In entanglement swapping, start with independent Bell pairs . Send qubits 2 and 3 to a central Bell state analyzer, retaining 1 and 4 at separate endpoints. Reordering the tensor product factors to group 23 and 14 gives the identity
Consequently each ideal Bell-basis measurement outcome has probability and projects 14 onto the corresponding Bell state, even though those two photons have never interacted. Communicating the two-bit result permits an endpoint Pauli gate to convert every outcome into the same chosen Bell pair. Without that record, the endpoints have , a product state, rather than a known entangled state.
The optical Bell state analyzer overlaps photons 2 and 3 at a balanced beam splitter, with matched spatial modes, spectra and arrival times, and resolves the output photon polarizations using polarizing beam splitters and single-photon detectors. Two-photon interference maps Bell states to different output patterns. The antisymmetric gives one photon in each output with opposite polarizations. The symmetric gives two opposite-polarization photons in the same output; the two polarization detectors there can resolve this pattern. The states give same-polarization pairs and remain mutually ambiguous in this basic setup. The detected pattern therefore heralds a particular endpoint Bell state. With ideal detection this arrangement succeeds unambiguously on two of four equally likely inputs, with probability ; the successful events can be selected. A complete analyzer would accept all four outcomes. The endpoint quantum entanglement is conditional on the measurement record, so it enables no instantaneous signalling.[ref]
Before the gates, write the two Bell states as
The CNOT gate sends the last bit to . Projection onto outcome 0 on qubit 4 therefore requires . After the Hadamard gate on qubit 2, projection onto its outcome 0 contributes for either remaining value of . The unnormalized surviving state is
Thus
This is entanglement swapping: photons 1 and 3 become entangled even though the joint measurement acts only on their original partners.
Yes: deterministic entanglement swapping gives the required singlet. Denote Bob's two local qubits by . Known local unitary operations first convert the two given spin singlet states into and . For example applying to the second qubit of a singlet gives , where are Pauli operators.
Use the binary-labelled Bell states
They are for labels . Reordering registers to group Bob's qubits, direct expansion gives
All four basis vectors are real in this convention; otherwise the paired expansion must account for complex conjugation. Bob performs the Bell-basis measurement on . This joint operation is local to him, so it is allowed by LOCC. Each outcome occurs with probability and leaves in the corresponding Bell state.
Bob sends to Charlie. Charlie applies to obtain , and then to obtain
The correction works for every outcome, so no postselection or successful-outcome assumption is needed. This is entanglement swapping, equivalently teleportation of to while preserving its entanglement with . If Bob's measurement result is ignored, the average state is ; the protocol therefore does not supply entanglement usable without the classical outcome or violate the no-communication theorem.
Bob uses qudit teleportation to teleport his carrier to Clare through the pair . This transfers Bob's entanglement with Alice to Clare. Explicitly, Bob performs a generalized Bell basis measurement on . Contraction of the two initial pairs gives
The probability is for each outcome. Bob sends to Clare, who applies . Alice and Clare then share with certainty. This is entanglement swapping; neither an additional entangled pair nor a quantum transmission during the protocol is required.
The two initial pairs are consumed, and Bob's measured carriers cease to be entangled with . Without Bob's classical record, averaging the possible generalized Bell states leaves maximally mixed. Thus the conditional entanglement swapping does not supply faster-than-light communication.
In 1998, Jian-Wei Pan, Dik Bouwmeester, Harald Weinfurter and Anton Zeilinger created two photon pairs by two passages of a pulsed pump through a crystal using spontaneous parametric down-conversion. Interfering the inner photons at a nonpolarizing beam splitter implemented a partial Bell-basis measurement. Narrow optical filters and spatial filtering removed distinguishing information; changing the outer polarizer bases checked the conditional correlations. Fourfold detections selected the entanglement swapping events. The reported interference supported conditional quantum entanglement, but the paper reserved a statistically significant Bell inequality violation for improved visibility; it was not a demonstration closing the detection loophole.[ref]
The ideal calculation makes the distinction between conditional and unconditional quantum states explicit. Start with spin singlet states , where and denote orthogonal photon polarizations. Taking the inner product with gives : expanding the four terms leaves precisely the two antisymmetric outer terms. That Bell-basis measurement outcome has probability and leaves the outer pair in a spin singlet state. Ignoring the inner outcome instead leaves the outer density matrix , a maximally mixed state. A conditional preparation flag is useful for later Bell tests only with the timing and setting conditions in setting-independent heralding preserves Bell locality.