Quantum Foundations

In order to solve the problem of quantum gravity, we first need to pose the problem. In this talk I will argue that the problem of quantum gravity arises already in the domain of quantum mechanics and the relativity principle. Specifically, the relativity principle implies that the concept of inertial motion should extend also to those systems that are in quantum superpositions of inertial motions. By contrast, relativistic quantum field theory only considers the point of view of classical observers in states of definite relative motion (i.e. the observers of a quantum field do not include inertial observers in quantum superpositions). The problem is that, if we extend the class of inertial observers to include quantum observers, the manifold of local events becomes ill-defined, as `locality' itself becomes an observer-relative property of an event. Thus, the Relativity Principle and the Superposition Principle are jointly opposed to the concept of a space-time manifold of local events, and our understanding of relativistic quantum theory needs to be revised before gravity even enters the picture.

I will explain and prove the statement of the title. The proof relies on a recent result of Slofstra in combinatorial group theory and the hypergraph approach to contextuality.

Based on http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.05870.

In quantum information, we frequently consider (for instance, whenever we talk about entanglement) a composite system consisting of two separated subsystems. A standard axiom of quantum mechanics states that a composite system can be modeled as the tensor product of the two subsystems. However, there is another less restrictive way to model a composite system, which is used in quantum field theory: we can require only that the algebras of observables for each subsystem commute within some larger subalgebra. For finite-dimensional systems, these two axioms are equivalent, but this is not necessarily true for infinite-dimensional systems. Tsirelson's question (which comes in several variants) asks whether the correlations arising from commuting-operator models can always be represented by tensor-product models. I will give examples of linear system non-local games which cannot be played perfectly with tensor-product strategies, but can be played perfectly with commuting-operator strategies, resolving (one version of) Tsirelson's question in the negative. From these examples, we can also derive other consequences for the theory of non-local games, such as the undecidability of determining whether a non-local game has a perfect quantum strategy. 

Bell's theorem shows that our intuitive understanding of causation must be overturned in light of quantum correlations. Nevertheless, quantum mechanics does not permit signalling and hence a notion of cause remains. Understanding this notion is not only important at a fundamental level, but also for technological applications such as key distribution and randomness expansion. It has recently been shown that a useful way to determine which classical causal structures give rise to a given set of correlations is to use entropy vectors. We consider the question of whether such vectors can lead to useful certificates of non-classicality. We find that for a family of causal structures that include the usual bipartite Bell structure they do not, in spite of the existence of non-classical correlations. Furthermore, we find that for many causal structures non-Shannon entropic inequalities give additional constraints on the sets of possible entropy vectors in the classical case. They hence lead to tighter approximations of the set of realisable entropy vectors, which enables a sharper distinction of different causal structures. Whether these improved characterisations are also valid for the quantum case remains an open problem whose resolution would have implications for the discrimination of classical and quantum causes.