Perimeter Institute Quantum Discussions

We describe a protocol for distilling maximally entangled bipartite states between random pairs of parties (``random entanglement'') from those sharing a tripartite W state, and show that this may be done at a higher rate than distillation of bipartite entanglement between specified pairs of parties (``specified entanglement''). Specifically, the optimal distillation rate for specified entanglement for the W has been previously shown to be the asymptotic entanglement of assistance of 0.92 EPR pairs per W, while our protocol can distill 1 EPR pair per W between random pairs of parties, which we conjecture to be optimal. We further extend this to a more general class of W-like states and show by increasing the number of parties in the protocol that there exist states with fixed lower-bounded distillable random entanglement for arbitrarily small specified entanglement. [Work done in collaboration with Benjamin Fortescue. Preprint available at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607126 ]

Quantum mechanics is a non-classical probability calculus -- but hardly the most general one imaginable. In this talk, I'll discuss some familiar non-classical properties of quantum-probabilistic models that turn out to be features of {em all} non-classical models. These include a generic no-cloning theorem obtained in recent work with Howard Barnum, Jon Barrett and Matt Leifer.

Entanglement is one of the most studied features of quantum mechanics and in particular quantum information. Yet its role in quantum information is still not clearly understood. Results such as (R. Josza and N. Linden, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 459, 2011 (2003)) show that entanglement is necessary, but stabilizer states and the Gottesman-Knill theorem (for example) imply that it is far from sufficient. I will discuss three aspects of entanglement. First, a quantum circuit with a "vanishingly small" amount of entanglement that admits an apparent exponential speed-up over the classical case. Second, I will discuss techniques for lower-bounding the amount of entanglement in bipartite quantum states. Finally, I will discuss the role of entanglement in quantum metrology. Specifically, I will show that entangling ancillas can make no difference to the accuracy of a quantum parameter estimation, regardless of the nature of the coupling Hamiltonian. I will conclude by discussing strategies for improving the scaling of quantum parameter estimation.

My field is the foundations of quantum mechanics, in particular Bohmian mechanics, a non-relativistic theory that is empirically equivalent to standard quantum mechanics while solving all of its paradoxes in an elegant and simple way, essentially by assuming that particles have trajectories. Bohmian mechanics possesses a straightforward generalization to relativistic space-time, be it flat or curved, if one assumption against the spirit of relativity is granted: the existence of a "time foliation", i.e., a physical object mathematically represented by a slicing of space-time into spacelike 3-surfaces, which evolves according to a Lorentz-invariant law. On the basis of this kind of theory, describing particles in a background 4-geometry, I propose an extension in which the space-time geometry is dynamically generated, as in general relativity. Whether my model is empirically equivalent to any known type of quantum gravity I don't know. In this model, there is a Lorentzian metric on configuration-space-time, evolving according to the higher-dimensional analog of the Einstein field equation. The 4-metric is obtained from the configuration-space-time metric and the actual particle configuration. Thus, this Bohm-like model generates (up to diffeomorphisms) a 4-metric and particle world lines from a given wave function.

In this talk I will present several new results from joint work with Dmitry Gavinsky, Oded Regev and Ronald de Wolf, relating to the model of one-way communication and the simultaneous model of communication. I will describe several separations between various resources (entanglement versus event coin, quantum communication versus classical communication), showing in particular that quantum communication cannot simulate a public coin and that entanglement can be much more powerful than a public coin, even if communication is quantum. I will also present a characterization of the quantum fingerprinting technique.

In order to predict the future state of a quantum system, we generally do not need to know the past state of the entire universe, but only the state of a finite neighborhood of the system. This locality is best expressed as a restriction on how information "flows" between systems. In this talk I will describe some recent work, inspired by quantum cellular automata, about the information strucutre of local quantum dynamics. Issues to be discussed include the definition of "locality", some characterization theorems, connections between classical and quantum locality for reversible maps, the relation between local and global dynamics, and the dissection of CNOT.

In this talk, I will outline a quantum generalization of causal networks that are used to analyze complex probabilistic inference problems involving large numbers of correlated random variables. I will review the framework of classical causal networks and the graph theoretical constructions that are abstracted from them, including entailed conditional independence, d-separation and Markov equivalence. I will show how to generalize the definition of causal networks to the quantum case, such that the same graph theoretic constructions apply, and give an explicit representation of the states supported on the graph as the Gibbs states of certain classes of Hamiltonians.

The modern view of representing a quantum observable as a semispectral measure as opposed to the traditional approach of using only spectral measures has added a great deal to our understanding of the mathematical structures and conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics. The old questions of 1) how to determine a quantum observable from its classical counter-part (if any), 2) how much statistical information is needed to determine an observable, 3) which observables can be measured together, and 4) are there noiseless measurements, all appear in a new perspective, calling for a study of problems such as: 1) how to obtain a semispectral measure by a quantization map, 2) do the moment operators of a semispectral measure determine the operator measure, 3) are coexistent observables jointly measurable, and 4) does minimal variance occur only in the case of a spectral measure? In my talk I will survey some of the recent developments concerning these questions and problems.

Adiabatic Quantum Computation is not only a possibly more robust alternative to standard quantum computation. Since it considers a continuous-time evolution of the system, it also provides a natural bridge towards studying the dynamics of interacting many-particle quantum systems, quantum phase transitions and other issues in fundamental physics. After a brief review of adiabatic quantum computation, I will show our recent results on the dynamics of entanglement and fidelity for the search and Deutsch algorithms including several variations and optimization. I will show how these studies led to suggesting an alternative definition of entanglement and compare the results, and discuss possible implications for considering entanglement a resource. I will conclude with an outlook on further applications and extensions of adiabatic quantum computation.

Clifton, Bub, and Halvorson claim to be able to derive quantum mechanics from information-theoretic axioms. However, their derivation relies on the auxiliary assumption that the relevant probabilities for measurement outcomes can be represented by the observables (self-adjoint operators) and states of a C*-algebra. There are legitimate probability theories that are not so representable --- in particular, the nonlocal boxes of Popescu and Rohrlich. We explain the impact of nonlocal boxes on the interpretation of the CBH derivation, and we discuss possible generalizations of the CBH derivation in the framework of these more general probability theories.