You are on page 1of 15

Complete quantum teleportation by nuclear

arXiv:quant-ph/9811020v1 8 Nov 1998

magnetic resonance
M. A. Nielsen∗† , E. Knill‡ , & R. Laflamme∗ ∗ Theoretical Astrophysics T-6, MS B-288, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545 †Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-1131 ‡Computer Research and Applications CIC-3, MS B-265, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545 February 1, 2008

Quantum mechanics provides spectacular new information processing abilities 1,2 . One of the most unexpected is a procedure called quantum teleportation 3 that allows the quantum state of a system to be transported from one location to another, without moving through the intervening space. Partial implementations of teleportation
4,5

over macroscopic distances have been achieved using optical systems, 1

Alice has in her possession an unknown state |Ψ = α|0 + β |1 of a single quantum bit (qubit) – a two level quantum system. or for quantum communication. In classical physics. making it impossible to use the classical measurement procedure to move a quantum system from one location to another. Alice and Bob each possess one qubit of a two qubit entangled state. That information can then be sent to another location. in principle. The inclusion of the final stage enables for the first time a teleportation implementation which may be used as a subroutine in larger quantum computations.but omit the final stage of the teleportation procedure. by performing a measurement to completely characterize the properties of the object. Our experiment also demonstrates the use of quantum process tomography. The goal of teleportation is to transport the state of that qubit to Bob. Does this provide a complete reconstruction of the original object? No: all physical systems are ultimately quantum mechanical. Finally. Quantum teleportation may be described abstractly in terms of two parties. a procedure to completely characterize the dynamics of a quantum system. |Ψ A (|0 A |0 B + |1 A |1 B ) . (1) 2 . In addition. Bennett et al 3 have suggested a remarkable procedure for teleporting quantum states. Here we report an experimental implementation of the full quantum teleportation operation over inter-atomic distances using liquid state nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). and quantum mechanics tells us that it is impossible to completely determine the state of an unknown quantum system. an object can be teleported. Alice and Bob. we demonstrate a controlled exploitation of decoherence as a tool to assist in the performance of an experiment. and the object reconstructed.

or iσy . The 3 . Notice that the quantum state transmission has not been accomplished faster than light because Bob must wait for Alice’s measurement result to arrive before he can recover the quantum state. the earlier experiments relied on classical post-processing of the data after completion of the experiment to check that the results were consistent with what one would expect if the conditional operations had. Our experiment implements the full teleportation operation. σx |Ψ . Recent demonstrations of quantum teleportation 4. the unitary operators applied by Bob conditional on the result of Alice’s measurement. −iσy |Ψ . in fact. in the |0 . σz . (2) where σx . σz are the Pauli sigma operators 6 . (3) Alice sends the outcome of her measurement to Bob. been performed. (|01 ± |10 ) for the first two qubits and a conditional unitary transformation of the state |Ψ for the last one. conditional on Alice’s measurement outcome. |1 basis. A measurement is performed on Alice’s qubits in the Bell basis. and subscripts B to denote Bob’s system. σz |Ψ . Here and throughout we omit overall normalization factors from our equations. σx . σy .where subscripts A are used to denote Alice’s systems.5 omitted the final stage of teleportation. (|00 + |11 ) |Ψ + (|00 − |11 ) σz |Ψ + (|01 + |10 ) σx |Ψ + (|01 − |10 ) (−iσy |Ψ ) . who can then recover the original state |Ψ by applying the appropriate unitary transformation I. Conditional on these measurement outcomes it is easy to verify from the previous equation that Bob’s respective states are |Ψ . This prevents complete recovery of the original state. Instead. that is. This state can be rewritten in the Bell basis ((|00 ± |11 ) .

although in the present system. making this a demonstration of the method of teleportation. Figure 1(a) illustrates the teleportation process we used. and the two Carbon 13 nuclei (C1 and C2).15. ancilla (C1). and with two 4 . in principle. The goal of the circuit is to teleport the state of the data qubit so that it ends up on the target qubit. which we will refer to as the data (C2). Other demonstrations of quantum information processing with three qubits using NMR are described in 14. moving the C2 qubit to H may be accomplished more efficiently by techniques other than teleportation. The unitary operations performed during teleportation may be implemented in a straightforward manner in NMR. Our implementation of teleportation is performed using liquid state nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR).11 . Teleportation as a subroutine is important in potential applications to quantum computation and communication 7. teleporting the state of C2 to H. and phase cycling 10.12 . The structure of the TCE molecule may be depicted as Cl H Q Q  Cl    C2 Q Q Cl Cl (4) To perform teleportation we make use of the Hydrogen nucleus (H). using non-selective rf pulses tuned to the Larmor frequencies of the nuclear spins.16 . rather than a practical means for transmitting qubits over long distances. The circuit has three inputs. State preparation is done in our experiment using the gradient-pulse techniques described by Cory et al 9 . We are therefore only teleporting the qubit a few angstroms. be used as a subroutine in the performance of other quantum information processing tasks.most important implication of the inclusion of this difficult extra stage is that our teleportation procedure can. applied to an ensemble of molecules of labeled trichloroethylene (TCE). and delays allowing entanglement to form through the interaction of neighboring nuclei 9. and target (H) qubits.8 .

We implement this step in NMR by using the natural spin-spin coupling between the Carbon nuclei. while preserving the remarkable teleportation effect.19. |11 . Its effect on the state of the Carbon nuclei is to diagonalize the state in the computational basis. |10 . the measurement step allows us to measure the expectation values of σx and σy for each spin.18. |10 . who suggest a two-part procedure for performing the Bell basis measurement. We use a procedure inspired by Brassard et al 21 . Part two of the procedure is to perform a projective measurement in the computational basis. the effect of this two part procedure is equivalent to performing the Bell basis measurement. |00 . An innovation in our experiment was the method used to implement the Bell basis measurement. we exploit the natural phase decoherence occurring on the Carbon nuclei to achieve the same effect. |01 . In NMR. and rf pulses. rather than performing a projective measurement in some basis. We cannot directly implement the second step in NMR. the decoherence process is indistinguishable from a measurement in the computational basis for the Carbons accomplished by 5 . (5) As emphasized by Zurek 22 . As Brassard et al point out. |00 . Recall that phase decoherence completely randomizes the phase information in these nuclei and thus will destroy coherence between the elements of the above basis. |01 . |11 . we must modify the projective measurement step in the standard description of teleportation. averaged over the ensemble of molecules. For this reason.20 . Instead. Part one of the procedure is to rotate from the Bell basis into the computational basis. corresponding to the different measurement results. ρ −→ |00 00|ρ|00 00| + |01 01|ρ|01 01| + |10 10|ρ|10 10| +|11 11|ρ|11 11|. and leaving the data and ancilla qubits in one of the four states.qubits in 17.

has been lost forever. Our experiment exploits the natural decoherence properties of the TCE molecule. Nevertheless. The total scheme therefore implements a measurement in the Bell basis. Thus. All other T2 and T1 times for all three nuclei are much longer. |11 . We do not observe the result of this measurement explicitly. with the result of the measurement stored as classical data on the Carbon nuclei following the measurement. and therefore we can do the final transformation conditional on the particular state the environment has selected. with a T2 time for the Hydrogen of approximately 3s. Classical intuition therefore tells us that the phase information about the input state. the final state of the Carbon nuclei is one of the four states.the environment. corresponding to the four possible results of the measurement. quantum mechanics predicts that we are still able to recover the complete system after this decoherence 6 . During the stage labeled “Measure in the Bell basis” in figure 1(a). We can thus teleport the state from the Carbon to the Hydrogen and verify that the state in the final state decays at the Hydrogen rate and not the Carbon rate. destroying all phase information on the data and ancilla qubits. |01 . |10 . |Ψ . we can approximate the total evolution by exact phase decoherence on the Carbon nuclei. |00 .4s and 0. for delays on the order of 1s. a standard NMR technique known as refocusing employs rf pulses to ensure that the data qubit effectively does not interact with the target qubit. however the state of the nuclei selected by the decoherence process contains the measurement result. As in the scheme of Brassard et al. and relaxation times (T1 ) of approximately 20 − 30s for the Carbons. we allow the C1 and C2 nuclei to decohere and thus be measured by the environment.3s. Experimentally. The phase decoherence times (T2 ) for C1 and C2 are approximately 0. and 5s for the Hydrogen. Re-examining figure 1(a) we see how remarkable teleportation is from this point of view.

by quantum teleportation.133491MHz. making use of a variety of decoherence delays in place of the measurement. We performed two separate sets of experiments. Experimentally.24 . In one set. In particular. due to the different chemical environments of the two atoms. as well as the Chlorines to H. Note that C1 and C2 have slightly different frequencies. The readout was performed on the Hydrogen nucleus. (7) The coupling frequencies between H and C2. and a figure of merit – the entanglement fidelity – was calculated for the teleportation process. In those experiments. Experimentally.5 23. We implemented this scheme in TCE using a Bruker DRX-500 NMR spectrometer. so entanglement fidelities greater than 0. and will be ignored in the sequel. while an entanglement fidelity of 0. The second set of experiments was a control set. C1 and C2.5 indicates that teleportation of some quantum information is taking place. The entanglement fidelity is a quantity in the range 0 to 1 which measures the combined strength of all noise processes occurring during the process 23. we determined the Larmor and coupling frequencies for the Hydrogen.772580MHz. ωC 2 ≈ ωC 1 − 911Hz (6) JH C 1 ≈ 201Hz. and less than a Hertz for the latter. these couplings are suppressed by multiple refocusings. C1 and C2 to be: ωH ≈ 500. ωC 1 ≈ 125. JC 1 C 2 ≈ 103Hz. only the state preparation and initial entanglement of H 7 .step. on the order of ten Hertz for the former.24 .25 indicates total randomization of the state. are much lower. an entanglement fidelity of 1 indicates perfect teleportation. illustrated in figure 1(b). Perfect classical transmission corresponds to an entanglement fidelity of 0. the full teleportation process was executed.

and rf field inhomogeneities. due to a T 2 time for C2 of approximately 0. and measuring the corresponding states output from the experiment. and are due primarily to rf field inhomogeneity and imperfect calibration of rf pulses.and C1 were performed. followed by a delay for decoherence on C1 and C2. a procedure for obtaining a complete description of the dynamics of a quantum system. imperfect calibration of rf pulses. the entanglement fidelity decays very quickly for the control experiments as the delay is increased. indicating successful teleportation of quantum information from C2 to H. First. and the entanglement fidelity was calculated for the process.26 . The estimated uncertainties in the entanglement fidelities are less than ±0. Second. where the entanglement fidelity is plotted against the decoherence delay. as follows: The linearity of quantum mechanics implies that the single qubit input and output for the teleportation process are related by a linear quantum operation 27 .05.3s. The readout was performed in this instance on C2. Three elements ought to be noted in figure 2. with reasonable fidelity.5 for perfect classical transmission of data. we expect this decay to be due mainly to the effect of phase 8 . Third. Theoretically. we may completely characterize the quantum process. the entanglement fidelity for the teleportation experiments significantly exceeds the value of 0. By preparing a complete set of four linearly independent initial states. we performed quantum process tomography 25. we expect this to be the case. the decay of the entanglement fidelity for the teleportation experiments occurs much more slowly. The results of our experiment are shown in figure 2. Theoretically. enabling us to calculate the entanglement fidelity for the process 26 . Errors in our experiment arise from the strong coupling effect. for small decoherence delays. To determine the entanglement fidelities for the teleportation and control experiments.

J. Modern Quantum Mechanics. Mattle. Rev... C. L. W. G. Phys. Brassard. [5] Boschi. Phys. W. Hardy.. Tod. Proc. F... 1895–1899 (1993). Lett. and Popescu. H. Phys. D. K. J.decoherence and relaxation on the Hydrogen. Lett... References [1] Bennett. J. J. 575–579 (1997). and Wootters.. [3] Bennett. DiVincenzo. [7] Bennett. [6] Sakurai.. C... D. A. Peres. Nature 390. A 454.. C. K. Quantum information and computation. R. A. Pan.. H. Crepeau.. Rev. H. A 54. and Zeilinger. 1121–1125 (1998).. Weinfurter. W. J. S. C. Experimental realization of teleporting an unknown pure quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolski-Rosen channels. Quantum computing: pro and con. H. Wootters. Experimental quantum teleportation. De Martini. A. D. 24–30 (1995). Rev.. Roy. 9 . 1995). and provide more support for the claim that quantum data is being teleported in these experiments. S.. Phys. Smolin. Jozsa. 3824– 3851 (1996). 469–486 (1998). (Addison-Wesley. Soc. Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and EPR channels.. 80. Eibl. Mixed state entanglement and quantum error correction. Our experimental observations are consistent with this prediction.. 48 (Oct). 70. M.. [4] Bouwmeester. P. Branca. [2] Preskill.

E. H. S. Zurek. D. 1941–1947 (1998). G.. M.. Rev. A. Rev. D. J. Natl. Phys. F. Kimble.. Physica D 120. K. G. P. T. R. Sci. Phil. R. [15] Laflamme. Quantum state transfer and entanglement distribution among distant nodes in a quantum network. and Harris. 81. and Somaroo. Zurek. Trans. M. [16] Cory. and Laflamme. W. Havel. R. T. Soc. Proc. [11] Grant. 1634–1639 (1997). D. M.. and Mariappan.. F. D... P. Knill. [13] Nielsen.. editors.. E. 350–356 (1997). N. Science. E. Bulk spin resonance quantum computation. I. and Havel.[8] Cirac. Catasti. H.. Price.. Bodenhausen. J.. A.. and Wokaun. Encyclopedia of nuclear magnetic resonance. Knill.. [12] Gershenfeld.. W. H. M. Lett. [14] Cory. L. Price. F. I.. Ensemble quantum computing by NMR spectroscopy. Knill. 2152–2155 (1998).unm. 275. and Mabuchi. Lett. 78.. USA 94. http://wwwcas.. A. 3221–3224 (1997). R. Phys. Roy. T. (John Wiley. Acad. and Chuang. W. S. D.html (1998).. NMR Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger states. Principles of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in one and two dimensions. S. G.. V. D. G. 1990)... Zoller. Fahmy. and Havel. Laflamme. R. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy: An experimentally accessible paradigm for quantum computing. F. Experimental quantum error correction. [9] Cory. [10] Ernst.edu∼mnielsen/nmr/index. S. 10 . (Oxford University Press. 82–101 (1998). A 356. H. Maas. 1996).

. Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical. J.[17] Chuang. J.. A 57. K. In Schumacher’s notation. M. Braunstein. 109.. Lett. Complete characterization of a quantum process: the two-bit quantum gate.. [20] Jones. Zhou. 143–146 (1998). Implementation of a quantum search algorithm on a nuclear magnetic resonance quantum computer. Leung. J. I. Nature 393. and Hansen. Phys. F. Cirac. 44. and Kubinec.. Teleportation as a quantum computation Physica D 120.. E . Experimental realization of a quantum algorithm. Information transmission through a noisy quantum channel. Phys. R. I. [25] Poyatos. 18. and Schumacher. 1648–1653 (1998).. S. H. M. Rev. W. M. where E is the teleportation operation.. 36–44 (1991). [23] Schumacher. A. 11 .. 43–47 (1998). L. Phys. and Cleve. L. and Lloyd. S.. P. Tod. A. H. we calculate Fe (I/2. Nature 393. W. Nielsen. Gershenfeld. [21] Brassard. Chem. 3408–3411 (1998). R.. 344–346 (1998). A 54. L. Phys.. A. G. and Mosca. W. I. Rev. [19] Chuang. B. Rev. N. X.. Rev.. M. [24] Barnum. 4153–4175 (1998). Mosca. [18] Jones. Vandersypen. M. J. H. Phys.. B. L. and Zoller. Lett. W. 78. Phys.. 390–393 (1997). Experimental implementation of fast quantum searching. [22] Zurek. 2614–2628 (1996). Sending entanglement through noisy quantum channels. D. J. Implementation of a quantum algorithm on a nuclear magnetic resonance quantum computer.

Correspondence and requests for materials should be sent to M. Phys. 2547–2556 (1997). N. Mod. [27] Nielsen. Opt. and Caves.edu). M. 2455–2467 (1997). C. 44. and Wojtek Zurek for useful discussions. and the National Security Agency and Office of Naval Research for support. A. I. Prescription for experimental determination of the dynamics of a quantum black box. A.. the Stable Isotope Laboratory at Los Alamos for use of their facility. A 55. Chris Jarzynski. Jun Ye. M.[26] Chuang. (mnielsen@theory. A. Reversible quantum operations and their application to teleportation. J. 12 . and Nielsen. Acknowledgments We thank David Cory..caltech. M. L. Rev.

6s. The curve shows a decay time of approximately 0. immediately before the decoherence step. Note that the control circuit simply omits two elements of the teleportation experiment – rotation from the Bell basis into the computational basis. and the conditional unitary operation.Figure Captions Figure 1: Schematic circuits for (a) the quantum teleportation experiment. corresponding approximately to the combined effects of decoherence and relaxation for the Hydrogen. The top curve represents the fidelity of the quantum teleportation process. The decay time is approximately 2. The teleportation circuit is based upon that suggested by Brassard et al 21 .5s. The bottom curve is a control run where the information remains in C2. and (b) the control experiment. 13 . Figure 2: Entanglement fidelity (a measure of how well quantum information is preserved) is plotted as a function of decoherence time. Commented pulse sequences for our experiment may be obtained on the world wide web 13 . confirming the prediction of teleportation. The information is preserved for a longer time.

and (b) the control experiment. U10 . and the conditional unitary operation. Note that the control circuit simply omits two elements of the teleportation experiment – rotation from the Bell basis into the computational basis. U01 . immediately before the decoherence step. 14 . The teleportation circuit is based upon that suggested by Brassard et al 21 . U11 classical data classical data |Ψ Alice tomography decohere entangle Figure 1: Bob Schematic circuits for (a) the quantum teleportation experiment. Commented pulse sequences for our experiment may be obtained on the world wide web 13 .Bob (a) data |Ψ (C2) ancilla 0 (C1) target 0 (H) (b) data |Ψ ancilla 0 (C1) target 0 (H) Alice measure in the Bell basis entangle d d conditional unitary U00 .

4 0. The top curve represents the fidelity of the quantum teleportation process.0 0. The information is preserved for a longer time.00 1.25 1.6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 0.5s.50 1.6s. 15 .2 0.75 1. The curve shows a decay time of approximately 0.00 Decoherence delay (s) Figure 2: Entanglement fidelity (a measure of how well quantum information is preserved) is plotted as a function of decoherence time. confirming the prediction of teleportation.0 Entanglement fidelity ! 0.8 ! ! 0. The decay time is approximately 2.25 0.1. corresponding approximately to the combined effects of decoherence and relaxation for the Hydrogen. The bottom curve is a control run where the information remains in C2.50 0.75 2.