Information Flow in Entangled Quantum Systems Author(s): David Deutsch and Patrick Hayden Reviewed work(s): Source: Proceedings:

Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 456, No. 1999 (Jul. 8, 2000), pp. 1759-1774 Published by: The Royal Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2665577 . Accessed: 21/01/2012 17:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Royal Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

http://www.jstor.org

10.1098/rspa.2000.0585

*!ui1 SOCIETY

KF THE ROYAL

Information flow in entangled quantum systems

By DAVID
DEUTSCH AND PATRICK HAYDEN

Centrefor Quantum Computation, The Clarendon Laboratory, of University Oxford,OxfordOXI SPU, UK

Received4 June 1999; revised3 November1999; accepted16 December1999

in Bell's theorem,localized. All information quantum systems is, notwithstanding Measuring or otherwise interactingwith a quantum system S has no effecton distant systems fromwhich S is dynamically isolated, even if they are entangled with S. Using the Heisenberg picture to analyse quantum information processing makes this localityexplicit,and revealsthat undersome circumstances(in particular, in Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experimentsand in quantum teleportation),quantum is channels. through'classical' (i.e. decoherent)information information transmitted
Keywords: entanglement; non-locality; quantum information; Heisenberg picture; locally inaccessible information

1. Quantum information
It is widely believed (see, for example, Bennett & Shor 1998) that, in general, a completedescriptionof a composite quantum systemis not deducible fromcomplete descriptionsof its subsystemsunless the 'description'of each subsystemS depends on what is goingon in othersubsystemsfromwhich S is dynamicallyisolated. If this were so, then in quantum systemsinformation would be a non-local quantity that in is to say, the information a composite system would not be deducible fromthe information located in all its subsystemsand, in particular,changes in the distribuin tion of information a spatially extended quantum systemcould not be understood information whollyin termsof information flow,i.e. in termsof subsystemscarrying fromone location to another. In this paper we shall show that this beliefis false. It some of whichwe shall also address has givenrise to a wide range of misconceptions, flowin quantum here,but our main concernwill be with the analysis of information information-processing systems. Any quantum 'two-state'systemsuch as the spin of an electronor the polarization of a photon can, in principle,be used as the physicalrealization of a qubit (quantum When used to store or transmitdiscrete bit), the basic unit of quantum information. data, such as the values of integers,to an unknowndestination,the capacity of a qubit is exactly one bit in other words, it can hold one of two possible values; moreover,any observerwho knows which of the qubit's observables the value was stored in can discoverthe value by measuringthat observable. However,the states in which the qubit 'holds a value' in that sense are merely an isolated pair in a continuumof possible states. Hence there is a lot more than one bit of information in a qubit, though most of it is not accessible throughmeasurementson that qubit alone. For a varietyof theoreticaland practical reasons, the study of the properties
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2000) 456, 1759-1774 1759

2000 The Royal Society

1760

D. Deutsch and P. Hayden

has recentlybeen the subject of increasingattention of this quantum information (for a review, see Bennett & Shor (1998)). The main question we are addressing locally,i.e. in such a here is whetherit is possible to characterizesuch information way that a complete descriptionof a composite system can always be deduced from complete descriptionsof its subsystems,where under those descriptions,'the real factual situation of the system S2 is independentof what is done with the system Sl, which is spatially separated fromthe former'(Schilpp 1970, p. 85). Einstein proposed this criterionduring his celebrated debate with Bohr on the foundationsof quantum theory,in which they both agreed that it is not satisfied by quantum theory.Bohr drew the lesson that there can be no such thing as 'the real factual situation of the system' except at the instant of measurement.Einstein concluded instead that quantum theoryis incomplete and needs to be completed, perhaps by what we should now call a hidden-variabletheory.Subsequent developments such as Bell's theorem (Bell 1964) and Aspect's experiment(Aspect et al. been of 1982), whichare prima facie refutations Einstein's conclusion,have therefore taken as vindicationsof Bohr's. In fact,both conclusionsare mistaken,having been drawn fromthe same false premise:as we shall show in this paper, quantum physics is entirely consistentwith Einstein's criterion. Our method is to considera quantum systemprepared in a way that depends on one or moreparameters, wherethose parameterssubsequently and thento investigate appear in descriptionsof that system and others with which it interacts.Although we we shall expressour resultsin termsof the location and flowof information, shall We require only that a system not require a quantitative definition information. of S be deemed to contain information about a parameter0 if (though not necessarily only if) the probabilityof some outcome of some measurementon S alone depends on 0; and that S be deemed to contain no informationabout 0 if there exists a complete descriptionof S that satisfiesEinstein's criterionand is independentof 0.

2. Quantum theory of computation in the Heisenberg picture

Consider a quantum computational network 91 containing n interactingqubits FollowingGottesman (1998), we may representeach qubit ?L2 at time t i1, . . I in the Heisenbergpicture by a triple

da(t) = (Wax I ay I az(t)) (t): (t):

of 2n x 2n Hermitianmatricesrepresenting observables of i2a, satisfying
[da(t),Ib(t)] 0= =
i

(2.1)

qax(t)0ay(t) = Waz(t)
qax(t)2

(a 7# b),

(and cyclic permutationsover (x, y,z)).J

(2.2)

Thus each qa(t) is a representation the Pauli spin operators 6- = (&x,&Y, of Iz)I but in termsof time-dependent x 2n matricesinstead of the usual constant2 x 2 ones, 2n

0 1

& =(0

-i)

I(0-1

(2.3)

We may choose, as the computation basis at time t, the simultaneous eigenstates , Zk; t)} of the {2a(t)}, where {Izi,
PaR(t). S(L-azdA)(Proc. R. Soc. Lond.A (2000) =

(2.4)

Information flow in entangledquant'umsystems

1761

to respectively, the eigenvalues+1 Each za (t) has eigenvalues0 and 1 (corresponding, and -1 of qaz(t)) and is the projector forthe ath qubit to hold the value 1 at time t. There is considerable freedom in the choice of matrix representationsfor the observables (2.1). It is always possible, and usually desirable, to choose the initial to representation be where0 (distributed, (2.5), overthe threecomponents of 6-) and jk is the tensorproduct of k copies ofthe 2 x 2 unit matrix.As we shall see, once the qubits begin to interact,the observables immediatelylose the form(2.5) in the original basis. That is because, as in classical mechanics, the value of each observable of one system becomes a functionof the values of observables of other systemsat previoustimes thoughnow the 'values' are matrices. (However,at every there instant,because the conditions(2.2) are preservedby all quantum interactions, exists a basis in which the observablestake the form(2.5).) The Heisenberg state of the networkis, of course, constant and, in the theory of computation, it is often desirable to make it a standard constant 10,... , 0; 0), so that the resources required to prepare the 'initial' state will automatically be whose taken into account in the analysis ofcomputations.When studyingalgorithms intended inputs are qubits in unknowninitial states, it may be convenientto work with other Heisenberg states I!t) #& 10,... , 0; 0), but note, nevertheless,that by choosing any unitarymatrix U with the property !r) = uo0,... , 0; 0), and setting 4a(O) = Ut(ia-l 0 6-<0 in-a)U instead of (2.5), it is always possible to choose the 0 Heisenberg stateto be IO, . ., O;0). In what follows,we shall make that choice. For the sake of brevity, us define let (A) -(O, ..., 0; OAO,.. ., 0;0) (2.6) foreach observable A of 'R. Note that all predictionsabout the behaviour of T can in be expressed entirely termsof expectation values of the form(2.6). its Let us assume forsimplicity that each gate of T performs operation in a fixed of period, and let us measure time in units of that period. The effect a k-qubit gate G acting between the times t and t + 1 is dal(t + 1) = G(41' (t): * 4k'(t)) dal (t) UG.(41' (t): ... * kl(t)): * (2.7) ... , k' are the indices of the qubits that are acted upon by G and a' is any where 1', such index. Since each qubit is acted upon by exactly one gate duringany one comon putational step (countingthe 'unit wire' I, whichhas no effect the computational state of a qubit, as a gate with UI 1), the dynamical evolutionof any qubit of T duringone step is fullyspecifiedby an expressionof the form(2.7), where G is the of gate acting on that qubit duringthat step. The formof each UG qua function its of gate G, and its formqua argumentsis fixedand characteristic the corresponding unitarymatrixvaries accordingly. It followsthat the simultaneouseigenvectors the {Za' (t)} evolve accordingto of
|l'v---.. IZk'; t+ 1) = U(41l'(t) --nk' (t)) IZl'v *Zkl;t)-

la-1 ^ in qa(O) 0 in jm-a denotes the tensorproduct

(2.5)

(2.8)

The computation basis evolves similarly,with k replaced by the total number of qubits n, and with UG replaced by the product (in any order, since they must to commute) of all the unitarymatricescorresponding gates acting at time t.
Proc. R. Soc. Lond.A (2000)

1762

D. Deutsch and P. Hayden

We are now in a position to verify that quantum systemshave the locality properties stated in ? 1. If we always choose the state vector to be a standard constant, the term 'state vector' becomes a misnomer,forthe vector 10,... ., ; 0) contains no information about the state of 9 or anythingelse. All the information contained is in the observables. Specifically,the matrix triplets {qa (t)}, each of which constitutes a complete (indeed redundant) descriptionof one qubit ia, jointly constitute a complete descriptionof the composite system9, as promised. As forEinstein's criterion about the effect one subsystemupon another,consider of a particularqubit ila and let F be a gate that acts only on one or more qubits other than ?L2 (so that i2C is dynamicallyisolated fromthose qubits) during the period between t and t + 1. Accordingto (2.7), the complete descriptionof i2C duringthat period would be unchangedifF werereplaced by any othergate. Hence it is a general featureof this formalism that when a gate acts on any set of qubits, the descriptions of all otherqubits remainunaffected even qubits that are entangledwiththose that the gate acts on. This is, again, as promised. A quantum computationalnetwork not a general quantum system:forinstance, is its interactionsall take place in discretecomputational steps of fixedduration,and duringany computationalstep each of its qubits interactsonly with the otherqubits that are acted upon by the same gate. Nevertheless, since everyquantum systemcan be simulatedwith arbitrary accuracy by quantum computationalnetworks(Deutsch 1989), the above conclusions about locality are true for general quantum systems too. 3. Some specific quantum gates

We oftendefinegates according to the effect they are to have on the computation basis. In such cases, we can use (2.8) to determinethe formof the functionUG associated with a given gate G. For example, a not gate acting on a networkconsisting of a single qubit at time t must have the effect

?0;t)= |l; t + l) = ut,t(d(t))Il; t), t 1; t).J (4(t)) IO; 1 t) = IO; + l) = Ut,t

3l

(Recall that the kets here are not Schr6dingerstates, but eigenvectorsof Heisenof berg observables. So, forinstance, 0O; in (3.1) is the zero-eigenvalue t) eigenvector at t = 0, z(t) = (i + qz (t)).) Hence, (r; 01Utot(4(0))Is; 0) = 5(r,1- s). (3.2) The Pauli matrices (2.3), togetherwith the unit matrix,forma basis in the vector space of all 2 x 2 matrices,so we may express (3.2) as an expansion in this basis to obtain
Unot(4(0)) = (X-

(3.3)

Using (2.5), (3.3) and the fact that the functionalformof Unotis constant,we infer that, fora general networkat a general time t, the unitarymatrix associated with a not gate acting on the kth qubit is
L Unot,kc((t). 0(34) kx0(t) An((t)) =

Proc. R. Soc. Lond.A (2000)

Information flow in entangledq'uantumsystems of From (3.4) and (2.2) it followsthat the effect not on the kth qubit is

1763

not:

qk (t

+ 1)

= (6kx (t + 1), qky(t + 1), qkz (t + 1)) = (6kx (t),i-6ky (t),i-qkz (t)),

(3-5)

verify with all other qubits remainingunchanged,and fromthis we can immediately operation on i2k that the following Vnot:
qk (t + 1) = (6kx(t), qkz (t), -qky (t))

(3.6)

operation (Deutsch 1989). is a 'square-root-of-not' or operation,cnot (BarenConsidernext the 'perfect-measurement' controlled-not co et al. 1995). This is an operation on two qubits, designatedthe controlqubit and is the target qubit. Its effect that if the control qubit takes the value 0, then the target qubit is unaltered,and if the controlqubit takes the value 1, then the target qubit is toggled. Given (3.4), this means that
Ucnot(4k, 4l) =
2

i(i? +

1z) + 2qkx(1 -

z)

kx + qz

-qkxqlz),

(3.7)

Subwherethe kth and lth qubits are the 'target' and 'control' qubits, respectively. stituting(3.7) into (2.7), we obtain cot: . cno

f + 1)X l qk(t + 1)J ((kx(t), (t) qky(t)qlz(t), qkz(t)qlz(t)) (kx 61x(t), qkx 41y 61z(t)) (t) (t), (t q41

(3.8)

Let Rn (0) be the single-qubit gate that would, ifthe kth qubit were a spin-1 particle, rotate that particle throughan angle 0 about the unit 3-vectorn. The matrices qk must transform under this rotationin the same way as Pauli matricesdo, Rn (0):
qk(t

+ 1) =

e-

i(0/2)n14k (t) qk (t)ei(0/2)n1qk(t).

(3.9)

of Hence, in particular,the effect rotatingthe kth qubit throughan angle 0 about the x-axis is

Rx(0):

qk (t + 1) = (qkX (t), qky(t) cos 0 + qkz (t) sin 0, qkz (t) cos 0

qky (t) sin 0).

(3.10)

Another useful gate, the 'Hadamard gate' H, is also a special case of (3.9), with 0 = 7rand n bisectingthe angle between the x- and z-axes,
H:
qk (t + 1) = (kz (t),-ky

(t), kx(t))

(3.11)

In general,since the cnot gate togetherwith gates of the type Rn(0) constitutea of universalset, the effect any gate can be calculated by consideringa computationally equivalentnetworkcontainingonly those gates, and then using (3.8) and (3.9). on For example,the gate that performs so-called Bell transformation two qubits the side (Braunstein et al. 1992) is equivalent to the networkshown on the right-hand of the equals sign in figure1. (Gates otherthan cnot are represented rectangles, by the vertical lines representthe paths of qubits, and the arrows at the top indicate theirdirectionof motion.) Since both cnot and H are their own inverses,the same the inverseof the Bell networkupside down (i.e. with H precedingcnot) performs transformation. followsthat the effect the Bell gate is It of
Pc R

Bell:

f k (t + 1)
(t + 1)

(61z(t),-4kx(t)

(kx (t), qky(t)qlz (t), qkz(t)ql(t))

1y(t), kx(t)

1x(t))

(3.12)

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2000)

1764

D. Deutsch and P. Hayden

Figure 1. The Bell gate.

Q1

~~~~A B

-.

***-**-*-**--

*.

-...-.

._ ._. _-.__.-

_..-..

..-.

.. t=

..

........-..-. ..

-t k 1 EJ
~~._._.... w W[ 01 02 03 04

cnot,bbbnt .-.

*-*..

..

t=3

t=1~~~~~~~~~t

~~~~~t=01

Figure 2. An Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment.

and the effect its inverseis of

Bell-:

f qk(t + 1)

41 + 1)J (t

f (qkx(t),

qky(t)qlx (t), qkz(t)qlx (t)) |(4kx (t) 41z (t),I- 4kx(t) (t)I4,X (t)) 41Y

(3.13)

4. Information flow in Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen

experiments

The quantum computational networkfor performing Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen an (EPR) experimentis shown in figure2. Since this is the archetypalexperimentthat has been thought to demonstratethe non-local nature of information quantum in to takes duringthe course physics,it is instructive trace the paths that information of such an experiment.In particular,we shall trace how quantum information about the value of an angle 0, chosen arbitrarily a regionB, reaches a distant regionA. in Starting at time t = 0, with four qubits 31, ... ., ?,4 in the standard state the O, 10, 0, 0; 0), we entangle?,2 with?3.3by performing inverseBell operation (3.13). In Schr6dinger-picture terminology, they are now in the state Ib(1))
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2000) =

+ WOOi()0) M1)1)),

(4.1)

Information flow in entangledquantumsystems but in the Heisenbergpicture we have q2(1) = ((x 8 ii &Y 8 ax) &' &8) il

1765

q3(l) = 1(8)(x

(4.2)

(8 &ZI-A&X 0y 1Y (8 ax) (8 i-

Afterthat (at t = 1), we physicallyseparate ?11 and ?22 from3?23 and ?24, moving far these respective pairs to two regions A and B which are sufficiently apart (or isolated fromeach other) fornothingto be able to travel fromeitherof sufficiently them to the other until aftert = 3. some Then (still at t = 1 as faras the computationis concerned,though,in reality, time would be needed forthe qubits to travelto A and B) we rotate ?22 and ?3.3about At theirx-axes througharbitrarily (but locally) chosen angles 0 and 0, respectively. this time (t = 2), ?12 and ?24 have not yet participatedin the computationand have therefore remained unchanged,

41(2) = q1(0) = a X 13,

q4(2) = q4(0) =13?&,

(4.3)

of but the descriptorsof ?22 and 3?23 are now functions 0 and 0, respectively:
q2(2) = 1 0 (&x 0 1, (cos 0 &y + sin 0 &Z) 0

&x,

(cos0 &z

q3(2) =

10X

(x

Z sin 1 ,

- cos 08& q&x 04

(cos5i 01&X

IY
-

sin 0

0 Y8)0 &l)

l
( 1J

(44)

+ sin s&x o&y))

that we stated at the end of Now, given the qualitative propertiesof information ? 1, and since, as we shall see, the values of 0 and 0 will affectthe probabilitiesof the outcomes of measurements we performed later in the experiment, can inferthat the system as a whole contains information about 0 and X at t = 2. Furthermore, from(4.3) and (4.4), we know that none of the information about 0 is contained in in ?22. Similarly,all ?k, ?23 or ?24, so we must conclude that it is located entirely the information about 0 that is in the networkat t = 2 is located in ?23. However, since all observables on ?22 are linear combinationsof the unit observable and the threecomponentsof 42(2), and since
(42(2)) = (0, 0, 0) (4.5)

is independentof 0, the probabilityof any outcome of any possible measurementof any observable of ?22 at t = 2 is independentof 0. In other words, the information about 0, though presentin ?2, is not detectable by measurementson ?22 alone. as which is presentin a Let us definelocally inaccessible information information but does not affect the probabilityof any outcome of any possible measuresystem about 0 ment on that system alone. We have shown that at t = 2, the information in ?22 is locally inaccessible, and so is the information about 0 in ?23. can, and genericallydoes, spread to other qubits Nevertheless,such information local interactions.For example, in practice it spreads into the local throughfurther environmentthrough the unwanted interactionsthat cause decoherence. It also spreads to other qubits in our EPR experiment,where we now (after t = 2) use the outcomes cnot gates to perform on perfectmeasurements ?22 and ?23, recording
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2000)

1766 in ?11 and

34, (x

D. Deutsch and P. Hayden We respectively. then have

0 12, i2, 0 (Cos 0 &z
-

41i(3) =

sin 0 &Y) 0 &,X &Z " (cos 0 &z-sin 0 &Y) 8), x)

42(3) = (ax8 0 10 (5x

(0 1,&0xX (cosO 8?y+ sin0 &z) 0 ax,l

q3(3)

i l (cosO &z -sinO &Y) 08 x) 01, 0 &Z (0 AX, (sin qi (08"&- cos q&x (08 Y) 0 ax, (cos 01 0 &x + sin /ix 0 8"Y) ( 1), sin (cos i X &x + q&x
X &Y) (D 0

44(3) = i0

0( (i2 &x,

YI
x 0Y) 800Z. (D8 (4.6)

(cos qi 0 ax + sin

The locality of all these operations is reflected the fact that at this time (t = 3), in and q2 depend on 0 but not q, while q3 and q4 depend on 0 but not 0. Again, '1 it is easily verified that none of these dependences is detectable locally i.e. by any measurementperformed jointly on 11 and ?.2, or jointly on ?3?3 and ?-4 and that this would remain true if any amount of further interactionwith other local qubits, or with the local environments, were to occur. Finally,we measurewhetherthe two outcomesthat are now (at t = 3) storedin 11 and ?-4 werethe same or not. We do this by bringing (and therebyits information ?24 about q) to location A and then using it as the controlqubit of a cnot operation with ?11 as the target. The probabilitythat the two outcomes were different then is and (2.2), we findthat (Z1(4)). Using (2.4), (3-8), (4.6)
(ii(4))
=
12-2

-iz(4)) (q1z (3) 4z (3))

-2

(&z 0 (cos 0 cos 5&z 0

-cos

0 -sinO cosb&0y =sin2 1(? +

-sinO sinb&z o &z) 0 &z)

0 sin ObY 0 &Z

(4.7)

This is a familiarresult,but in the course of calculating it in the Heisenbergpicture, we have discoveredexactly how the information about 0 reached ?1,: it was carried there in the qubit ?-4 as it travelledfromB to A. It is easily verified that the result of the experimentwould be unchanged if Z4(t) were measured any number of times on 04'S journey from B to A. The locally inaccessible informationabout 0 that is carried in ?-4 would not be affectedby such measurements,nor, therefore, would it be affectedif ?.4 suffered decoherence interadions that stabilized Z4. But it would be copied into throughenvironmental other qubits, and any qubit holding the outcome of a measurementof Z4 could be to used instead of ?.4 to carry the information A. The ability of quantum information to flow through a classical channel in this way, survivingdecoherence,is also the basis of quantum teleportation, remarkablephenomenonto which we now a turn.
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2000)

Information flow in entangledquantumsystems

1767

5. Information flow in quantum teleportation

The veryterm'teleportation'was chosen by the discoverers the phenomenon(Benof nett et al. 1993) because it was deemed to be a spectacular example of information fromone location A appearing at another location B withoutbeing carried there in flow. any physical object travellingfromA to B i.e. withoutinformation A quantum computational networkfor demonstratingteleportationis shown in of figure3. The information interestis the angle 0 through which, at t = 0, we choose to rotate the qubit ?11, located at A, about its x-axis. More generally,the Rx(0) gate could be replaced by an arbitrarysingle-qubitgate that prepared 11 in an arbitrarypure state, which the networkwould 'teleport' to ,5 at the distant ourselvesto a one-parameterfamily location B, but forsimplicity are restricting we of states. We have di(1) = (&X,cos0 Qy+ sinO 8&,cos0 & - sinO &y) Also at t = 0, at location B, qubits Bell-' gate,
q4(1) = i3 ( (&x
q5(1) = i3 ()x
?-4

i 4.

(5.1)

and

-5

are entangled by the action of a (5.2)

(52

l &() I &y ( As, & Z, (&3 & y ( &X).

Then the qubit ?-4 travels to location A and undergoes a Bell operation, together with the qubit 211 that we rotated. As a result,
0 41 (2) = (&x (23 (COS 0 &y + sinO &za) i2 0 az 0 ^x] i4l

(cos 0 &z - sin 0 &Y)X 2 ?z

q4(2) = (i3 (3 &z A x (3 i2 (3 &y (3 Ax) Ax i2

& Ax))>,
Ax ())

(5-3)

Next we use cnot gates to perform perfectmeasurementson ?1, and 34, recording the outcomes in ?-2 and 3, respectively,
q2(3) = (1 ) &x 0 j3 (COS &z - sino ?z-sin?Y) 43(3) = (l (cos 0

&Y)0
0

8?

0 1 0 &Z &X,
(8 &Z 1 Z (8 ax)
)

(5.4)

0&x0()1)x(31 ux010y

(23x0(2J&vx0(31

(&3z (23x01)

about 0 at t = 2 is absent (The fact that in this simplified example the information from 34, and that it is then (t ? 3) carriedonly in ?,2 and not 3,3 has no fundamental significance: had we been teleportinga general pure state, which would require us to choose two real parameters at A instead of one, q1(2), q4(2), q2(3) and q3(3) would would all genericallydepend on both those parameters,and both ?,2 and 1?.3 be needed to transportthe information about our choice to B.) Next we subject ?,2, ??3 and ,5 to the special transformation T, T:
( qk(t + 1) ?^ (t +1) m (t

+ 1)

J I (vlz (t)>mx (t) I qkz (t)>1z (t)dmy(t) I qkz (t)4mz (t)) J

>lz (t)mx (t) I qky(t)qiz (t) qmx (t), qkz (t)) ] (dkx (t) z (t)I diy(t) qm z(t) I diz(0)) (l(t)qm (6 x

(5-5)

one of four which, as explained by Bennett et al. (1993), amounts to performing on unitarytransformations 3.m, depending on the binary numberstored in Ilk and
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2000)

1768

D. Deutsch and P. Hayden

!15

Rx(-e)
~2 ~3:3 t=4

- ****-***-**

-*

..........*

...........-

-.

cnot
-.

t= 32

-.---~~

~~t=

1 ~~~~~~t=

21~~~~~J

22

JC4

25

Figure 3. Quantum teleportation experiment.

on ,5, which is ?11. For the presentpurposes, we need only consider the net effect to set q5(4) =(Cos

y + sinO &,) @ &, 0 &, X

(cos 0 &,-sin 0 &y) 0 &z

1&z1).

(5.6)

Teleportationis now (at t = 4) complete. To verify that 25 is now in this, note first a pure state i.e. it is no longerentangledwith anything.In the Heisenbergpicture, the conditionthat a qubit is pure (given that the overall Heisenberg state is pure) is that there exists a Boolean observable (i.e. a projection operator) on that qubit whose measurementis guaranteed to have the outcome 1. This conditionis satisfied by -5 at t = 4, since

(2(i + sinO q5y(4)

+ cosO q5z(4)))

= 1

(5 7)

A necessaryand sufficient condition forthe teleportationto have been successfulis that the probabilityof each possible outcome of each possible measurementon 5 at t = 4 be the same as the probabilityof the same outcome of the corresponding measurement ?11 at t = 1 (just afterwe rotated?11 throughthe arbitrary on angle 0). it Since 25 is unentangled, suffices considermeasurements it alone, and so, since to on (41(1)) = (45(4)) = (0, sin0, cos0), the conditionis met.
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2000)

(5.8)

Information flow in entangledquantumsystems

1769

Experimentally, one would verify that the information about 0 has reached ?25 by rotating?25 throughan angle -0 about its x-axis, afterwhich
q45 (5)

= cos2 0&,

(0 &a ( i1 ^, 08

to predicted be

2 0a a a + sin &z &z3 &z3 &2z <3&zJ (5.9) and then measuringwhether?25 holds the value 0. The probabilitythat it does is Once again, we see exactly how the information about the angle 0 reached B: not through'non-local influences'allowingit to 'flyacross the entanglement'(Jozsa 1998); not by residing 9t as a whole,ratherthan in any particularqubit (Braunstein in 1996); not by travelling backwardsin time to t = 1 with ?24 and then forwards again with ?25 (Penrose 1998); not instantaneously(a traditional misconceptionthat has sometimesfound its way into textbooks (see, for example, Williams & Clearwater 1998, ? 8.10)), nor throughaction at a distance (Williams & Clearwater 1998, ? 9.2); nor, of course, throughthe 'collapse of the state vector' (since the state vector is strictly constant)-but simply, prosaically,in the qubits ?22 and ?23 as theytravelled fromA to B.
2 (i + q5z

+ cosO sinO&Y0a&Z (&z 0a&Z

zXZ-

@az

(5))

1.

6. Locally inaccessible information

in Qubits ?22 and ?3,3 do not contain a copy of all the information ?11 and ?24, but only that which has surviveddecoherence (in the computationbasis). Therefore, to local experiments, and ?32 look like a classical information ?22 channelthroughwhich the fourpossible outcomes of the 'Bell measurement'that took place between t = 1 and t = 3 are transmittedfromA to B. However,as we have just seen, this channel also carriesa qubit's worthof quantum information, whichis locally inaccessible while in transit.This information transmitted is extremely reliablyby the decoherent channel, arrivingintact provided only that there is no errorin communicatingthe classical message. This illustratesan interesting trade-off between accessibilityand robustnessforquantum information: its simplest manifestations(say, in a single in is qubit prepared in a pure state), all the quantum information locally accessible, but it is also maximallyvulnerable to decoherence.In contrast,the quantum information that travels fromA to B in the teleportationexperimentis invulnerableto decoherencebut absolutely inaccessible to local experiments. This trade-off, which is to be expected given that decoherence processes can be regarded as measurementsof the quantum system by the environment(Zurek 1981), shows us the true role of entanglementin quantum teleportation: entancan glementprovides a key that determineswhen and how quantum information be extracted from a decoherent channel. Therefore,in our teleportation experiment, the inverseBell operation at t = 0 sets up algebraic relationships (such as between q4(t ? 1) and q5(t > 1). These relation#& (d4z(1>)sz(1)) (?4z(1))(65z(1))) ships constitutequantum information that is not locally accessible in either ?24 or at t = 2, and ?25, and is the key that is copied into ?22 and ?23 by the measurements then allows ?25 to recoverthe quantum information about 0 that is hidden in ?22 and of ?23. This may be contrastedwith existinginterpretationst quantum teleportation,
t With the exception of the remarks of Ralph & Lam (1998), concluding as we do that there is quantum information 'buried' in the classical channel. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2000)

1770

D. Deutsch and P. Hayden

where it is the classical information transmittedin qubits i22 and i23 that would be interpretedas the key,while entanglementis deemed to provide a channel that the is neithermaterial nor located in space-time but throughwhich, nevertheless, quantum information somehow passes fromA to B. Consider the moment t = 2 in our EPR experiment (see ? 4), when we have just rotated qubit i22 throughan angle 0, and suppose that 0 = 0. Neither of the regions A or B then contains any locally accessible information about 0, but the in composite system still does. This ability to 'store information the correlations as between subsystems'is oftenmisrepresented a non-localitypropertyof quantum physics,but in fact it is not a uniquely quantum phenomenonat all. For example, imagine that Alice and Bob share a random stringof bits r = (rlr2 .. . rn) at time t 0, and then move to spatially separated regionsA and B. Alice composes a text x (x1x2 ... xn) and encodes it as y = x ( r, where ( is the bitwise exclusive-or operation, and then discards the original. As a result,the text x is not retrievable fromregionA alone nor,of course,fromregionB alone, but only fromthe combined about x does not jump out of region A to system. Nevertheless,the information an indeterminate location when Alice performs her exclusive-or operation but is, in the following sense, located entirelyat A throughout:r and y are both random numbers,and given only the mathematical relationshipy = x G r between them, whichis equivalentto r = x ( y, eitherof them could be regardedas the cyphertext versionof x, while the other was the key needed to extract x fromthat cyphertext. Nevertheless, the historyof information flowin the combined systemis that y, and not r, was constructedfromx, and r, but not y, was constructedindependently x. of Hence y is genuinelythe cyphertext and r genuinelythe key,and consequentlythe information about x is located at A and not elsewhere. All phenomena that have been thoughtto demonstratenon-localityin quantum That physicsare actually due to the phenomenonof locally inaccessible information. is to say,what has been mistakenfornon-locality the abilityofquantum systemsto is store information a formwhich,like a cyphertext, accessible only aftersuitable in is interactionswith other systems. It is worth noting that not all such phenomena involveentanglement: discovery Bennett et al. (1998), whichthey called 'nonthe by locality without entanglement',must now be understood as a proof that locally inaccessible information can exist even in non-entangled quantum systems. We must stress that the analogy we drew above, between a classical key and the than quantum key which unlocks locally inaccessible information, goes no further this. Indeed, the classical process we described,of creatinga shared random number and using it to encode a secret message, is actually a classical limit (in the sense that its outcome is unaffected decoherencein the computationbasis) of an EPR by with X set to zero, Alice experiment.For instance,in our versionof the experiment, could encode her message aftert = 1 by selectingfrom the pair of rotations{Ro, R41 only,which would serve as the classical logical operators foridentityand negation. of Moreover,the most importantproperty the quantum key,namelythat it cannot be copied, has no classical limit. This property, implicationof the quantum noan cloningtheorem(Wootters& Zurek 1982), has importantconsequences forthe ways in which quantum information can flow. For example, in the teleportationexperiment,the fact that qubit i25 at location B ends up identical to ?2i at t = 1 implies that there can no longerbe enough information accessible at location A to put i21 itselfback into the state it was in at t = 1. The measurementsbetween t = 2 and
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2000)

Information flow in entangledquantumsystems

1771

t = 3 decohere qubits i21 and 4, and that pair is subsequently interchangeable withthe i22 and i23 pair. The momentwhen the information requiredto reconstruct the state of qubit i21 at t = 1 becomes inaccessible at location A is preciselythe momentwhen i22 and i23 move fromlocation A to location B. Just as 2 and 3 then contain locally inaccessible information, the i21and 24 pair contains the same information, now also locally inaccessible. Returningnow to our EPR experimentwith q = 0, we note that at t = 2, all of the network'sinformation about 0 is localized in p22. It is locally inaccessible there, but accessible in i22 and i23 jointly.Thus, again, 23 holds the 'key' foraccessing the information about 0 in p22. Given (4.1), the Schrodinger state at t = 2 is 1b(2)) = (eiUx /2 0

1)10(1))

[icos 20(10) 10) + |1) 1))

sin 10(10) 1) + 11) 10))]. (6.1)

But since, in this case, )/2 (eiO0x b(1))

(i 0

eio&x/2)1b(1))J

(6.2)

the Schrodinger state would have been exactly the same if we had placed the information about 0 in i23 instead of i22 (by rotatingit throughan angle 0) just as, in our classical example, we could have obtained y and r with the same probability distributionfunctionby firstchoosing y randomlyand then constructingr fromx and y. It followsthat, in general,to determinewhere the information about a given to parameteris located at a giveninstant,it is insufficient know how the Schrodinger state at that instant depends on the parameter. (In contrast,as we have seen, it is sufficient know how the Heisenberg observables at that instant depend on the to parameter.) 7. Irrelevance of Bell's theorem

Some readers may be hearing a warning Bell in their minds at the idea that the purelylocal accounts givenin ?? 4 and 5 above or any purelylocal account can be compatible with predictionsof quantum theorysuch as (4.7) and (5.8). Such readers will be consideringreductio ad absurdumproofs that supposedly rule out all such lines. accounts, along the following Suppose that at t = 3 in our EPR experimentwe allow the Boolean observables and suppose Zi(3) and z4(3) to be measured by observersat A and B, respectively, that the outcomes a and b of these measurementsare determinedby some local stochastic processes that select each actual outcome fromthe possibilities {0, 1}. Since the angles 0 and /were chosen afterthe qubits were separated, the effective contentofthe localityconditionis that the stochasticBoolean variables a and b must be independentof q and 0 respectively. For the stochastic processes determining and b to be consistentwith the probaa bilisticpredictionsof quantum theory, must have we R aP(0) S.

= 1 (cos0 )z-sin (3)) (2-0 b(o) = (Z4(3)) = 2 (I -( J & (COS

X X

&x + C

sinO&x & &Y

z)

A Proc. Soc.Lond. (2000) R.

1772

D. Deutsch and P. Hayden

forall 0 and q, wherebarredquantitiessuch as a(0) denote mean values. Furthermore, applying (4.6) and (2.4), we obtain a(0)b(q) = (z1(3)24(3)) FRom (7.1) and (7.2) with q
= =

(1 -cos(0

+ ))

(7.2)

-0, we conclude that, forany 0,

(1- a(0)
and therefore

b(-0))2 = 0,

(7.3)
(7.4)

b(0) = 1 - a(-0). Hence, from(7.2) again, forall Oo and 01, a(0o)a(01) = 2 cs 2 (0oi).

(7-5) p + q - pq,
(7.6)

Let V denote the logical or operation on Boolean variables,so that p V q and set Oj = 27j in the identity a(Oo) _ a(Oo)(a(01)
V a(02)) + a(Oo)(I
-

a(01) V a(02))-

Then note that p V q is itselfa stochastic Boolean variable and that such variables are non-negative. Hence, using (7.5) and (7.1), we obtain
=

a(O)(a(2w) V a(47))
a(O)(a(27)

+ a(O)(1

a(2w) V a(47))

<

+ a(4w) - a(27)a(47))

+ (1 - a(27)

a(47)

+ a(2w)a(47))

<
<

83-a(O)a(2,x7)a( 4 r)
81

(7.7)

which is a contradiction.This result is a version (similar to that of Mermin (1985)) of Bell's theorem. Bell's theoremhas oftenbeen misinterpreted implying as that the empiricalpredictions of quantum theorycannot be obtained fromany local theory(see, forexample, d'Espagnat 1971,?11.6), and hence that quantum theory(and therefore presumably realityas well) has a non-local character.In the light of our explicit demonstration that the locality premise is true afterall, we must instead inferthat another of our premises was at fault. In fact, the false premise occurs in the firstsentence of the argument,where we assumed that we could assign stochastic variables such as a(0) to the 'actual outcomes' of measurements.Comparing this with the general exposition of the quantum theoryof computationin ? 2, we notice that no such quantities appear there. It is hardly surprisingthat assigning a single-valued(albeit stochastic) variable to a physical quantity whose true descriptoris a matrix soon leads to inconsistency. Note that despite therebeing, in general,no single 'actual outcome' of a measureset ment,thereis, of course,a well-defined of actual outcomes (namely,some or all of the eigenvaluesof the observable being measured), and a probabilityforeach member of that set. These probabilitiesare not, however,associated with any stochastic variables again, no such variables occur in the theorypresentedin ? 2 but enter deterministic mechanism(see Deutsch quantum theorythroughan entirely different, 1999).
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2000)

Information flow in entangledquantumsystems

1773

8. 'Non-locality' of the Schrodinger picture

Given that quantum theoryis entirely local whenexpressedin the Heisenbergpicture, but appears non-local in the Schr6dinger picture,and giventhat the two picturesare mathematicallyequivalent,are we therefore still freeto believe that quantum theory (and the physical realityit describes) is non-local? We are not just as we should not be freeto describe a theoryas 'complex' if it had both a simple version and a mathematicallyequivalent complex version. The point is that a 'local' theoryis definedas one forwhich there exists a formulation the satisfying localityconditionsthat we stated at the end of ?1 (and a local reality is definedas one that is fullydescribed by such a theory). If we were to classify theoriesas non-local wheneverit was possible to reformulate them in termsof nonlocal quantities (say,p+q and p-q, wherep and q are local to A and B, respectively), then no theorywould qualifyas local. Moreover,althoughthe Schr6dinger picturedisguisesthe localityofquantum physical processes,all our resultscould also, with sufficiently carefulanalysis,be obtained using the Schr6dinger picture.Indeed, the Schr6dinger picture has been used by several authors to reach the conclusion that quantum processes are essentially local flowin the (see, forexample, Page 1982; Tipler 1998). When analysing information Schr6dinger picture,it is essential to realize that, as we noted in ? 6, it is impossible to characterizequantum information a given instantusing the state vector alone. at To investigatewhere information located, one must also take into account how is that state came about. In the Heisenbergpicture,this is taken care of automatically, preciselybecause the Heisenberg picture gives a descriptionthat is both complete and local. Thus the Heisenbergpicturemakes explicitwhat is implicit,indeed quite well hidden, in the Schr6dinger picture. The latter is optimized forpredictingthe outcomes of processes given how they were prepared,but (notoriously)not forexplaininghow the outcomes come about so it is not surprisingthat on the face of it, it misrepresents information flow. The relationshipbetween the two pictures is somewhat such as a text or analogous to that between any descriptivepiece of information, a digitizedimage, and an algorithmically compressedversion of the same information that eliminates redundancy to achieve a more compact representation.If the compressionalgorithmused is not 'lossy', then, considered as a descriptionof the original data, the two versions are mathematicallyequivalent. However,the elimination of redundancyresultsin stronginterdependence between the elementsof the compresseddescriptionso that, forinstance, a localized change in the originaldata can result in changes all over the compressedversion,so that a particularcharacter or pixel fromthe originalis not necessarilylocated at any particularposition in the compressedversion. Nevertheless,it would be a serious errorto conclude that this 'holistic' propertyof the compressed descriptionexpresses any analogous property in the originaltext or image, or, of course, in the realitythat they referto.
to We thank Artur Ekert for suggestingseveral simplifications and other improvements the and text of this paper, and two anonymousreferees helpful P.H. also for arguments suggestions. the acknowledges financialsupportof the Rhodes Trust.

References
Aspect, A., Dalibard, J. & Roger, G. 1982 Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804.
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2000)

1774

D. Deutsch and P. Hayden

Barenco, A., Deutsch, D., Ekert,A. & Jozsa, R. 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4083-4086. Bell, J. S. 1964 Physics 1, 195-200. Bennett,C. H. & Shor, P. W. 1998 IEEE Trans. Information Theory44, 2724-2742. Bennett,C. H., Brassard, G., Crepeau, C., Jozsa, R., Peres, A. & Wootters,W. K. 1993 Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895-1899. Bennett,C. H., DiVincenzo, D. P., Fuchs, C. A., Mor, T., Rains, E., Shor,P. W., Smolin,J. A. & Wootters,W. K. 1998 Phys. Rev. A. (In the press.) Braunstein,S. L. 1996 Phys. Rev. A 53, 1900-1902. Braunstein,S. L., Mann, A. & Revzen, M. 1992 Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3259-3261. d'Espagnat, B. 1971 Conceptualfoundationsof quantummechanics.Reading, MA: W. A. BenDeutsch, D. 1989 Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A425, 73. Deutsch, D. 1999 Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 455, 3129-3137. Gottesman,D. 1998 Preprintquant-ph/9807006. Jozsa, R. 0. 1998 In The geometricuniverse (ed. S. A. Huggett, L. J. Mason, K. P. Tod, S. T. Tsou & N. M. J. Woodhouse), pp. 369-379. OxfordUniversity Press. Mermin,D. 1985 Phys. Today 38, 38-47. Page, D. N. 1982 Phys. Lett. A91, 57-60. Penrose,R. 1998 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 356, 1927-1939. Ralph, T. C. & Lam, P. K. 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5668. In Schilpp,P. A. (ed.) 1970 AlbertEinstein:philosopher-scientist. Libraryof living philosophers, vol. 7, 3rd revisededn. La Salle, IL: The Open Court PublishingCo. Tipler, F. J. 1998 Preprintquant-ph/0003146. Williams,C. P. & Clearwater,S. H. 1998 Explorationsin quantumcomputing. Springer. Wootters,W. K. & Zurek,W. H. 1982 Nature 299, 802-803. Zurek,W. H. 1981 Phys. Rev. D24, 1516-1525.
jamin.

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2000)