On the leptonic and non-leptonic decay modes of K-mesons

Pati, Jogesh C.; Ôneda, S.; Sakita, B.

doi:10.1016/0029-5582(60)90409-0

Cited by 17 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Equivalently, one may say that the states which Alice must remotely prepare are improper mixed states, and that she proves that she has done so by providing purifications of these states.) There has also been interest recently in a different sort of task involving the preparation of quantum states at a remote location [19]. In this task, the parties are cooperative and the optimization problem to be solved is the minimization of the number of classical bits of communication asymptotically required to remotely prepare a state for a given amount of prior entanglement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Degrees of concealment and bindingness in quantum bit commitment protocols

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although it is impossible for a bit commitment protocol to be both arbitrarily concealing and arbitrarily binding, it is possible for it to be both partially concealing and partially binding. This means that Bob cannot, prior to the beginning of the unveiling phase, find out everything about the bit committed, and Alice cannot, through actions taken after the end of the commitment phase, unveil whatever bit she desires. We determine upper bounds on the degrees of concealment and bindingness that can be achieved simultaneously in any bit commitment protocol, although it is unknown whether these can be saturated. We do, however, determine the maxima of these quantities in a restricted class of bit commitment protocols, namely those wherein all the systems that play a role in the commitment phase are supplied by Alice. We show that these maxima can be achieved using a protocol that requires Alice to prepare a pair of systems in an entangled state, submit one of the pair to Bob at the commitment phase, and the other at the unveiling phase. Finally, we determine the form of the trade-off that exists between the degree of concealment and the degree of bindingness given various assumptions about the purity and dimensionality of the states used in the protocol.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Degrees of concealment and bindingness in quantum bit commitment protocols

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, quantum teleportation [2] has provided us an interesting way to transmitting an arbitary quantum state using one maximal-entangled state (1 ebit) and two classical bits information (2 cbits). Recently, remote state preparation (RSP) [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12] attracts attention of many scientists. RSP provides us a simple method to transmit pure quantum states using entanglement and classical communication when the sender knows the transmitted state and the receiver has partial knowledge of it.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…RSP provides us a simple method to transmit pure quantum states using entanglement and classical communication when the sender knows the transmitted state and the receiver has partial knowledge of it. RSP protocols more economical than teleportation were found for certain ensembles [3,4,5,6,7,8,10,12]. The resources of 1 ebit and 2 cbits are sufficient and necessary for teleportation, while it can be reduced to 1 ebit and 1 cbit in asymptotics for remote state preparation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remote preparation of mixed states via noisy entanglement

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a practical and general scheme of remote preparation for pure and mixed states, which is proposed with an auxiliary qubit and controlled-NOT gate. We discuss the remote state preparation ͑RSP͒ in two important types of decoherent channel ͑depolarizing and dephasing͒. We realize RSP in the dephasing channel in our experiment by using spontaneous parametric down-conversion, linear optical elements, and single photon detector. Our experimental results match the theoretical prediction well.

show abstract

“…at University of Nebraka-Lincoln Libraries onApril 11, 2015 http://ptp.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from On the contrary, the second term may be considered to g1ve an uniform distribution as was discussed earlier by Oneda et al25 Thus we will tentatively assume the matrix element to be: J... .. K+cpn:+<Pn:-(/Jn:-+ h.c., and this term will contribute predominantly to the decay. We give here a phenomenological value of )...., which is determined by the experimental value of the decay rate.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Non-Leptonic Weak Interaction in Current-Current Interaction

Hayashi

Nakagawa

1966

Prog. Theor. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

515Non-leptonic interactions in the current-current interaction are examined and criticized. By using a Born (factorization) approximation, it is concluded that the pure Lll = 3/2 process, i.e. the K+~n++no decay can be caused with strength about 20 times greater than the observed value and that the Lll=1/2 processes are, on the contrary, caused only partially (1/20......_1/50) irrespective of the process (hyperonic or mesonic) and of the presence or absence of parity conservation in the transition. It is also pointed out that this universal character of "theoretical" suppression for the Lll = 1/2 processes is due almost directly to the unwanted factor cos 2 8 sin 2 8. A new two-body interaction of leptons and a corresponding non-leptonic interaction with Lll = 1/2 is discussed.

show abstract

On the leptonic and non-leptonic decay modes of K-mesons

Cited by 17 publications

References 26 publications

Degrees of concealment and bindingness in quantum bit commitment protocols

Degrees of concealment and bindingness in quantum bit commitment protocols

Remote preparation of mixed states via noisy entanglement

On the Non-Leptonic Weak Interaction in Current-Current Interaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About