Log in to access more pages. Create an account or log in to continue reading more pages.

Introduction

Quantum teleportation is one of the clearest examples of how quantum information theory changes the meaning of a familiar word. In ordinary speech, teleportation suggests moving an object from one place to another without traversing the space between. In quantum information, the word has a sharper and more modest meaning: quantum teleportation transfers an unknown quantum state from one system to another by using a shared entangled resource and classical communication. The original physical carrier is not transported, and the state is not copied. Instead, the state is reconstructed on a distant system after a joint measurement and a small amount of classical information have been communicated, as first shown in the protocol of Bennett, Brassard, Crépeau, Jozsa, Peres, and Wootters in 1993 (Bennett et al., 1993).

This book is about that idea in its full modern form. We will begin with the elementary operational question—what problem does teleportation solve?—and end near current research frontiers: fault-tolerant teleportation, quantum repeaters, network protocols, device assumptions, logical qubits, bosonic encodings, and the emerging quantum internet. The path is long, but the core idea remains surprisingly compact.

A quantum state is the mathematical object used to predict the outcomes of all possible measurements on a quantum system. For a single ideal qubit, a pure state can be written

\[ |\psi\rangle=\alpha |0\rangle+\beta |1\rangle, \]

where \(\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{C}\) and

\[ |\alpha|^2+|\beta|^2=1. \]

The symbols \(|0\rangle\) and \(|1\rangle\) denote two distinguishable basis states, analogous to two orthogonal directions in a two-dimensional complex vector space. The coefficients \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\) are called probability amplitudes; their squared moduli give probabilities only after a measurement in the corresponding basis. This distinction matters. A qubit is not simply a hidden classical bit that already has value \(0\) or \(1\). Its state encodes probability rules for many possible measurements, and incompatible measurements cannot all be assigned ordinary pre-existing values in the way classical variables can. This is one reason teleportation is not reducible to sending a long classical description of the state.

Suppose Alice possesses a qubit in an unknown state \(|\psi\rangle\), and Bob is far away. Alice wants Bob to end up with a qubit in that same state. If Alice knew \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\), she could in principle send Bob a classical description, and Bob could prepare the state locally. That is not teleportation in the standard sense; it is remote state preparation with known classical information. Teleportation is different because Alice need not know the state. The protocol works for an arbitrary input state, including a state entangled with another system. This universality is what makes teleportation a primitive in quantum communication and quantum computation rather than a mere state-preparation trick.

The obstacle is the no-cloning theorem. No physical operation allowed by quantum mechanics can copy every possible unknown quantum state perfectly. Wootters and Zurek gave one of the standard early formulations of this result, showing that a universal quantum copying device is incompatible with the linear structure of quantum mechanics (Wootters and Zurek, 1982). A simple example explains the issue. Imagine a machine that copies the basis states,

If the machine is linear, then for a superposition it must act as

\[ \frac{|0\rangle+|1\rangle}{\sqrt{2}} \mapsto \frac{|0\rangle|0\rangle+|1\rangle|1\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}. \]

But two perfect copies of the same superposition would be

\[ \left(\frac{|0\rangle+|1\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}\right) \left(\frac{|0\rangle+|1\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}\right) = \frac{|0\rangle|0\rangle+|0\rangle|1\rangle+|1\rangle|0\rangle+|1\rangle|1\rangle}{2}. \]

These are not the same state. Teleportation avoids this contradiction because the original input is consumed by Alice’s measurement. The state is transferred, not duplicated.

The second essential ingredient is entanglement. Entanglement is a form of correlation between quantum systems that cannot be represented as ordinary shared randomness over independently defined local states. For two qubits, an important entangled state is the Bell state

\[ |\Phi^+\rangle=\frac{|00\rangle+|11\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}. \]

This state is not a statement that the first qubit secretly has a definite value and the second qubit secretly has the same value before measurement. Rather, it is a joint state whose correlations depend on the measurement bases chosen. The conceptual roots of entanglement go back to the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen argument about the completeness of quantum mechanics and to Schrödinger’s analysis of quantum correlations (Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, 1935; Schrödinger, 1935). Bell later showed that certain quantum correlations cannot be reproduced by any local hidden-variable theory satisfying the assumptions of his theorem, giving entanglement an experimentally testable role in foundations (Bell, 1964).

In teleportation, Alice and Bob first share an entangled pair. Alice holds one half, Bob holds the other. Alice then performs a Bell measurement, meaning a joint measurement whose outcomes distinguish the four Bell states of two qubits:

\[ |\Phi^\pm\rangle=\frac{|00\rangle\pm |11\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}, \qquad |\Psi^\pm\rangle=\frac{|01\rangle\pm |10\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}. \]

One of Alice’s two measured qubits is the unknown input \(|\psi\rangle\); the other is her half of the entangled pair. The measurement has four possible outcomes, so Alice sends Bob two classical bits identifying which outcome occurred. Bob then applies a corresponding Pauli correction—one of \(I\), \(X\), \(Z\), or \(ZX\), up to irrelevant global phase—to transform his qubit into \(|\psi\rangle\). This is the standard qubit teleportation protocol introduced by Bennett and collaborators (Bennett et al., 1993).

The algebraic heart of the protocol is the identity

\[ |\psi\rangle_A|\Phi^+\rangle_{A'B} = \frac{1}{2}\Big( |\Phi^+\rangle_{AA'}|\psi\rangle_B + |\Phi^-\rangle_{AA'}Z|\psi\rangle_B + |\Psi^+\rangle_{AA'}X|\psi\rangle_B + |\Psi^-\rangle_{AA'}XZ|\psi\rangle_B \Big), \]

where \(A\) is Alice’s input system, \(A'\) is Alice’s half of the entangled pair, and \(B\) is Bob’s half. This equation says that if Alice obtains a particular Bell-measurement outcome, Bob’s qubit is already related to the desired state by a known Pauli operation. The classical message tells Bob which inverse correction to apply. Without that message, Bob does not know which branch occurred.

This point is crucial for understanding causality. Teleportation does not permit faster-than-light communication. Before Bob receives Alice’s classical two-bit message, his local state is an outcome-averaged mixture that contains no usable information about \(|\psi\rangle\). The entangled resource is necessary, but entanglement alone is not a signal. Classical communication remains subject to the usual causal limits. This is why teleportation is compatible with special relativity, despite its striking language and nonclassical correlations.

The first experimental demonstrations appeared soon after the theoretical proposal. Photonic teleportation using polarization-entangled photons was reported in 1997, establishing an early optical realization of the protocol under experimentally constrained conditions (Bouwmeester et al., 1997). Continuous-variable teleportation, in which the relevant degrees of freedom are field quadratures rather than discrete qubit basis states, was demonstrated unconditionally by Furusawa and collaborators in 1998 (Furusawa et al., 1998). Since then, teleportation has become not merely a foundational experiment but a working design principle across quantum optics, trapped ions, superconducting circuits, solid-state systems, and hybrid platforms; broad reviews of teleportation’s experimental and theoretical development emphasize this transition from paradox-like phenomenon to information-processing tool (Pirandola et al., 2015).

To see why the subject matters beyond a single protocol, it is helpful to distinguish three roles of teleportation.

First, teleportation is a communication primitive. A primitive is a basic operation from which more complex protocols are built. In long-distance quantum communication, direct transmission through optical fiber or free space suffers from loss and noise. Entanglement swapping—a close relative of teleportation—allows two systems that have never interacted to become entangled by performing a Bell measurement on intermediate systems. This idea is central to quantum repeaters, which were proposed to overcome exponential loss scaling by combining entanglement distribution, storage, swapping, and purification (Briegel et al., 1998).

Second, teleportation is a computational primitive. In gate teleportation, one uses measurement and entangled resource states to implement quantum gates. Gottesman and Chuang showed how teleportation can be used to support universal quantum computation with suitable resource preparation and single-qubit operations, a result that strongly influenced measurement-based and fault-tolerant quantum computing (Gottesman and Chuang, 1999). Later chapters will connect this viewpoint to magic-state injection, cluster states, Pauli frames, surface-code operations, and lattice surgery.

Third, teleportation is a resource-theoretic lens. A resource theory asks which tasks are possible when some operations are free and others require scarce resources. For teleportation, local operations and classical communication—abbreviated LOCC—are treated as operationally limited tools, while entanglement is the nonclassical resource that makes state transfer possible. This perspective links teleportation to entanglement measures, distillation, channel simulation, and the Choi-state representation of quantum channels. The modern theory of entanglement formalizes many of these ideas and clarifies why entanglement is useful but cannot by itself replace classical communication (Horodecki et al., 2009).

The phrase quantum channel will appear often in this book. A quantum channel is a mathematically valid description of an allowed physical transformation from input quantum states to output quantum states. In finite dimensions, such a transformation is represented by a completely positive trace-preserving map. “Trace-preserving” means that total probability remains one. “Completely positive” means that the transformation remains physically valid even when the system is part of a larger entangled system. This requirement is essential: a map that seems to take valid states to valid states locally may fail when applied to one half of an entangled pair. Quantum channels provide the natural language for noisy teleportation, imperfect measurements, loss, decoherence, and error correction. Standard graduate treatments of quantum information use this formalism because it unifies state evolution, measurement, and noise under one operational framework (Nielsen and Chuang, 2010).

The book will move through several levels of description. At the simplest level, teleportation is a circuit identity involving a Bell pair, a Bell measurement, two classical bits, and a correction. At the next level, it is a channel implemented by LOCC and a shared entangled state. At a still deeper level, it becomes a bridge between entanglement theory, measurement theory, fault tolerance, and network architecture. Each level is useful. None replaces the others.

A concrete example will guide the early chapters. Let Alice’s input be

\[ |\psi\rangle=\frac{|0\rangle+i|1\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}. \]

She does not need to know this expression. If Alice and Bob share \(|\Phi^+\rangle\), Alice’s Bell measurement might yield, for example, the outcome \(|\Psi^+\rangle\). In that branch, Bob’s qubit is \(X|\psi\rangle\). After Alice sends the two-bit label for \(|\Psi^+\rangle\), Bob applies \(X\), because \(X^2=I\), and recovers \(|\psi\rangle\). If instead Alice obtains \(|\Phi^-\rangle\), Bob applies \(Z\). Every outcome is correctable in the ideal protocol; randomness appears in Alice’s measurement result, not in the final success of the protocol.

Real implementations are less perfect. Entangled states may be mixed rather than pure. Detectors may fail. Bell measurements may be incomplete, especially with linear optics. Fibers lose photons. Memories decohere. Classical feedforward may be delayed. Continuous-variable protocols are limited by finite squeezing. Fault-tolerant protocols must keep errors below thresholds while manipulating encoded states. These imperfections do not invalidate teleportation; they make it a quantitative subject. We therefore study fidelity, entanglement fidelity, average fidelity, classical benchmarks, error models, purification, and verification.

The word fidelity measures closeness between the desired state and the actually produced state. For pure target state \(|\psi\rangle\) and output density operator \(\rho\), the fidelity is

\[ F=\langle\psi|\rho|\psi\rangle. \]

If \(F=1\), the output is exactly the target state. If \(F\) is smaller, the output contains error. In experiments, however, high fidelity alone does not automatically prove that a device has implemented the intended operational task under all assumptions. One must ask what states were tested, what measurement devices were trusted, whether postselection was used, and whether the demonstrated process works for arbitrary unknown inputs. Later chapters will treat these certification issues carefully.

This book also distinguishes teleportation from several neighboring ideas.

Teleportation is not transport. In transport, the same physical carrier moves from Alice to Bob, as when a photon travels through a fiber. In teleportation, Bob’s carrier is already at Bob’s location; what changes is its quantum state.

Teleportation is not cloning. The input is consumed by measurement, and no second perfect copy remains.

Teleportation is not merely classical communication. Two classical bits cannot specify an arbitrary unknown qubit state. The classical message only identifies the correction needed because entanglement was already shared.

Teleportation is not automatically instantaneous action at a distance in the operational sense. Bob cannot use his system as the teleported state until the classical feedforward information arrives.

Teleportation is not limited to single qubits. It generalizes to qudits, continuous variables, logical encodings, bosonic modes, multipartite states, and field-theoretic settings, though each generalization changes the mathematical and experimental details.

The later chapters follow this progression. Chapters 1 through 5 establish the operational and foundational core: unknown states, no-cloning, entanglement, Bell measurements, feedforward, and causality. Chapters 6 through 8 reformulate teleportation as a quantum channel and analyze imperfect entanglement, noise, and purification. Chapters 9 through 11 turn to continuous-variable, optical, matter-qubit, and hybrid implementations. Chapters 12 and 13 show how teleportation enters quantum computation and quantum error correction. Chapters 14 and 15 scale the idea to repeaters and networks. Chapters 16 through 18 broaden the setting to higher-dimensional systems, relativistic and field-theoretic perspectives, and verification. Chapters 19 and 20 then trace experimental milestones and current frontiers.

The central lesson is that quantum teleportation is not science fiction disguised as physics. It is a precise protocol, constrained by no-cloning and no-signalling, enabled by entanglement, completed by classical communication, and made useful by careful engineering. Its importance lies not in moving matter mysteriously, but in revealing that quantum information can be relocated, processed, protected, and networked in ways that have no classical analogue.

References

Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics Physique Fizika, 1(3), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195

Bennett, C. H., Brassard, G., Crépeau, C., Jozsa, R., Peres, A., and Wootters, W. K. (1993). Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels. Physical Review Letters, 70(13), 1895–1899. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1895

Bouwmeester, D., Pan, J.-W., Mattle, K., Eibl, M., Weinfurter, H., and Zeilinger, A. (1997). Experimental quantum teleportation. Nature, 390, 575–579. https://doi.org/10.1038/37539

Briegel, H.-J., Dür, W., Cirac, J. I., and Zoller, P. (1998). Quantum repeaters: The role of imperfect local operations in quantum communication. Physical Review Letters, 81(26), 5932–5935. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5932

Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47(10), 777–780. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

Furusawa, A., Sørensen, J. L., Braunstein, S. L., Fuchs, C. A., Kimble, H. J., and Polzik, E. S. (1998). Unconditional quantum teleportation. Science, 282(5389), 706–709. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.282.5389.706

Gottesman, D., and Chuang, I. L. (1999). Demonstrating the viability of universal quantum computation using teleportation and single-qubit operations. Nature, 402, 390–393. https://doi.org/10.1038/46503

Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M., and Horodecki, K. (2009). Quantum entanglement. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(2), 865–942. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865

Nielsen, M. A., and Chuang, I. L. (2010). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press.

Pirandola, S., Eisert, J., Weedbrook, C., Furusawa, A., and Braunstein, S. L. (2015). Advances in quantum teleportation. Nature Photonics, 9, 641–652. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2015.154

Schrödinger, E. (1935). Discussion of probability relations between separated systems. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 31(4), 555–563. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305004100013554

Wootters, W. K., and Zurek, W. H. (1982). A single quantum cannot be cloned. Nature, 299, 802–803. https://doi.org/10.1038/299802a0