CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 188Quantum Information and CryptographyQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsAdvanced Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics

Revival of quantum correlations without system-environment back-action

Open access
Lo Franco, R., Bellomo, B., Andersson, E., Compagno, G.·2012·Physical Review A
DOI 10.1103/physreva.85.032318
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Revivals of quantum correlations have often been explained in terms of back-action on quantum systems by their quantum environment(s). Here we consider a system of two independently evolving qubits, each locally interacting with a classical random external field. The environments of the qubits are also independent, and there is no back-action on the qubits. Nevertheless, entanglement, quantum discord, and classical correlations between the two qubits may revive in this model. We explain the revivals in terms of correlations in a classical-quantum state of the environments and the qubits. Although classical states cannot store entanglement on their own, they can play a role in storing and reviving entanglement. It is important to know how the absence of back-action, or modeling an environment as classical, affects the kind of system time evolutions one is able to describe. We find a class of global time evolutions where back-action is absent and for which there is no loss of generality in modeling the environment as classical. Finally, we show that the revivals can be connected with the increase of a parameter used to quantify non-Markovianity of the single-qubit dynamics.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physreva.85.032318

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The interpretation of non-Markovianity as information flowing from the environment to the system may be problematic if taken strictly, because quantum non-Markovian dynamics can have the form E(ρ)=Σ p_i U_i ρ U_i†.

    “However, as pointed out in [102,103], this interpretation in terms of information flowing between the system and the environment may be problematic if taken strictly, because it is possible to obtain quantum non-Markovian dynamics with the form E (t,t 0 ) (ρ) = i p i U i (t, t 0 )ρU † i (t, t 0 ).”

    From Quantum non-Markovianity: characterization, quantification and detection (2014) · cites this paper as [103]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. [2]2. T. Yu and J. H. Eberly, Science 323, 598 (2009).
  2. [3]3. H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 017901 (2001).
  3. [4]4. L. Henderson and V. Vedral, J. Phys. A 34, 6899 (2001).
  4. [5]5. T. Yu and J. H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 140404 (2004).
  5. [6]6. B. Bellomo, R. Lo Franco, and G. Compagno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 160502 (2007).
  6. [8]8. K. Zyczkowski, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A 65, 012101 (2001).
  7. [9]9. Z. Ficek and R. Tanaś, Phys. Rev. A 74, 024304 (2006).
  8. [10]10. L. Mazzola, S. Maniscalco, J. Piilo, K.-A. Suominen, and B. M. Garraway, Phys. Rev. A 79, 042302 (2009).
  9. [11]11. B. Bellomo, R. Lo Franco, and G. Compagno, Phys. Rev. A 77, 032342 (2008).
  10. [12]12. T. Werlang, S. Souza, F. F. Fanchini, and C. J. VillasBoas, Phys. Rev. A 80, 024103 (2009).
  11. [13]13. F. F. Fanchini, T. Werlang, C. A. Brasil, L. G. E. Arruda, and A. O. Caldeira, Phys. Rev. A 81, 052107 (2010).
  12. [14]14. B. Wang, Z.-Y. Xu, Z.-Q. Chen, and M. Feng, Phys. Rev. A 81, 014101 (2010).
  13. [15]15. L. Mazzola, J. Piilo, and S. Maniscalco, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 200401 (2010).
  14. [16]16. C. E. López, G. Romero, F. Lastra, E. Solano, and J. C. Retamal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 080503 (2008).
  15. [17]17. Y.-K. Bai, M.-Y. Ye, and Z. D. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 80, 044301 (2009).
  16. [18]18. C. E. López, G. Romero, and J. C. Retamal, Phys. Rev. A 81, 062114 (2010).
  17. [19]19. D. Zhou, A. Lang, and R. Joynt, Quant. Info. Proc. 9, 727 (2010).
  18. [20]20. K. Modi, T. Paterek, W. Son, V. Vedral, and M. Williamson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 080501 (2010).
  19. [21]21. M. Ali, A. R. P. Rau, and G. Alber, Phys. Rev. A 81, 042105 (2010).
  20. [22]22. S. Luo, Phys. Rev. A 77, 042303 (2008).
  21. [23]23. M. B. Plenio and S. Virmani, Quantum Inf. Comput. 7, 1 (2007).
  22. [24]24. B. M. Terhal, M. Horodecki, D. W. Leung, and D. P. DiVincenzo, J. Math. Phys. 43, 4286 (2002).
  23. [26]26. B. Dakić, V. Vedral, and Č. Brukner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 190502 (2010).
  24. [27]27. E. Andersson, J. D. Cresser, and M. J. W. Hall, J. Mod. Opt. 54, 1695 (2007).
  25. [28]28. J. D. Cresser and C. Facer, Opt. Commun. 283, 773 (2010).
  26. [29]29. O. Rudolph, J. Math. Phys. 45, 4035 (2004).
  27. [30]30. E. Andersson, J. D. Cresser, and M. J. W. Hall, e-print arXiv:1009.0845. · arXiv
  28. [31]31. Á. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 050403 (2010).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lo Franco, R., Bellomo, B., Andersson, E., & Compagno, G.
Affiliations
  • National Interuniversity Consortium for the Physical Sciences of Matter (IT)
  • Heriot-Watt University (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Physical Review A
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2012-03-16
Volume
85
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 0556-2791 (ISSN-L)
  • 1050-2947
  • 1094-1622
DOI
10.1103/physreva.85.032318
OpenAlex
W2027529302
Semantic Scholar
ef16a8a90f66f5f178e645ac2fc32be2f1400bbf
Cited by
188
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 17
FWCI
24.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
link.aps.org/licenses/aps-default-license (vor)
Locations
  • Physical Review A (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Nova Science Publishers (Nova Science Publishers, Inc.) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Advanced Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics
Keywords
entanglement revival, quantum discord, classical correlations, back-action, non-Markovianity, qubit dynamics, open quantum systems, environment modeling

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review