Quantum Foundations

How can we describe a device that takes two unknown operational boxes and conditionally on some input variable connects them in different orders? In order to answer this question, I will introduce maps from transformations to transformations within operational probabilistic theories with purification, and show their characterisation in terms of operational circuits. I will then proceed exploring the hierarchy of maps on maps. A particular family of maps in the hierarchy are the ones whose output is in the set of transformations. These maps can be fully characterised by their correspondence with channels with memory, and it is exactly the family of transformations that can be implemented through operational circuits. I will then show the problems that arise in defining the remainder of the hierarchy, and the reason why we cannot avoid considering its elements. The main consequence of admitting the generalised transformations as possible within the operational theory is that we cannot describe them in terms of simple causal connection of transformations in a circuit with a fixed causal structure. In quantum theory, we can understand such higher order transformations in terms of superpositions of circuits with different causal structures. The problem whether computations exploiting higher-order transformations can be efficiently simulated by a conventional circuital computer is posed.

In this talk I will report on a recent work [arXiv:0908.1583], which investigates general probabilistic theories where every mixed state has a purification, unique up to reversible channels on the purifying system. The purification principle is equivalent to the existence of a reversible realization for every physical process, namely that to the fact that every physical process can be regarded as arising from the reversible interaction of the input system with an environment that is eventually discarded. From the purification principle one can also construct an isomorphism between transformations and bipartite states that possesses all structural properties of the Choi-Jamiolkowski isomorphism in Quantum Mechanics. Such an isomorphism allows one to prove most of the basic features of Quantum Information Processing, like e.g. no information without disturbance, no joint discrimination of all pure states, no cloning, teleportation, complementarity between correctable and deletion channels, no programming, and no bit commitment, without resorting to the mathematical framework of Hilbert spaces.

CMB measurements reveal a very smooth early universe. We propose a mech- anism to make this smoothness natural by weakening the strength of gravity at early times, and therefore altering which initial conditions have low entropy.

For a quantum system with a d-dimensional Hilbert space, a symmetric informationally complete measurement (SIC) can be thought of as a set of d^2 pure states all having the same overlap. Constructions of SICs for composite systems usually do not make use of the composite structure but treat the system as a whole. Indeed for some cases, one can prove that a SIC cannot have the symmetry that one naturally associates with the composite structure. In this talk I give one example showing how a SIC for three qubits can be constructed from SICs for the individual qubits. I ask whether the strategy used in this example might apply to other composite cases.

In his brilliant article "Against 'Measurement'", John Bell famously argued that the word has had such a damaging effect on the discussion, that it should now be banned altogether in quantum mechanics. But in the beginning was the word, and the word is still with us. Indeed, David Mermin responded In Praise of Measurement that within the field of quantum computer science the concept of measurement is precisely defined, unproblematic, and forms the foundation of the entire subject, a verdict reaffirmed by the development of measurement-based quantum computation. Bell's arguments deserve a more direct response: I shall try to give one.

A closer look at some proposed Gedanken-experiments on BECs promises to shed light on several aspects of reduction and emergence in physics. These include the relations between classical descriptions and different quantum treatments of macroscopic systems, and the emergence of new properties and even new objects as a result of spontaneous symmetry breaking.

Bruno de Finetti is one of the founding fathers of the subjectivist school of probability, where probabilities are interpreted as rational degrees of belief. His work on the relation between the theorems of the probability calculus and rationality is among the corner stones of modern subjective probability theory. De Finetti maintained that rationality requires that an agent’s degrees of belief be coherent. I argue that de Finetti held that the coherence conditions of degrees of belief in events depend on their verifiability. On this view, the familiar constraints of coherence only apply to sets of degrees of belief that could in principle be jointly verified. Accordingly, the constraints that coherence imposes on degrees of belief are generally weaker than the familiar ones. I then consider the implications of this interpretation of de Finetti for probabilities in quantum mechanics, focusing on the EPR/Bohm experiment and Bell’s theorem.

Instrumentalism about the quantum state is the view that this mathematical object does not serve to represent a component of (non-directly observable) reality, but is rather a device solely for making predictions about the results of experiments. One honest way to be such an instrumentalist is a) to take an ensemble view (= frequentism about quantum probabilities), whereby the state represents predictions for measurement results on ensembles of systems, but not individual systems and b) to assign some specific level for the quantum/classical cut. But what happens if one drops (b), or (a), or both, as some have been inclined to? Can one achieve a consistent view then? A major worry is illustrated by the Wigner's friend scenario: it looks as if it should make a measurable difference where one puts the cut, so how can it be consistent to slide it around (as, e.g., Bohr was wont to)? I'll discuss two main cases: that of Asher Peres' book, which adopts (a) but drops (b); and that of the quantum Bayesians Caves, Fuchs and Shack, which drops both. A view of Peres' sort can I, think, be made consistent, though may look a little strained; the quantum Bayesians' can too, though there are some subtleties (which I shall discuss) about how one should handle Wigner's friend.

I will present recent work [1] on preparation by measurement of Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) states in circuit quantum electrodynamics. In particular, for the 3-qubit case, when employing a nonlinear filter on the recorded homodyne signal the selected states are found to exhibit values of the Bell–Mermin operator exceeding 2 under realistic conditions. I will discuss the potential of the dispersive readout to demonstrate a violation of the Mermin bound, and present a measurement scheme avoiding the necessity for full detector tomography. [1] Lev S Bishop et al 2009 New J. Phys. 11 073040

We present a first-principles implementation of {\em spatial} scale invariance as a local gauge symmetry in geometry dynamics using the method of best matching. In addition to the 3-metric, the proposed scale invariant theory also contains a 3-vector potential A_k as a dynamical variable. Although some of the mathematics is similar to Weyl's ingenious, but physically questionable, theory, the equations of motion of this new theory are second order in time-derivatives. It is tempting to try to interpret the vector potential A_k as the electromagnetic field. We exhibit four independent reasons for not giving into this temptation. A more likely possibility is that it can play the role of ``dark matter''. Indeed, as noted in scale invariance seems to play a role in the MOND phenomenology. Spatial boundary conditions are derived from the free-endpoint variation method and a preliminary analysis of the constraints and their propagation in the Hamiltonian formulation is presented.

Betting (or gambling) is a useful tool for studying decision-making in the face of [classical] uncertainty. We would like to understand how a quantum "agent" would act when faced with uncertainty about its [quantum] environment. I will present a preliminary construction of a theory of quantum gambling, motivated by roulette and quantum optics. I'll begin by reviewing classical gambling and the Kelly Criterion for optimal betting. Then I'll demonstrate a quantum optical version of roulette, and discuss some of the challenges and pitfalls in designing such analogues. Quantum agents have access to many more strategies than classical agents. Quantum strategies provide no advantage in classical roulette, but I'll show that a quantum agent can outperform a classical agent in quantum roulette.

Violation of local realism can be probed by theory–independent tests, such as Bell’s inequality experiments. There, a common assumption is the existence of perfect, classical, reference frames, which allow for the specification of measurement settings with arbitrary precision. However, if the reference frames are ``bounded'', only limited precision can be attained. We expect then that the finiteness of the reference frames limits the observability of genuine quantum features. Using spin coherent states as reference frames, we determined their minimal size necessary to violate Bell’s inequalities in entangled systems ranging from qubits to macroscopic dimensions. In the latter, the reference frame’s size must be quadratically larger than that of the system. Lacking such large reference frames, precludes quantum phenomena from appearing in everyday experience.