arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 25 Feb 2009

arXiv:0902.4381v1 [quant-ph] 25 Feb 2009

entropi inequalities

M. A. Man'ko

∗

, V. I. Man'ko

†

Àííîòàöèÿ

Renyientropyassoiatedwithspintomogramsofquantumstatesisshowntoobeytonew

inequalitiesontainingthedependeneonquantumFouriertransform.Thelimitinginequality

for thevon Neumann entropyof spin quantum states and a new kind of entropy assoiated

withquantum Fourier transform are obtained. Possible onnetions with subadditivity and

strong subadditivity onditions for tomographi entropies and von Neumann entropies are

disussed.

keywords: unertainty relations,entropy, quantum tomography, quantum Fourier transform.

1 Introdution

In previous work [1℄, the probability-operator-symbol framework for quantum information was

onstruted.Inthisapproah,quantum-informationingredientslikequbits,qudits,andtheoperators

providing the desription and onnetion of the qudit states are given in the form of funtions

alledthe operatorsymbols.Forthe operatorsymbols,theprodut rule alledthe star-produtis

determinedbyusing anintegralnonloalkernel[2℄. Forthe both pureandmixed quditstates,the

operatorsymbolsof theirdensity operatorsare standard probability-distributionfuntions. Sine

the qudit states for multipartite systems are desribed by standard probability distributions, all

theharateristisofthedistributionsinludingShannonentropy[3℄andRenyientropy[4℄anbe

used to introdue in quantum information [1℄ the operator-symbol entropies like, e.g., operator-

symbol Renyi entropies, operator-symbol relative

q

^{-entropy. Sine the Shannon entropy is the}

limiting ase of the Renyi entropy, the orresponding analogs of the operator-symbol Shannon

entropy and the properties of this entropy an be obtained in quantum information within the

introdued operator-symbolframework.

Inquantummehanisandquantuminformation,thereisafundamentalfeaturedistinguishing

their quantum nature from their lassial ounterparts, that is the unertainty relations. The

unertainty relations by Heisenberg [5℄ and by Shrodinger [6℄ and Robertson [7,8℄ written for

onjugate variables like positions and momenta were also aompanied by the so-alled entropi

∗

P. N. Lebedev Physial Institute, Leninskii Prospet 53, Mosow 119991, Russia, e-mail:

mmankosi.lebedev.ru

†

P.N.LebedevPhysialInstitute,LeninskiiProspet53,Mosow119991,Russia,e-mail:mankosi.lebedev.ru

in the form of inequalities for Shannon entropy assoiated with the position and momentum

probabilitydensities in[911℄.

Within the operatorsymbolframework, inquantum informationthe subadditivityand strong

subadditivityonditionswereobtainedforprobabilitydistributiondesribingquditquantumstates

(alledspin tomograms)[1℄. Alsosome relationsofthe inequalities withsubadditivity and strong

subadditivityonditions for the von Neumannentropy were laried.Infat, withinthe operator

symbol framework, the tomographi map of unitary group

U (n)

^{onto simplex was given and,}

in view of this map, the notion of Shannon entropy, Renyi entropy, and other entropies were

introdued forunitary group.

The entropi unertainty relations for nite-dimensional quantum systems were obtained in

the form of inequalities for Shannon entropies assoiated with probability distributions related

to measuring nonommuting observables in [1216℄. The unertainty relations for Renyi entropy

for the position and momentum distributions and for nite-dimensional systems with measuring

observables relatedby quantum Fourier transformwere obtained in[17℄. There existforbipartite

and tripartite systems the known inequalities for the von Neumann entropy alled subadditivity

and strong subadditivity onditions[18,19℄.

Theaimofthisworkistoreviewthe resultsof[1℄andextendthestudy ofentropiinequalities

like subadditivity and strong subadditivity onditions obtained in the previous work on the

probabilistioperatorsymbolframeworkinquantuminformationandtondnewentropiinequalities

forspin tomogramswhihare analogsof entropiinequalitiesdisussed in[1217℄. Forontinuous

variables, the entropi inequalities for quantum sympleti tomogram were disussed in [2025℄.

Theessentialaspetofthenewinequalitiesisthattheyareloselyrelatedtopropertiesofquantum

Fourier transformdisussed in [26℄ and used inquantum information(see, for example, [2729℄).

ThequantumFouriertransformasanimportantingredientplaysakeyroleinquantumomputing,

quantum informationproessing.

1

We will get entropi inequalities whih provide some onstrains for unitary spin tomograms

onnetingthemwith

ln N

^,where

N

^{isdimensionofHilbertspae.Thenumber}

ln N

^hasappeared

inentropi inequalitiesinearlier works [1214,16℄but anew element of the present study is that

ln N

^{is diretly assoiated with} tomographi-probabilitydistribution determining the qudit state inthe probabilityoperator symbol frameworkin quantum information.

2 Spin tomograms

Given an

N

-dimensionalHilbert spae of spin system. One an interpretthe Hilbert spae either asthe statespaeforonepartilewithspin

j = (N − 1)/2

^{orinthe aseofprodut}representation of number

N = n ₁ n ₂ . . . n M

^{as the spae of} multipartite spin system with

j ₁ = (n ₁ − 1)/2, j ₂ = (n 2 − 1)/2, . . . , j M = (n M − 1)/2

^{. The}

N × N

^{density matrix}

ρ

^{of the quantum state an be}

represented by the unitarytomogram of the spin state [30℄.

In the ase of spin state with

j = (N − 1)/2

^{, the tomogram is dened by the relation}

w(m, u) = h m | u ^† ρu | m i ,

⁽¹⁾

1

Thisworkwas initiatedbyilluminatingdisussionswithRui VilelaMendesandwethankhimforhishelpin

where

ρ

^{isthe density matrix,}

u

^is

N × N

^{unitary matrix and} semi-integers

m = − j, − j + 1, . . . , j

are values of spin projetion on the

z

^{axis. The tomogram}

w(m, u)

^is nonnegative probability distributionfuntion of random spin variablesatisfying the normalizationondition

X j m= − j

w(m, u) = 1

⁽²⁾

and the equality

Z

w(m, u) du = 1,

⁽³⁾

where

du

^{is Haarmeasure onunitary group with} normalization

Z

du = 1.

⁽⁴⁾

Theimportantpropertyof tomogram(1)is thatitsonnetion withdensity matrix

ρ

^isbijetive,

i.e.,

ρ ↔ w(m, u)

^{[1℄.Thismeansthatthequantumstateisgivenifthetomogramisknown[31,32℄.}

3 Quantum Fourier transform

The symmetri unitary

N × N

^matrix

F

^{with matrix elements}

F jk = ^{√ 1} _N exp ^2πi _N jk (j, k = 0, 1, . . . , N − 1)

^{, whih are haraters of irreduible} representation of yli group

C N

^{, an be}

used toprovide invertiblemap ofnormalized omplexvetor

~a

^{with omponents}

a k

^ontoomplex

vetors

~a ^{(f )}

^{with omponents}

a ^(f _k ⁾

^{as follows:}

a ^(f _k ⁾ =

N X −1 j=0

F kj a j , a k =

N X −1 j=0

(F ^† ) kj a ^(f) _j .

⁽⁵⁾

The matrix

F

^{with matrix elements}

F kj

^{satises the equality}

F ^N = 1.

⁽⁶⁾

The map (5)is alled the quantum Fourier transformfor yli group

C N

^.

If one uses the usual labels for spin projetion

m = − j, − j + 1, . . . , j

^{, the operator}

F ˆ

^for

quantum Fourier transforman bedened as

F ˆ | m i =

X j m ^′ =− j

F m ^′ m | m ^′ i ,

⁽⁷⁾

where the symmetrimatrix

F m ^′ m = h m ^′ | F ˆ | m i

⁽⁸⁾

has the form

F m ^′ m = 1

√ N



 

 

 



1 1 1 · · · 1

1 a a ² · · · a ^{N −1} 1 a ² a ⁴ · · · a ^{N − 2}

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 a ^{N −1} a ^{N −2} · · · a



 

 

 



, a = exp

2πi N

.

⁽⁹⁾

F ˆ =

X j m=− j

X j m ^′ = − j

F m ^′ m | m ^′ ih m | .

⁽¹⁰⁾

In viewof (6),one has

( ˆ F ) ^N = ˆ1

^,where

ˆ1

^{isthe identity operator.}

4 Shannon and Renyi tomographi entropies

Following standard denitions of probability theory, one an introdue Shannon [3℄ tomographi

entropy[1,33℄andRenyi[4℄tomographientropy[1℄.TheShannontomographientropy(operator-

symbol Shannon entropy) isthe funtion on unitary group

H u = −

X j m= − j

w(m, u) ln w(m, u).

⁽¹¹⁾

The Renyi tomographi entropy (operator symbol Renyi entropy) is also the funtion on the

unitary groupand itdepends onextra parameter

R u = 1 1 − q ln



 X j m=− j

(w((m, u)) ^q



 .

⁽¹²⁾

Likewise for two spin tomograms

w 1 (m, u)

^and

w 2 (m, u)

^{, we dene the operator symbol relative}

q

^-entropy

H q (w 1 (u) | w 2 (u)) = −

X j m=− j

w 1 (m, u) ln q

w 2 (m, u)

w 1 (m, u)

⁽¹³⁾

with

ln q x = x ^{1 − q} − 1

1 − q , x > 0, q > 0, ln q → 1 x = ln x.

⁽¹⁴⁾

The relativetomographi

q

^{-entropy is} nonnegative.

For

q → 1

^,

R u → H u

^{and the operator symbol relative}

q

^{-entropy beomes operator symbol}

relativeentropy

H(w 1 (u) | w 2 (u)) = −

X j m=− j

w 1 (m, u) ln w 2 (m, u)

w 1 (m, u) .

⁽¹⁵⁾

As was shown in [1℄, the minimum over unitary group of the operator symbol Renyi entropy is

equaltoquantum Renyi tomographientropy

min R u = 1

1 − q ln

^Tr

ρ ^q .

⁽¹⁶⁾

Also the relative entropy (13) is nonnegative funtion for any admissibledeformation parameter

q

^.

The minimum of entropy

H u

^{given by (11) over the unitary group is equal to von Neumann}

entropy [1,33℄, i.e.,

min H u = −

^Tr

ρ ln ρ.

⁽¹⁷⁾

nonommutative observables

In this setion, we review known entropi inequalities [1216℄ whih appear in the problem of

measuring two observables

A ˆ

^and

B ˆ

^{innite Hilbert spae.}

Let the spetral deompositionsof Hermitian operators

A ˆ

^and

B ˆ

^read

A ˆ = ^X

k

A k | a k ih a k | , B ˆ = ^X

k

B k | b k ih b k | , k = 1, . . . , N,

⁽¹⁸⁾

where

A k

^and

B k

^are eigenvalues of the observables and

| a k i

^and

| b k i

^{are their} orthonormal systems of eigenvetors.

For purestate

| ψ i

^{,one has two} probability distributions

p k = |h a k | ψ i| ² , q k = |h b k | ψ i| ² .

⁽¹⁹⁾

The orresponding Shannon entropiesonneted with these twodistributions read

H p = − ^X

k

p k ln p k

⁽²⁰⁾

and

H q = − ^X

k

q k ln q k .

⁽²¹⁾

They satisfy the inequality found in[34℄

H p + H q ≥ − 2 ln 1

2 (1 + c),

⁽²²⁾

where the bound

c

^{is determined by maximum values of salar produt modulus}

c = max

j,k |h a j | b k i| .

⁽²³⁾

In [35℄ the inequalitywas onjetured to be improved

H p + H q ≥ − 2 ln c

⁽²⁴⁾

and in[12℄ itwas proved.

Fortheaseofobservables

A ˆ

^and

B ˆ

^witheigenvetorsprovidingmutuallyunbisedbases

| a k i , | b k i

^{(see [14,26℄),i.e.,}

max |h a i | b j i| = 1

√ N ,

⁽²⁵⁾

inequality (24) reads [14℄

H p + H q ≥ ln N.

⁽²⁶⁾

Thusthe dimensionality of Hilbert spae

N

^{appears inthe entropi inequality.}

The problemofmutuallyunbiasedbasesisrelatedtogeometryofnite Hilbertspaes [36,37℄.

It was widely disussed in onnetion with onstruting the Wigner funtion for nite Hilbert

of measuring several nonommutative observables with orthonormal sets of eigenvetors whih

satisfythe ondition (25) (see [14,15℄).In [13℄ the entropi inequalitiesforTsallisentropy related

toontinuousvariableswereobtainedonthebaseofSobolevinequalitieswhilein[17℄theanalogous

entropi unertainty relations for Renyi entropy both for nite Hilbert spae and for ontinuous

variableswere presented.

6 Known inequalities for bipartite and tripartite systems

The operator symbol entropies satisfy some known inequalities found in [1℄. For example, if the

spin system is bipartite, i.e., one has spin

j 1

^and

j 2

^{, the basis in tensor produt spaereads}

| m ₁ m ₂ i = | m ₁ i | m ₂ i .

⁽²⁷⁾

In this ase, the tomogram is the joint-probability distribution of two random spin projetions

m 1 = − j 1 , − j 1 + 1, . . . , j 1

^and

m 2 = − j 2 , − j 2 + 1, . . . , j 2

^dependingon

(2j 1 + 1)(2j 2 + 1) × (2j 1 + 1)(2j 2 + 1)

^{unitary matrix}

u

^{. The tomogram reads}

w(m 1 , m 2 , u) = h m 1 m 2 | u ^† ρ(1, 2)u | m 1 m 2 i ,

⁽²⁸⁾

where

ρ(1, 2)

^{isthe density matrix of bipartitesystem with matrix elements}

ρ(1, 2) m 1 m 2 ,m ^′ 1 m ^′ 2 = h m 1 m 2 | ρ(1, 2) | m ^′ ₁ m ^′ ₂ i .

⁽²⁹⁾

For the tomogram, one an introdue the Shannon entropy

H 12 (u)

^as

H ₁₂ (u) = −

j 1

X

m 1 =− j 1

j 2

X

m 2 =− j 2

w(m ₁ , m ₂ , u) ln w(m ₁ , m ₂ , u)

⁽³⁰⁾

and the entropy satises the subadditivity ondition for allelements of the unitary group

H ₁₂ (u) ≤ H ₁ (u) + H ₂ (u),

⁽³¹⁾

where

H 1 (u)

^and

H 2 (u)

^{are Shannon entropies assoiated with subsystem tomograms}

w 1 (m 1 , u) =

j 2

X

m 2 = − j 2

w(m 1 , m 2 , u)

⁽³²⁾

and

w ₂ (m ₂ , u) =

j 1

X

m 1 = − j 1

w(m ₁ , m ₂ , u)

⁽³³⁾

asfollows:

H k (u) = −

j k

X

m k = − j k

w k (m k , u) ln w k (m k , u), k = 1, 2.

⁽³⁴⁾

entropies,follows theknown inequality[1℄,whihissubadditivityonditionfor orrespondingvon

Neumannentropy for bipartitesystem

S 12 ≤ S 1 + S 2 ,

⁽³⁵⁾

where

S k = −

^Tr

ρ k ln ρ k , k = 1, 2

⁽³⁶⁾

and

ρ 1 = −

^Tr

² ρ(1, 2), ρ 2 = −

^Tr

¹ ρ(1, 2).

⁽³⁷⁾

Fortripartitespinsystem withspins

j 1

^,

j 2

^,

j 3

^{anddensitymatrix}

ρ(1, 2, 3)

^{,thespin tomogram}

reads

w(m ₁ , m ₂ , m ₃ , u) = h m ₁ m ₂ m ₃ | u ^† ρ(1, 2, 3)u | m ₁ m ₂ m ₃ i .

⁽³⁸⁾

OneassoiateswiththistomogramtheShannonentropy

H 123 (u)

^{.Thisentropysatises}inequality, whih is the strong subadditivity ondition on the unitary group. It reads [1℄

H 123 (u) + H 2 (u) ≤ H 12 (u) + H 23 (u),

⁽³⁹⁾

where

H 123 (u) = −

j 1

X

m 1 = − j 1

j 2

X

m 2 = − j 2

j 3

X

m 3 = − j 3

w(m 1 , m 2 , m 3 , u) ln w(m 1 , m 2 , m 3 , u)

⁽⁴⁰⁾

and entropies

H 12 (u)

^,

H 23 (u)

^,and

H 2 (u)

^{are dened by meansof projeted tomograms}

w 12 (m 1 , m 2 , u) =

j 3

X

m 3 = − j 3

w(m 1 , m 2 , m 3 , u),

⁽⁴¹⁾

w 23 (m 2 , m 3 , u) =

j 1

X

m 1 =− j 1

w(m 1 , m 2 , m 3 , u),

⁽⁴²⁾

w 2 (m 2 , u) =

j 1

X

m 1 = − j 1

w 12 (m 1 , m 2 , u).

⁽⁴³⁾

Newinequality(39)doesnotontradittheknownstrongsubadditivityonditionforvonNeumann

entropy [18,19℄

S 123 + S 2 ≤ S 12 + S 23 ,

⁽⁴⁴⁾

where

S 123 = −

^Tr

ρ 123 ln ρ 123 ,

⁽⁴⁵⁾

andotherentropiesarevonNeumannentropiesforredueddensitymatries

ρ(1, 2) =

^Tr

3 ρ(1, 2, 3)

and

ρ(2, 3) =

^Tr

1 ρ(1, 2, 3)

^.

Inequalities(31)and(39)arenewinequalitiesforompositequantumnite-dimensionalsystems

obtained in[1℄.

In this setion, we ontinue the study of tomographi entropies along the line of our previous

work [1℄ and derive new inequalities for spin tomographi entropies related to quantum Fourier

transform. For ontinuous onjugate variables (position and momentum), the inequalities for

Renyi entropy assoiated with probability densities in position and momentum were obtained

in[17℄. Theseinequalitieswere used toobtainnew integralinequalitiesforsympletiand optial

tomogramsin[20,2225℄.In[17℄for

N

-dimensionalHilbertspaetheanalogofunertaintyrelation for the Renyi entropies wasgiven inthe form

1 1 − α ln

X N k=1

p e ^α _k

!

+ 1

1 − β ln

X N l=1

p ^β _l

!

≥ ln N,

⁽⁴⁶⁾

where

p e k = | a ^e k | ² , p l = | a l | ² , 1 α + 1

β = 2,

⁽⁴⁷⁾

and the omplex numbers

e a k

^and

a l

^{are onnetedby the quantum Fourier transform}

e a k = 1

√ N

X N l=1

exp 2πikl N

!

a l .

⁽⁴⁸⁾

BelowweusetheinequalitiestoobtainnewinequalitiesforShannonandRenyientropiesassoiated

with unitary spin tomograms. The spin tomogram of a state with density operator

ρ

^{an be}

onsideredasaolumnprobabilityvetor onunitary groupwiththeomponents

w m (u)

^.Thenwe

an introdue another

N

^{-vetor with omponents}

p m (u) = ^q w m (u)

^{. Applying inequality (46) to}

these vetors and the notation

X j m ^′ = − j ^′

F mm ^′

q w(m ^′ , u)

= ^q w F (m, u),

⁽⁴⁹⁾

where

F mm ^′

^{is given by (9)and}

w F (m, u)

^{is the} probability distribution,we obtain inequality

1 1 − α ln



 X j m= − j

w(m, u) ^α



 + 1 1 − β ln



 X j m= − j

w F (m, u) ^β



 ≥ ln N.

⁽⁵⁰⁾

Alsousingforpurestate

| ψ i

^{thedenitionofspintomogram,weobtainanothersimilarinequality}

1

1 − α ln



 X j m=− j

w(m, u) ^α



 + 1 1 − β ln



 X j m=− j

w(m, F u) ^β



 ≥ ln N,

⁽⁵¹⁾

where

F

^{is quantum Fourier transform matrix. We an onjeture that the above inequality (51)}

isvaluedalso for mixed state.

Thus one has for Renyi entropy (12) the inequalityfor eah unitary matrix

R α (u) + R β (F u) ≥ ln N.

⁽⁵²⁾

Thustheunitaryspintomogramofthepartilewithspin

j

^{forthestatewith}

N × N

^{densitymatrix}

ρ

^,where

N = 2j + 1

^{,mustsatisfyinequality(51).In thelimit}

α → 1

^,

β → 1

^{,one gets}inequalities for Shannon entropy of the spin state

H(u) + H(F u) ≥ ln N.

⁽⁵³⁾

Another inequality reads

H(u) + H F (u) ≥ ln N,

⁽⁵⁴⁾

where

H F (u)

^{is the Shannon entropy assoiated withthe} probability distribution

w F (m, u)

^.

Fortheminimumvalueofthe Shannonentropyrealizedforunitarymatrix

u 0

^{,one hasthe von}

Neumannentropy

H(u 0 ) = S vN .

⁽⁵⁵⁾

Inequality (53) writtenfor

u ₀

H(u 0 ) + H(F u 0 ) ≥ ln N

⁽⁵⁶⁾

providesthe inequality for the von Neumannentropy

S vN + S(F u 0 ) ≥ ln N,

⁽⁵⁷⁾

where

S(F u 0 )

^{is a new entropy. It has the following physial meaning. If the density operator}

ρ ˆ

of the quantum state of spin is given inthe formof spetral deomposition

ˆ ρ =

X j q=− j

λ q | q ih q | ,

⁽⁵⁸⁾

oneanidentifythe eigenstate

| q i

^{ofthe density operator}

ρ ˆ

^{withposition state.Intheapproah}

withmutuallyunbiasedbasesandWignerfuntionforniteHilbertspae[26,27,3842℄,thestates

| p i = ˆ F | q i ,

⁽⁵⁹⁾

where

F ˆ

^{istheFouriertransformoperator,are}interpretedasmomentumeigenstates.Thematrix elements

h p | F ˆ | q i = F pq

⁽⁶⁰⁾

provide the matrix

F

^{whih oinides with the Fourier transform matrix. Thus we have the}

interpretation of the new inequality inthe same manneras it wasdone in the ase of ontinuous

variables.Thenewentropy

S(F u ₀ )

^{in(57)istheShannonentropyformomentum} distribution,if weidentify the standard von Neumannentropywith Shannon entropy forposition distribution.

Let usonsider the exampleof qubit state with density matrix

ρ = 1 0 0 0

!

.

⁽⁶¹⁾

Positionoperator

q ˆ

^is

σ z

^{matrixandmomentumoperator}

p ˆ

^is

σ x

^{matrix.Twoposition}eigenvetors

| q i

^are

1 0

!

and

0 1

!

andtwomomentumeigenvetors

| p i

^are

^{√ 1} ₂ 1 1

!

and

√ 1 2

1

− 1

!

.The

matrix

F

^reads

F = 1

√ 2

1 1 1 − 1

!

.

⁽⁶²⁾

The matrix

u ₀ = 1

^{.Inequality (57) is saturated sine}

S vN = 0, S(F ) = ln 2

⁽⁶³⁾

and

S vN + S(F ) = ln 2 ≥ ln 2.

⁽⁶⁴⁾

Alsothe inequality for Renyi entropy issaturated

R α (u 0 ) + R β (F u 0 ) = ln 2 ≥ ln 2.

⁽⁶⁵⁾

In the onsideredexample, the

| q i

^and

| p i

^{vetors form that isalled mutually unbiasedbases}

[3942℄.

OneshouldnotethatthereareShannonentropiunertaintyrelationsfordistributionsassoiated

withset ofmutuallyunbiasedbases [15℄andwith pairsoforthogonalbases [12℄.Inthe asewhere

mutually unbiased bases are onneted by quantum Fourier transform, our result (56) oinides

with [12℄.

In [1℄group average Shannon and Renyi entropies were introdued.

DuetoinvarianeofHaarmeasure,oneanonludethatthegroupaverageShannontomographi

entropy satisesthe inequality

H ¯ =

Z

H(u) du ≥ 1

2 ln N.

⁽⁶⁶⁾

Alsofor group average Renyi entropy (12), one has

R ¯ αβ =

Z

R α (u) du +

Z

R β (u) du ≥ ln N, 1 α + 1

β = 2.

⁽⁶⁷⁾

Toillustratetheinequalitiesobtained,letusnowdisussthemixedstateofqubitwithdiagonal

density matrix

ρ = a 0 0 b

!

, a + b = 1.

⁽⁶⁸⁾

Then inequality (53) an bevisualized asfollows.

VonNeumann entropy ofthis state

S _vN = − a ln a − b ln b.

⁽⁶⁹⁾

The density matrix subjeted by quantum Fouriertransform (62) reads

F ^† ρF = 1/2 (a − b)/2 (a − b)/2 1/2

!

.

⁽⁷⁰⁾

Its tomographientropy

H(F u o ) = ln 2, u 0 = 1.

⁽⁷¹⁾

Thusinequality (53) looks asfollows:

− a ln a − b ln b + ln 2 ≥ ln 2,

⁽⁷²⁾

estimation sine the number

ln 2

^{is replaed by a smaller number. In fat, the} tomographi- probabilityvetor of the qubit state

~

w = a b

!

(73)

isassoiated tothe probability-amplitudevetor with positive omponents

W ~ =

√ a

√ b

!

(74)

Then aftermaking the quantum Fourier transformof this vetor, we get the olumnvetor

W ~ F = 1

√ 2

√ a + √

√ b a − √

b

!

.

⁽⁷⁵⁾

The probability-distributionvetor assoiatedto the above probability-amplitudevetor reads

~

w F = (1/2) + √ ab (1/2) − √

ab

!

.

⁽⁷⁶⁾

Thuswe apply inequality relatingShannon entropies totwo vetors (74) and (76) and obtain

− a ln a − b ln b −

1 2 + √

ab

ln

1 2 + √

ab

−

1 2 − √

ab

ln

1 2 − √

ab

≥ ln 2,

⁽⁷⁷⁾

or

S vN −

1 2 + √

ab

ln

1 2 + √

ab

−

1 2 − √

ab

ln

1 2 − √

ab

≥ ln 2.

⁽⁷⁸⁾

This inequalityis not that obvious thoughwe know that

S _vN ≥ 0

^.

Some inequalitiesfor unitary matrix an be obtained.

Let usonsider

N × N

^{-unitary matrix}

u jk

^{.One has the inequality}

−

X N j=1

| u jk | ² ln | u jk | ² + | (F u) jk | ² ln | (F u) jk | ² ≥ ln N

⁽⁷⁹⁾

or

−

X N j=1

X N k=1

| u jk | ² ln | u jk | ² + | (F u) jk | ² ln | (F u) jk | ² ≥ N ln N,

⁽⁸⁰⁾

where

F jk

^{isthe Fouriertransformmatrix.} Integrating inequality(79)overthe unitarygroupwith Haarmeasure normalizedas in(3) one has the inequality

−

Z 

 X N j=1

| u jk | ² ln | u jk | ²



 du ≥ 1

2 ln N.

⁽⁸¹⁾

We demonstrated on the example of qubit that for tomograms of the spin states onneted

by quantum Fourier transforms one has onstraints in the form of inequalities for Shannon

tomographientropies.OneandemonstrateanalogousonstraintsforRenyitomographientropies

We point out that there exist several inequalitiesfor Shannon and Renyi entropies assoiated to

spin quantum state tomograms. These inequalities provide extra information theory onstraints

inadditiontoknown subadditivity andstrongsubadditivity onditions.Physialand information

meaningof the inequalities obtained needs extra lariation.

Aknowledgments

The study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basi Researh under Projet No. 07-

02-00598.The authorsthank theUniversityof Lisbonwherethis workwas initiatedand partially

done for hospitality. M.A.M. thanks the Organizers of the International Workshop Nonlinear

Physis. Theory and Experiment. V (Gallipoli, Lee, Italy, 2008) for kind hospitality and the

RussianFoundationfor Basi Researh for TravelGrant No.08-02-08174.

Ñïèñîê ëèòåðàòóðû

[1℄ M.A. Man'ko,V.I. Man'koand R.VilelaMendes, J. Russ. Laser Res. 27 (2006)507

[2℄ O.V.Man'ko, V.I. Man'ko and G. Marmo,J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 35(2002) 699

[3℄ C.E. Shannon, Bell Systems Tehnial Journal 27 (1948)379

[4℄ A. Renyi, Probability Theory(1970) North-Holland, Amsterdam

[5℄ W. Heisenberg, Z.Phys. 43 (1927) 172

[6℄ E.Shrodinger,Ber. Kgl. Akad. Wiss.Berlin 24 (1930)296

[7℄ H.P. Robertson, Phys. Rev. 35(1930) 667

[8℄ H.P. Robertson, Phys. Rev. bf46 (1934) 794

[9℄ I.I. Hirshman, Amer. J. Math. 79 (1957)152

[10℄ I. Bialyniki-Birulaand J.Myielski, Commun. Math. Phys. 44 (1975)129

[11℄ V.V. Dodonov and V.I. Man'ko, Invariants and Evolution of Nonstationary Quantum

Systems,Proeedings of the Lebedev Physial Institute,Nova Siene, Commak, New York

(1989),Vol.183

[12℄ H. Maassen and J.B.M. Unk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60 (1988) 1103

[13℄ A.K.Rajagopal, Phys. Lett. A 205 (1995) 32

[14℄ J. Sanhez-Ruiz, Phys. Lett. A 201 (1995)125

[17℄ I. Bialyniki-Birula,Phys. Rev. A 74 (2006) 052101

[18℄ E.H. Lieb and M.B. Ruskai,J. Math. Phys. 14 (1973)

[19℄ M.B. Ruskai,quant-ph/0404126 v4

[20℄ S.De Niola, R. Fedele, M.A. Man'ko and V.I. Man'ko, Eur. J. Phys. B 52 (2006)191

[21℄ M.A. Man'ko,J. Russ. Laser Res. 27 (2006) 405

[22℄ M.A. Man'ko, V.I. Man'ko, S.De Niolaand R. Fedele, Ata Phys. Hung. B 26/1-2 (2006)

71

[23℄ S.DeNiola, R.Fedele,M.A.Man'ko andV.I. Man'ko,Theor.Math. Phys.152 (2007)1081

[24℄ M.A. Man'ko, Tomographi entropy and new entropi unertainty relations, in: Quantum

Theory: Reonsideration of Foundations-4 (Vaxjo, Sweden, June 2007),Editors: G.Adenier,

A.Yu.Khrennikov,P.Lahti,V.I.Man'koandT.Nieuwenhuizen,AIPConfereneProeedings

Series,Vol. 962, pp. 132139(2007)

[25℄ S.DeNiola,R.Fedele,M.A.Man'koand V.I.Man'ko½ J.Phys.Conf. Ser.70012007(2007)

[26℄ J. Shwinger, Pro.Natl. Aad. Si. USA 46 (1960) 570 [reprinted in Quantum Kinematis

and Dynamis,Benjamin, New York(1970)℄

[27℄ S. Zhang, C. Lei, A. Vourdas, and J.A. Dunningham, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 39

(2006)1625

[28℄ P.W. Shor, quant-ph/9508027

[29℄ Y.S.Weinstein,M.A. Pravia, E.M. Fortunato, S. Lloyd and D.G. Cory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86

(2001)1889

[30℄ V.I. Man'ko, G.Marmo, E.C.G. Sudarshan and F. Zaaria, Phys. Lett. A 327 (2004)353

[31℄ V.V. Dodonov and V.I. Man'ko, Phys. Lett. A 239 (1997)335

[32℄ V.I. Man'ko and O.V.Man'ko, J. Exp. Theor.Phys. 85 (1997) 430

[33℄ O.V.Man'ko and V.I. Man'ko, J. Russ. Laser Res. 25 (2004)115

[34℄ D. Deutsh,Phys. Rev.Lett. 50(1987) 631

[35℄ K.Kraus, Phys. Rev. D 35 (1987) 3070

[36℄ W.K. Wootters, Ann. Phys. 176 (1987) 1

[37℄ W.K. Wootters, quant-ph/0306135v4

[39℄ M. Planat,quant-ph/0510044 v1

[40℄ A.B. Klimov,C. Munoz and J.L.Romero, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39 (2006) 14471

[41℄ C. Cormik, E.F. Galvao,D. Gottesman, J.P. Paz and A. O.Pitteger,quant-ph/0506222 v1

[42℄ M. Planatand H.Rosu, Eur. Phys. J. D 36 (2005) 133