non-classical state correlation between A(I) and A(I I J) which are coupled by tensor product, not that between A(I) and A(J) which is our present interest. Similarly, E A(I J) (ω, A(J)) is a non-separable degree between A(J) and A(J I J). For the non-separability between A(I) and A(I I J), we can concentrate on one of them say A(I) discarding its pair A(I I J). But this is not the case for the fermion system, as long as we take all the state decompositions. So it is not surprising that the entanglement of formation does not lead the correct characterization of the separability between the fermion pair A(I) and A(J). Next we will move to the alternative definition. For an even state ω, taking the even state decompositions only seems to be natural. For this recipe, we do not have to take care of both subsystems A(I) and A(J) unlike the above E A(I J) (ω, A(I), A(J)) by the following reason. Take an even state decomposition of ω as ω = λ i ωi e, where all ωe i are even pure states on A(I J). By the symmetric property of spectrum of even pure states as shown in [7], we have S(ω e i A(I)) = S(ω e i A(J)) = S(ω e i A(I) + ) = S(ω e i A(J) + ). (19) Thus for any even state ω of A(I J), the following equalities follow EA(I J) Θ (ω, A(I), A(J)) = EA(I J) Θ (ω, A(I)) = EΘ A(I J) (ω, A(J)) = E Θ A(I J) (ω, A(I) +) = E Θ A(I J) (ω, A(I) +), (20) because the state decomposition to attain each of the above quantities is given among pure state decompositions due to the concavity of von Neumann entropy. In the proposition below, we formulate the relationship among the above introduced quantities. The first two inequalities follow from the definitions, the last two follow from those with (20) Proposition 2. For any state ω on A(I J), E A(I J) (ω, A(I), A(J)) 1/2E A(I J) (ω, A(I)) + 1/2E A(I J) (ω, A(J)). (21) 7

8 For any even state ω on A(I J), EA(I J) Θ (ω, A(I), A(J)) E A(I J)(ω, A(I), A(J)), (22) and EA(I J) Θ (ω, A(I), A(J)) E A(I J)(ω, A(I)) (23) EA(I J) Θ (ω, A(I), A(J)) E A(I J)(ω, A(J)). (24) Remark 1: As for (21), the noneven pure state ψ mentioned in the paragraph after (13) gives E A(I J) (ψ, A(I)) = 0, E A(I J) (ψ, A(J)) = log 2, and E A(I J) (ψ, A(I), A(J)) = 1/2(log2). Hence E A(I J) (ω, A(I), A(J)) E A(I J) (ω, A(I)) or E A(I J) (ω, A(I), A(J)) E A(I J) (ω, A(J)) is not satisfied in general. Note that for some even state ω, for example ϕ λ in the next section, optimal decompositions to attain E A(I J) (ω, A(I)) or E A(I J) (ω, A(J)) are noneven states. We will see the exact inequality of (21), (23) and (24) for ϕ λ. We now take even algebras instead of full algebras. For an arbitrary state ω of A(I J), we have E A(I J) (ω, A(I) + ) E A(I J) (ω, A(I)), (25) due to the general property of von Neumann entropy: S( A ) = inf B A S( B), where is an arbitrary state of A and the infimum is taken over all maximal abelian subalgebras B of A. Let us assume that ω is even and show that E A(I J) (ω, A(I) + ) is equivalent to (20). The inequality E A(I J) (ω, A(I) + ) E Θ A(I J) (ω, A(I) +) is obvious by definition. Suppose that a pure state decomposition ω = λ i ω i attains an optimal one for E A(I J) (ω, A(I) + ). By the evenness of ω, Since ω = λ i ω i = λ i ω i Θ = λ i ( ω i + ω i Θ ). 2 ( ωi + ω i Θ ) S(ω i A(I)+ ) = S(ω i Θ A(I)+ ) = S, (26) 2 A(I)+ the even state decomposition ω = λ i ( ωi+ωiθ 2 ) is also an optimal one. Hence E A(I J) (ω, A(I) + ) is equal to E Θ A(I J) (ω, A(I) +) and accordingly to (20). We have the following equivalence. 8

9 Lemma 3. For any even state ω on A(I J), EA(I J) Θ (ω, A(I), A(J)) inf ) λ i (1/2S(ωi e A(I)) + 1/2(ωi e A(J)) ω= λ iω e i = EA(I J) Θ (ω, A(I)) = EΘ A(I J) (ω, A(J)) = E Θ A(I J) (ω, A(I) +) = E Θ A(I J) (ω, A(J) +) = E Θ A(I J) (ω, A(I) +, A(J) + ) = E A(I J) (ω, A(I) + ) = E A(I J) (ω, A(J) + ) = E A(I J) (ω, A(I) +, A(J) + ) = E A(I J)+ (ω, A(I) + ) = E A(I J)+ (ω, A(J) + ) = E A(I J)+ (ω, A(I) +, A(J) (27) + ), where all ω e i are even states on A(I J). We give the criterions of the separability in terms of the non-separable degrees in the following two propositions. Proposition 4. Let ω be a state of A(I J), which is not necessary even. It satisfies the separability between A(I) and A(J) if and only if the non-separable degree E A(I J) (ω, A(I), A(J)) of (12) is equal to zero. Proof. If ω satisfies the separability condition (7), then there exists the product state decomposition: i ω(a 1 A 2 ) = i λ i ω 1,i ω 2,i (A 1 A 2 ). (28) For each index i, no less than one of ω 1,i and ω 2,i should be even for the existence of the product state ω 1,i ω 2,i by Theorem 1 (1) of [3]. So let ω 1,i be even. Then it can be decomposed as ω 1,i = j l jω 1,i(j), where l j > 0, j l j = 1, and all ω 1,i(j) can be taken from pure even states of A(I). (This is always possible when I is finite.) We can have a decomposition of ω 2,i : ω 2,i = k l kω 2,i(k), where l k > 0, k l k = 1, and all ω 2,i(k) are all pure states of A(J). Since each ω 1,i(j) is an even state of A(I), we are given the (unique) product state extension ω 1,i(j) ω 2,i(k) for any j and k. Repeating the same decomposition machinery for all i, we have S(ω 1,i(j) A(I) ) = S(ω 2,i(k) A(J) ) = 0 for every i, j, k. Thus this decomposition gives E A(I J) (ω, A(I), A(J)) = 0. (29) Conversely, assume (29). By the definition, there exists a state decomposition ω = i λ iω i such that S(ω i A(I) ) = S(ω i A(J) ) = 0, (30) for all i. This implies that ω i has pure state restrictions on A(I) and A(J). By Theorem 1 (2) in [3], at least one of ω i A(I) and ω i A(J) should be even for the existence of their state extension ω i on A(I J) and it is uniquely given by the product state extension ω i A(I) ω i A(J). Hence ω can be written as the affine sum of the product states {ω i } and is a separable state. 9

10 Proposition 5. Let ω be an even state of A(I J). It satisfies the separability between A(I) and A(J) if and only if the non-separable degrees E A(I J) (ω, A(I), A(J)) of (12) and EA(I J) Θ (ω, A(I), A(J)) of (27) are both equal to zero. Proof. By Proposition 4 and (22), it remains to show the derivation of EA(I J) Θ (ω, A(I), A(J)) = 0 (31) from the separability condition of ω between A(I) and A(J). Assume the separability ω = i λ iω i with ω i = ω 1,i ω 2,i, where ω 1,i and ω 2,i are some states on A(I) and A(J). We shall show that all ω i can be even states. Theorem 1 (1) of [3] asserts that at least one of ω 1,i and ω 2,i is even for the existence of the product state ω 1,i ω 2,i (= ω i ), and that ω i is even if and only if ω 1,i and ω 2,i are both even. By the evenness of ω, we have the following identity: ω = ω + ωθ 2 = i (ω i + ω i Θ) λ i. (32) 2 Let ω i ωi+ωiθ 2. For each i, ω i is an even product state between A(I) and A(J) because ω i = 1/2ω 1,i (ω 2,i + ω 2,i Θ) when ω 1,i is even, or ω i = 1/2(ω 1,i + ω 1,i Θ) ω 2,i when ω 2,i is even, The discussion deriving E(ω, A(I), A(J)) = 0 from the separability condition in Proposition 4 goes over to the present case leading to (31). By the combination of (21) of Proposition 2 and Proposition 4, we have the following relation about the separability for the different specifications of the pair of subsystems. Corollary 6. Let ω be a state of A(I J). If it satisfies the separability between A(I) and A(J), then it satisfies the separability between A(I) and A(I I J) and that between A(J) and A(J I J). The converse direction does not hold as we show it in the next section. Therefore the set of separable states for a fermion pair is strictly smaller than that for its corresponding tensor-product pairs. 4 Construction of non-separable states In this section we construct a class of even states which has a very fermionic character in the state correlation. Let τ be the tracial state on A(I J). We note the following product properties of the tracial state (see 4.2. of [2]): τ(a 1 A 2 ) = τ(a 1 )τ(a 2 ), (33) 10

11 for every A 1 A(I) and A 2 A(J), and τ(a 1 B 2 ) = τ(a 1 )τ(b 2 ), τ(b 1 A 2 ) = τ(b 1 )τ(a 2 ), (34) for every A 1 A(I), B 2 A(I I J), and every B 1 A(J I J), A 2 A(J). We start the construction. Let K 1 be a self-adjoint unitary in A(I) and K 2 be that in A(J). For example, take K 1 = a k + a k, or = i(a k a k), k I, etc. For λ R, define P(λ) id + iλk 1 K 2. (35) Physically, ik 1 K 2 may represent the fermion hopping interaction. We see the self-adjointness of P(λ) as follows: P(λ) = (id + iλk 1 K 2 ) = id iλk 2 K 1 = id iλk 2 K 1 = id iλ( K 1 K 2 ) By (33) and the evenness of the tracial state, We have = id + iλk 1 K 2 = P(λ). (36) τ(p(λ)) = τ(id + iλk 1 K 2 ) = τ(id) + iλτ(k 1 K 2 ) = τ(id) + iλτ(k 1 )τ(k 2 ) = τ(id) + iλ 0 0 = 1. (37) iλk 1 K 2 λ, because K 1 and K 2 are both unitary operators. Therefore P(λ) is a positive operator if λ 1. For such λ define the state ϕ λ on A(I J) by Since ϕ λ (A) τ(p(λ)a), A A(I J). (38) Θ(P(λ)) = P(λ), ϕ λ is an even state of A(I J). We compute the expectation value of the product A 1 A 2 of A 1 A(I) and A 2 A(J): ϕ λ (A 1 A 2 ) = τ((id + iλk 1 K 2 )A 1 A 2 ) = τ(a 1 A 2 ) + iλτ(k 1 K 2 A 1 A 2 ) = τ(a 1 A 2 ) + iλτ(k 1 (K 2 A 1 )A 2 ) = τ(a 1 A 2 ) + iλτ(k 1 (Θ(A 1 )K 2 )A 2 ) = τ(a 1 A 2 ) + iλτ((k 1 Θ(A 1 ))(K 2 A 2 )) = τ(a 1 A 2 ) + iλτ(k 1 v I A 1 v I )τ(k 2 A 2 ) = τ(a 1 A 2 ) + iλτ(v I K 1 v I A 1 )τ(k 2 A 2 ) = τ(a 1 A 2 ) + iλτ(θ(k 1 )A 1 )τ(k 2 A 2 ) = τ(a 1 A 2 ) + iλτ( K 1 A 1 )τ(k 2 A 2 ) = τ(a 1 A 2 ) iλτ(k 1 A 1 )τ(k 2 A 2 ), (39) 11

12 where we have used CAR, (4), the product property and the cyclicity of the tracial state, and K 2 A(J). Since the tracial state is an even product state and K 1 A(I), K 2 A(J), writing A 1 = A 1+ + A 1, A 1± A(I) ±, A 2 = A 2+ + A 2, A 2± A(J) ±, we obtain ϕ λ (A 1 A 2 ) = τ(a 1+ )(A 2+ ) iλτ(k 1 A 1 )τ(k 2 A 2 ). (40) We then compute the expectation value of the product A 2 A 1 : ϕ λ (A 2 A 1 ) = τ((id + iλk 1 K 2 )A 2 A 1 ) = τ(a 2 A 1 ) + iλτ(k 1 K 2 A 2 A 1 ) = τ(a 1 A 2 ) + iλτ((k 1 K 2 A 2 )A 1 ) = τ(a 1 A 2 ) + iλτ(a 1 (K 1 K 2 A 2 )) = τ(a 1 A 2 ) + iλτ((a 1 K 1 )(K 2 A 2 )) = τ(a 1 A 2 ) + iλτ(a 1 K 1 )τ(k 2 A 2 )=τ(a 1 A 2 ) + iλτ(k 1 A 1 )τ(k 2 A 2 ), (41) where we have used the product property and the cyclicity of the tracial state. Hence we obtain ϕ λ (A 2 A 1 ) = τ(a 1+ )τ(a 2+ ) + iλτ(k 1 A 1 )τ(k 2 A 2 ). (42) We note that the sign change in the formulae (40) and (42) is consistent with {A 1, A 2 } = 0. For every A 1 A(I) and A 2 A(J), ϕ λ (A 1 ) = ϕ λ (A 2 ) = 0, (43) since ϕ λ is an even state. From the above formulae, it can be said that ϕ λ has a non trivial fermionic correlation between A(I) and A(J) if λ 0. By (40), (42) and Lemma 1, we obtain the following result. Proposition 7. The state ϕ λ given by the density P(λ) id + iλk 1 K 2 with λ R, λ 1, self-adjoint unitaries K 1 A(I) and K 2 A(I) has the following correlation functions: ϕ λ (A 1 A 2 ) = τ(a 1+ )(A 2+ ) iλτ(k 1 A 1 )τ(k 2 A 2 ), ϕ λ (A 2 A 1 ) = τ(a 1+ )τ(a 2+ ) + iλτ(k 1 A 1 )τ(k 2 A 2 ), (44) for A 1 = A 1+ + A 1, A 1± A(I) ±, A 2 = A 2+ + A 2, A 2± A(J) ±. It is non-separable between A(I) and A(J) for any non-zero λ. Remark 2: We take the same ϕ λ as before, but now consider its state correlation between A(I) and A(I I J). By CAR, and rewrite P(λ) as A(I I J) = A(J) + + v I A(J), P(λ) = id + iλk 1 K 2 = id + iλk 1 (v I v I )K 2 = id + (iλk 1 v I )(v I K 2 ) = id + (iλk 1 v I ) (v I K 2 ), 12

13 where the above denotes the tensor product between A(I) and A(I I J). We immediately see ik 1 v I and v I K 2 are self-adjoint unitaries and can be diagonalized independently by some unitary operators in A(I) and in A(I I J), respectively. By acting such local operations, P(λ) reduces to the classical probability, and hence ϕ λ satisfies the separability between A(I) and A(I I J). Similarly ϕ λ satisfies the separability between A(J) and A(J I J). Accordingly E(ω, A(I)) = E(ω, A(J)) = 0. This, Proposition 7, and Proposition 5 give the strict inequality of (21), (23) and (24). When we talk about the state correlation, the specification of a pair of subsystems is crucial. We have shown that the naive adoption of the entanglement of formation would lead an incorrect characterization for the separability with respect to the fermion pair A(I) and A(J). Although the choice of pairs of subsystems between which the state correlation may exist depends on the physical settings and limitations, and theoretical motivations and interests as well, we take the strategy that we should respect the CAR as long as we treat the fermion systems. In our thermodynamical formalism for fermion lattice systems, we consider the physically natural outside system of the local system A(I) to be A(J), not the mathematical convenient one A(I I J), where J is a sufficiently large region disjoint with J. (However, it has been shown that both conditional entropies corresponding to A(J) and to A(I I J) are equivalent for any even state giving the same characterization of local thermodynamical stability for such a state.) About this point, refer to [1] and (LTS) of [2]. Remark 3: We have given the density matrix P(λ) from the beginning, not started from the Hamiltonian. However we can give the interpretation of Hamiltonian to ik 1 K 2, that of (a non-decreasing function of) the inverse temperature to λ, that of the Gibbs state to ϕ λ. Let H iλk 1 K 2. We see H = H, H 2 = id. Then for any β R, By taking the normalization, e βh = 1 βh + 1 2! (βh)2 1 3! (βh)3 + = 1/2(e β + e β )id 1/2(e β e β )H. e βh Tr(e βh = id tanh(β)h. ) Seeing this and (44), we can intuitively say that the non-separable correlation due to the hopping term will decrease when the inverse temperature β is getting to 0. 13

14 5 Comments From the correlation functions (44) of ϕ λ, we can say that it has much variance with the tracial state (which is a separable state between A(I) and A(J)) when λ is large. It seems however not be straightforward to compute the non-separable degree E(ϕ λ, A(I), A(J)) or E Θ (ϕ λ, A(I), A(J)) by any existing techniques known for the tensor-product case. Though those correlation functions themselves may be more lucid than the explicit values of such a degree for our ϕ λ, it would be interesting to know its λ-dependence. We finally mention that to find the conditions of equality for (22) (which is certainly satisfied for any separable state as the 0 value) seems to be non-trivial. Acknowledgements. The author thanks H.Narnhofer for useful suggestions. References [1] H.Araki and H.Moriya, Lett.Math.Phys. 60, 109 (2002). [2] H.Araki and H.Moriya, Rev.Math.Phys. 15, 93 (2003). [3] H.Araki and H.Moriya, Commun.Math.Phys. 237, 105 (2003). [4] C.H.Bennett, D.P. DiVincenzo, J.A. Smolin, and W.K. Wootters, Phys.Rev.A 54, 3824 (1996). [5] O.Bratteli and D.W.Robinson, Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics 2, 2nd edition, Springer-Verlag, [6] H.Moriya, Some aspects of quantum entanglement for CAR systems, Lett. Math. Phys. 60, 109 (2002). [7] H.Moriya, e-print math-ph/ [8] P.Zanardi, Quantum entanglement in fermion lattices, Phys. Rev. A 65, (2002). 14