1) Joshna Priyatharshini, 2)Arul Savina Lydia, 1, 2: Final ECE, IFET College of engineering, Villupuram.

Teleportation is a new and exciting field of future communication. We know that Among that security the are in data communication is a major concern nowadays. technologies encryption at avail-able

Quantum Teleportation is a process by which we can transfer the quantum state of a system and its correlation to another system. Teleportation can deliver the subtle, unscannable kind of information and this information is totally different from ordinary information. Teleportation is developed, based on the concept of Quantum Entanglement. Entangled particles act here as a channel for transformation. Teleportation/ Entanglement is exploited by parallel computing, quantum communication, cryptography technology, distributed computing etc. Of them cryptography is the prosperous field where it would be possible to use Teleportation/Entanglement in an efficient and effective way, in very near future. In classical cryptography, we can use public key encryption or shared key encryption. But public key is vulnerable to attack by quantum computer, as quantum computer would be able to

present, shared key is the most reliable which depends on secure key generation and distribution. Teleportation/ Entanglement is a perfect solution for secure key generation and distribution, as for the no cloning theorem of quantum mechanics any attempt to intercept the key by the eavesdropper presented will be detectable concept, its immediately. We have reviewed and Teleportation process, road blocks, and successes that are achieved recently in a straightforward manner and showed that Teleportation is going to be used practically for quantum key distribution in very near future by separating its unique features.

factor the prime product very quickly. Though shared key is secured but it requires many shared random numbers that cannot be used more than once, hence the problem of distributing random numbers arises. Quantum Teleportation/Entanglement is therefore, to solve the problem. A completely secure quantum key can be generated and distributed and decoding (for of communication

circuitry. teleportation

Short-distance will play a

quantum role in

transporting quantum information inside quantum computers.

Quantum teleportation experiment:
The idea of teleportation is based on the the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, which forbids any measuring or scanning process from extracting all the information in an atom or other object. According to the uncertainty principle, the more accurately an object is scanned, the more it is disturbed by the scanning process, until one reaches a point where the object's original state has been completely disrupted, still without having extracted enough information to make a perfect replica. This is like a solid argument against teleportation: if one cannot extract enough information from an object to make a perfect copy, it would seem that a perfect copy cannot be made. The way to make an end- run around this logic, using a celebrated and paradoxical feature of quantum mechanics known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect. the way to scan out part of the information from an object A, which one wishes to teleport, while causing the remaining,

encrypted messages) using entangled photons has been demonstrated. Any eavesdropper’s attempt to intercept the quantum key will alter the contents in a detectable way, enabling users to discard the compromised parts of the data. Research is going for on to use Key Teleportation Quantum

Distribution. Quantum teleportation can be implemented with a quantum circuit that is much simpler than that required by any nontrivial quantum computational task. The state of an arbitrary qubit (quantum bit) can be teleported with as few as two quantum exclusive-or Thus, (controlled-not) teleportation gates. is quantum

significantly easier to implement than quantum computing if we are concerned only with the complexity of the required

unscanned, part of the information to pass, via the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect, into another object C which has never been in contact with A. Later, by applying to C a treatment depending on the scanned-out information, it is possible to maneuver C into exactly the same state as A was in before it was scanned. A itself is no longer in that state, having been thoroughly disrupted by the scanning, so what has been achieved is teleportation, not replication.

unlike any material cargo, and even unlike ordinary information, can indeed be delivered in such a backward fashion. This subtle kind of information, also called "Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlation" or "entanglement" has been at least partly understood since the 1930s when it was discussed in a famous paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen. In the 1960s John Bell showed that a pair of entangled particles, which were once in contact but later move too far apart to interact directly, can exhibit individually random behavior that is too strongly correlated to be explained by classical statistics. Experiments on photons and other particles have repeatedly confirmed these correlations, thereby providing strong evidence for the validity of

As the figure suggests, the unscanned part of the information is conveyed from A to C by an intermediary object B, which interacts first with C and then with A. What? Can it really be correct to say "first with C and then with A"? Surely, in order to convey something from A to C, the delivery vehicle must visit A before C, not the other way around. But there is a subtle, unscannable kind of information that,





explains them. Another well-known fact about EPR correlations is that they cannot by themselves deliver a meaningful and controllable message. It was thought that their only usefulness was in proving the validity of quantum mechanics. But now it is known that, through the phenomenon of quantum teleportation, they can deliver exactly that part of the information in an object

which is too delicate to be scanned out and delivered by conventional methods.



compares (see

conventional above). In

facsimile transmission with quantum teleportation conventional facsimile transmission the original is scanned, extracting partial information about it, but remains more or less intact after the scanning process. The scanned information is sent to the receiving station, where it is imprinted on some raw material (eg paper) to produce an approximate copy of the original. By contrast, in quantum teleportation, two objects B and C are first brought into contact and then separated. Object B is taken to the sending station, while object C is taken to the receiving station. At the sending station object B is scanned together with the original object A which one wishes to teleport, yielding some information and totally disrupting the state of A and B. The scanned information is sent to the receiving station, where it is used to select one of several treatments to be

applied to object C, thereby putting C into an exact replica of the former state of A. IINSBRUCK EXPERIMENT: A powerful way to produce entangled spontaneous pairs of photons is parametric

downconversion: a single photon passing through a special crystal sometimes generates two new photons that are entangled so that they will show opposite polarization when measured. A much more difficult problem is to entangle two independent photons that already exist, as must occur during the operation of a Bell state analyzer. This means that the two photons (A and X) somehow have to lose their private features. In our experiment, a brief pulse ofultraviolet light from a laser passes through a crystal and creates the entangled photons A and B. One travels to Alice, and the other goes to Bob. A mirror reflects the ultraviolet pulse back through the crystal again, where it may create another pair of photons, C and D. (These will also be entangled, but we IINSBRUCK EXPERIMENT don’t use their entanglement.) Photon C goes to a detector, which alerts us that its partner D is available to be teleported. Photon D passes through a polarizer, which we can orient in any conceivable way. The resulting polarized photon is our photon X, the one to be teleported, and travels on to Alice. Once it passes through the polarizer, photon, X no is an independent longer

entangled. And although we know its polarization because of how we set the polarizer, Alice does not. We reuse the same ultraviolet pulse in this way to ensure that Alice has Photons A and X at the same time. Now we arrive at the problem of performing the Bell‐state measurement. To do this, Alice combines her two photons (A and X)

using a semi reflecting mirror, a device that reflects half of the incident light. An individual photon has a 50–50 chance of passing through or being reflected. In quantum terms, the photon goes into a superposition of these two possibilities [see illustration above]. Now suppose that two photons strike the mirror from opposite sides, with their paths aligned so that the reflected path of one photon lies along the transmitted path of the other, and vice versa. A detector waits at the end of each path. Ordinarily the two photons would be reflected independently, and there would be a 50 percent chance of them arriving in separate detectors. If the photons are indistinguishable and arrive at the mirror at the same instant, however, quantum interference takes place: some possibilities cancel out and do not occur, whereas others reinforce and occur more often. When the photons interfere, they have only a 25 percent likelihood of ending up in separate that detectors. occurs it Furthermore, when

which corresponds to the other three Bell states but does not discriminate among them. When Alice simultaneously becomes a detects one photon in each detector, Bob’s photon instantly replica of Alice’s original photon X. We verified that this teleportation occurred by showing that Bob’s photon had the polarization that we imposed on photon X. The experiment was not perfect, but the correct polarization was detected 80 percent of the time (random photons would variety achieve of 50 percent). We demonstrated the procedure with a polarizations: vertical, horizontal, linear at 45 degrees and even a nonlinear kind of polarization called circular polarization. The most difficult aspect of the Bell state analyzer is making photons A and X indistinguishable. Even the timing of when the photons arrive could be used to identify which photon is which, so it is important to “erase” the time information carried by the particles. In the experiment, team used a trick: they sent the photons through very narrow bandwidth photons wavelength very filters. and This by process makes the wavelength of the precise,

corresponds to detecting one of the four possible Bell states of the two photons— the case that we called “lucky” earlier. The other 75 percent of the time the two photons both end up in one detector,





smears out the photons in time. A mind boggling case arises when the teleported photon was itself entangled with another and thus did not have its own individual polarization. In 1998 my Innsbruck group demonstrated this scenario by giving Alice photon D without polarizing it, so that it was still entangled with photon C. We showed that when the teleportation succeeded, Bob’s photon B ended up entangled with C. Thus, the entanglement with C had been transmitted from A to B. BELL STATE MEASUREMENT not. We had half silvered mirrors, which reflect one half of the light incidents on them and transmit the other half without reflection. These mirrors are sometimes called beam splitters because they split a light beam into two equal parts. We shall use a half silvered mirror to perform Bell State Measurements. The name is after the originator of Bell's Theorem. We direct one of the entangled photons, say E1, to the beam splitter. Meanwhile, we prepare another photon with a polarization of 45 degree, and direct it to the same beam splitter from the other side, as shown. This is the photon whose properties will be transported; we label it K. We time it so

Bell state measurements
Here we shall prepare pairs of entangled photons with opposite polarizations; we shall call them E1 and E2. The entanglement means that if we measure a beam of, say, E1 photons with a polarizer, one half of the incident photons will pass the filter, regardless of the orientation of the polarizer. Whether a particular photon will pass the filter is random. However, if we measure its companion E2 photon with a polarizer oriented at 90 degrees relative to the first, then if E1 passes its filter E2 will also pass its filter. Similarly if E1 does not pass its filter its companion E2 will

that both E1 and K reach the beam splitter at the same time.

be going downwards, as shown. This will occur when either both photons have been reflected or both photons have been transmitted. Thus there are three possible arrangements for the photons from the beam splitter: both upwards, both downwards, or one upwards and one downwards. Which of these three possibilities has occurred ,can be determined if we put detectors in the paths of the photons after they have left the beam splitter. However, in the case of one photon going upwards and the other going downwards, we cannot tell which is which. Perhaps both photons were reflected by the beam splitter However, in the case of one photon going upwards and the other going downwards, we cannot tell which is which. Perhaps both photons were reflected by the beam splitter, but perhaps both were transmitted. This means that the two photons have become entangled. If we have a large beam of identically prepared photon pairs incident on the beam splitter, the case of one photon ending up going upwards and the other downwards

The E1 photon incident from above will be reflected by the beam splitter some of the time and will be transmitted some of the time. Similarly for the K photon that is incident from below. So sometimes both photons will end up going up and to the right as shown. Similarly, the right. sometimes both photons will end up going down and to

But sometimes one photon will end up going upwards and the other will

occurs, perhaps surprisingly, 25% of the time. Also somewhat surprisingly, for a single pair of photons incident on the beam splitter, the photon E1 has now collapsed into a state where its polarization is -450, the opposite polarization of the prepared 450 one. This is because the photons have become entangled. So although we don't know which photon is which, we know the polarizations of both of them. The explanation of these two somewhat surprising results is beyond the level of this discussion, but can be explained by the phase shifts the light experiences when reflected, the mixture of polarization states of E1, and the consequent interference between the two photons.

The Teleporter
Now we shall think about the E2 companion to E1. 25 percent of the time, the Bell state measurement resulted in the circumstance shown, and in these cases we have collapsed the state of the E1 photon into a state where its polarization is -450. But since the two photon system E1 and E2 was prepared with opposite polarizations, this means that the companion to E1, E2, now has a polarization of +450. Thus the state of the K photon has now been transferred to the E2 photon. We have teleported the information about the K photon to E2. Although this collapse of E2 into a 450 polarization state occurs instantaneously, we haven't achieved teleportation until we communicate that the Bell-state measurement has yielded the result shown. Thus the teleportation does not occur instantaneously Note that the teleportation has destroyed the state of the original K photon. Quantum entanglements such as exist between E1 and E2 in principle are independent of how far apart the two photons become. This has been experimentally verified for distances as large as 10km. Thus, the Quantum

Teleportation is similarly independent of the distance.

angles. Thus any teleporter must destroy the state of the object being teleported.

APPLICATIONS: Quantum Information
As computers you store probably know, as information

sequences of 0's and 1's. For example, in the ASCII encoding the letter A is represented by the number 65. As a binary number this is: 1,000,001 Inside the computer, there are transistors that are either on or off, and we assign the onstate be 1 and The Original State of the Teleported Photon Must Be Destroyed: Above we saw that the K photon's state was destroyed when the E2 photon acquired it. Consider for a moment that this was not the case, so we end up with two photons with identical polarization states. Then we could measure the polarization of one of the photons at, say, 450 and the other photon at 22.50. Then we would know the polarization state of both photons for both of those angles. As we saw in our discussion of Bell's Theorem, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says that this is impossible: we can never know the polarization of a photon for these two the off state 0. However, the same information can be stored in exactly the same way in any system that has two mutually exclusive binary states. For example, if we have collection photons we could represent the 1's as photons whose polarization is +450 and the 0's as polarizations of -450. We could similarly use electrons with spin‐up and spindown states to encode the information. These quantum bits of information are called qubits. Above we were thinking about an apparatus to do Quantum Teleportation. Now we see that we can think of the same apparatus as transferring Quantum Information. Note that, as opposed to, say, a fax, when transferring Quantum Information the

original, the polarization of the K photon, is destroyed. Quantum Cryptography Cryptography depends on both the sender and receiver of the encrypted information both knowing a key. The sender uses the key to encrypt the information and the receiver uses the same key to decrypt it. The key can be something very simple, such as both parties knowing that each letter has been shifted up by 13 places, with letters above the thirteenth in the alphabet rotated to the beginning. Or they can be very complex, such as a very very long string of binary digits. Here is an example of using binary numbers to encrypt and decrypt a message, in this case the letter A, which we have seen is 1,000,001 in a binary ASCII encoding. We shall use as the key the number 23, which in binary is 0,010,111. We will use the key to encode the letter using a rule that if the corresponding bits of the letter and key are the same, the result is a 1, and otherwise a 0. A 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 KEY 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 ENCRYPTED 0 1 0 1 0 0 1

The encrypted value is 41, which in ASCII is the right parenthesis. To decrypt the message we use the key and the same procedure: ENCRYPTED KEY A Any classical 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 encryption 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 scheme is

vulnerable on two counts: If the "bad guys" get hold of the key they too can decrypt the message. So-called public key encryption schemes reveals on an open channel a long string of binary digits which must be converted to the key by means of a secret procedure; here security is based on the computational complexity of "cracking" the secret procedure. Because there are patterns in all messages, such as the fact that the letter e-predominates, then if multiple messages are intercepted using the same key the bad guys can begin to decipher them. To be really secure, then, there must be a unique secret key for each message. So the question becomes how can we generate a unique key and be sure that the bad guys don't know what it is. To send a key in Quantum Cryptography, simply send photons in

one of four polarizations: -45, 0, 45, or 90 degrees. As you know, the receiver can measure, say, whether or not a photon is polarized at 90 degrees and if it is not then be sure than it was polarized at 0 degrees. Similarly the receiver can measure whether a photon was polarized at 45 degrees, and if it is not then it is surely polarized at -45 degrees. However the receiver cannot measure both the 0 degree state and 45 degree state, since the first measurement destroys the information of the second one, regardless The of which one is the performed first. receiver measures incoming photons, randomly choosing whether to measure at 90 degrees or 45 degrees, and records the results but keeps them secret. The receiver contacts the sender and tells her on an open channel which type of measurement was done for each, without revealing the result. The sender tells the receiver which of the measurements were of the correct type. Both the sender and receiver keep only the qubits that were measured correctly and they have now formed the key. If the bad guys intercept the transmission of photons, measure their polarizations,

and then send them on to the receiver, they will inevitably introduce errors because they don't know which polarization measurement to perform. The two legitimate users of the quantum channel test for eavesdropping by revealing a random subset of the key bits and checking the error rate on an open channel. Although they cannot prevent eavesdropping, they will never be fooled by an eavesdropper because any, however subtle and sophisticated, effort to tap the channel will be detected. Whenever they are not happy with the security of the channel they can try to set up the key distribution again. By February 2000 a working Quantum Cryptography system using the above scheme achieved the admittedly modest rates of 10 bits per second over a 30 cm length. There is another method of Quantum Cryptography which uses entangled photons. A sequence of correlated particle pairs is generated, with one member of each pair being detected by each party (for example, a pair of photons whose polarizations are measured by the parties). An eavesdropper on this communication would have to detect a particle to read

the signal, and retransmit it in order for his presence to remain unknown. However, the act of detection of one particle of a pair destroys its quantum correlation with the other, and the two parties can easily verify whether this has been done, without revealing the results of their own measurements, by communication over an open channel. Conclusion Quantum teleportation is a direct descendant of the scenarios debated by Einstein and Bohr. When we analyze the experiment, we would run into all kinds of problems if we asked ourselves what the properties of the individual particles really are when they are entangled. We have to analyze carefully what it means to “have” a polarization. We cannot escape the conclusion that all we can talk about are certain experimental measurements. results In the obtained by polarization

that specific experiment, and we should be cautious in using it in other situations. REFERENCES: 1. ^ Einstein A, Podolsky B, Rosen N (1935). "Can Quantumof Mechanical Description

Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?". Phys. Rev. 47 (10): 777–780. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777. 2. ^ A. Einstein, The Born-Einstein Letters; Correspondence between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig Born from 1916 to 1955, Walker, New York, 1971. (cited in Quantum Entanglement and Communication Complexity (1998), by M. P. Hobson et. al., p.1/13) 3. ^ Fred R. Shapiro, Joseph Epstein (2006). The Yale Book of Quotations. Yale University Press. p. 228. ISBN 0300107986. 4. ^ A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger (1982). "Experimental Realization of EinsteinPodolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell's Inequalities". Physical Review Letters 49 (2): 91–94. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.91. 5. ^ Testing Spooky Action at a Distance Preprint: Testing

measurement, a click of the detector lets us construct a picture in our mind in which the photon actually “had” a certain polarization at the time of measurement. Yet we must always remember that this is just a made-up story. It is valid only if we talk about

Spooky Action at a Distance Nature Article 6. ^ Entanglement Theory Tutorials from Imperial College London 7. ^ a b M.B. Plenio and S. Virmani, An introduction to entanglement measures, Quant. Inf. Comp. 7, 1 (2007) [1] 8. ^ Dik Bouwmeester, Jian-Wei Pan, Klaus Mattle, Manfred Eibl, Harald Weinfurter & Anton Zeilinger, Experimental Quantum Teleportation, Nature vol.390, 11 Dec 1997, pp.575. (Summarized at http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/ research/photonentangle/teleport/ ) 9. ^ Jaeger G, Shimony A, Vaidman L (1995). "Two Interferometric Complementarities". Phys. Rev. 51: 54. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.51.54. 10. ^ Dirac, P. A. M.: Note on Exchange Phenomena in the Thomas Atom. Proc. Cambr. Phil. Soc. 26, 376-385 (1930).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful