Pages

BB84 QKD: Problem of Quantum Noise

Part I of a two-part series

1. Introduction

Quantum mechanics offers a fundamentally different approach to secure communication. Unlike classical cryptography, which relies primarily on mathematical computational difficulty, quantum cryptography uses the physical properties of quantum states to establish secure communication.

One of the earliest and most influential protocols in this field is BB84, proposed by Charles Bennett and Gilles Brassard in 1984.

However, real quantum communication systems are never perfectly isolated. Noise, imperfect measurements, and environmental interactions can disturb quantum states and affect the reliability of key distribution.

This raises an important question:

How does quantum noise influence the security and performance of the BB84 protocol?

2. The BB84 Protocol

BB84 uses four quantum states belonging to two mutually unbiased bases:

Computational basis:

\[ |0\rangle,\quad |1\rangle \]

Hadamard basis:

\[ |+\rangle=\frac{|0\rangle+|1\rangle}{\sqrt{2}} \] \[ |-\rangle=\frac{|0\rangle-|1\rangle}{\sqrt{2}} \]

Alice randomly selects a bit and a measurement basis to prepare each quantum state. Bob independently selects a measurement basis to measure the received states.

After transmission, they publicly compare their basis choices, retaining only the events where their bases match. This process is called sifting.

The remaining correlated bits form the sifted key, which can subsequently undergo error correction and privacy amplification.

3. The Role of Quantum Noise

In an ideal quantum channel, Bob receives exactly the states prepared by Alice. In a realistic channel, interactions with the environment can introduce errors.

Some important noise models include:

  • Bit-flip noise: Changes the computational-basis state.
  • Phase-flip noise: Changes the relative phase of a quantum state.
  • Depolarizing noise: Randomly disturbs the quantum state.
  • Amplitude damping: Models energy loss through interaction with the environment.

These models provide simplified mathematical descriptions of different physical imperfections.

4. Why Does This Matter?

Errors introduced during transmission increase the Quantum Bit Error Rate (QBER), defined as:

\[ QBER= \frac{\text{Number of erroneous sifted bits}} {\text{Total sifted bits}} \]

A higher QBER can indicate channel noise, imperfect devices, or potential eavesdropping.

An important feature of BB84 is that an eavesdropper's intervention can introduce detectable disturbances. However, noise and eavesdropping cannot always be distinguished simply by observing errors.

5. The Research Direction

The objective of this investigation is to understand how different quantum noise models influence BB84 performance.

In the second part, we will explore these effects computationally using Python, compare the resulting QBER under different noise conditions, and discuss possible error-management techniques.

QM of Multi- Electron atoms

While the hydrogen atom provides an exact analytical baseline for quantum mechanics, transitioning to heavier elements introduces multi-body complexities. The presence of electron-electron repulsion potentials renders the Schrödinger equation analytically unsolvable. Consequently, understanding multi-electron systems requires approximate variational frameworks, self-consistent fields, and structural quantum constraints.


1. The Helium Atom ($He$, $Z=2$)

The Helium Atom introduces the foundational complexity of multi-electron structures. It constitutes a three-body system consisting of a central nucleus of charge $Z=2$ and two interacting electrons. Using the infinite nuclear mass approximation, the system's Hamiltonian operator is expressed as:

$$\hat{H} = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_e}\nabla_1^2 - \frac{\hbar^2}{2m_e}\nabla_2^2 - \frac{2e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0 r_1} - \frac{2e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0 r_2} + \frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0 |r_1 - r_2|}$$

Where $r_1$ and $r_2$ represent the radial distances of the respective electrons from the nucleus, and the final term represents the Coulomb Repulsion separating the two electrons.

The Unperturbed Approximation vs. Real Data

If we temporarily neglect the mutual electron repulsion term, the total unperturbed Hamiltonian breaks down cleanly into the sum of two independent, hydrogen-like Hamiltonians ($\hat{H}_0 = \hat{H}_1 + \hat{H}_2$). Under this independent-particle framework, the ground state energy is simply the sum of two isolated $Z=2$ ground states:

$$E_0 = E_1 + E_2 = -54.4\text{ eV} + (-54.4\text{ eV}) = -108.8\text{ eV}$$

However, experimental physical data measures the true ground state energy of Helium at $-79.0\text{ eV}$. The massive $29.8\text{ eV}$ discrepancy arises entirely from ignoring the positive electron-electron repulsion energy.

The Variational Method and Screening

To resolve this without exact solutions, we implement the Variational Principle. We define a trial wavefunction using an adjustable parameter $Z_{eff}$ (effective nuclear charge), which physically models how one electron screens the other from the full pull of the nucleus:

$$Z_{eff} = 2 - \frac{5}{16} = 1.6875$$

Plugging this optimized effective charge back into the variational expectation value yields an energy calculation of $-77.5\text{ eV}$, matching actual physical experiments with remarkable precision.

Identical Particles and Spin States

Because electrons are indistinguishable fermions, the total state wavefunction must behave completely anti-symmetrically under particle exchange. The total state splits into distinct spatial and spin factors ($\Psi = \psi_{spatial}\chi_{spin}$):

  • Parahelium (Singlet State): Combines a symmetric spatial state with an anti-symmetric spin state ($S=0$). The electron spins align anti-parallel ($\uparrow\downarrow - \downarrow\uparrow$). This configuration describes the stable ground state configuration.
  • Orthohelium (Triplet State): Combines an anti-symmetric spatial state with a symmetric spin state ($S=1$). The electron spins align parallel. Due to the spatial asymmetry, the electrons avoid each other, lowering the Coulomb repulsion energy structurally.

2. The Lithium Atom ($Li$, $Z=3$)

The Lithium Atom represents the first multi-electron system where geometric shells begin to fill structurally. Containing three electrons, its non-relativistic Hamiltonian incorporates three independent kinetic operators, three nuclear attraction terms, and three distinct inter-electron Coulomb repulsion potentials:

$$\hat{H} = \sum_{i=1}^{3} \left( -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_e}\nabla_i^2 - \frac{3e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0 r_i} \right) + \sum_{i < j}^{3} \frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0 |r_i - r_j|}$$

The Pauli Exclusion Principle and Ground State Configuration

In a purely hydrogenic approximation neglecting inter-electron repulsion, all three electrons could theoretically occupy the lowest spatial orbital ($1s$). However, the Pauli Exclusion Principle mandates that no two identical fermions can occupy the exact same quantum state simultaneously.

Because the spin space allows only two distinct configurations ($m_s = \pm 1/2$), the $n=1$ shell ($1s$ orbital) completely saturates at two electrons. The third electron is forced by quantum mechanics to occupy the higher-energy $n=2$ principal shell. The resulting total ground state configuration is denoted as:

$$\psi_{0} = 1s^2 2s^1$$

The Hartree-Fock Self-Consistent Field (SCF) Framework

To compute quantitative states for Lithium, the multi-electron wavefunction is framed as an anti-symmetrized product known as a Slater Determinant. The complex electron-electron interactions are simplified using the Hartree-Fock approximation, where each individual electron is treated as moving through an average, static potential field generated by the remaining two electrons. The effective one-electron potential operator becomes:

$$V_{eff}(r_i) = -\frac{3e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0 r_i} + V_{Coulomb}(r_i) + V_{Exchange}(r_i)$$

Where $V_{Exchange}$ is a purely quantum mechanical correction accounting for the spatial correlations forced by the anti-symmetry condition of the electron spins.

Orbital Penetration and the Lifting of $l$-Degeneracy

Unlike the Hydrogen atom, where states sharing the same $n$ but different $l$ are completely degenerate, the electron screening in Lithium lifts this degeneracy entirely. The $2s$ orbital possesses a secondary radial probability peak very close to the nucleus, allowing it to "penetrate" the core $1s$ electron cloud.

The $2p$ orbital lacks this inner peak, meaning it experiences a highly screened, weaker effective nuclear charge. Consequently, the energy levels split explicitly by angular momentum:

$$E_{2s} < E_{2p}$$

This structural splitting sets the fundamental precedence for the **Aufbau Principle** utilized across all heavier elements in the periodic table.