Quantum Foundations

One might have hoped that philosophers had sorted out what ‘truth’ is supposed to be by now. After all, Aristotle offered what seems to be a clear and simple characterization in his Metaphysics. So perhaps it is surprising (and then again perhaps it isn’t), that contemporary philosophers have not settled on a consensus regarding the nature of truth to this day. In fact, the most obvious theory of truth, that truth consists in correspondence to the facts, seems to be steadily waning in popularity in technical circles, replaced instead by a perhaps puzzlingly austere minimalist theory that restricts its characterization of truth to the familiar equivalence schema:

is true if and only if p. The differences between such deflationary theories and the ‘traditional’ correspondence theory of truth, and perhaps even more strikingly between these theories and epistemic theories of truth, call to mind counterpart features in different attitudes about the proper interpretation of quantum mechanics. By reviewing the most striking features of different theories of truth, as well as some of their most difficult objections, we can start to see where different interpretations seem to be reliant on (or at least quite congenial to) particular theories of truth and also where these theories begin to reveal themselves as variously helping and hindering the smooth functioning of different interpretations.

Our starting point is a particular `canvas' aimed to `draw' theories of physics, which has symmetric monoidal categories as its mathematical backbone. With very little structural effort (i.e. in very abstract terms) and in a very short time this categorical quantum mechanics research program has reproduced a surprisingly large fragment of quantum theory. Philosophically speaking, this framework shifts the conceptual focus from `material carriers' such as particles, fields, or other `material stuff', to `logical flows of information', by mainly encoding how things stand in relation to each other. These relations could, for example, be induced by operations. Composition of these relations is the carrier of all structure. Thus far the causal structure has been treated somewhat informally within this approach. In joint work with my student Raymond Lal, by restricting the capabilities to compose, we were able to formally encode causal connections. We call the resulting mathematical structure a CauCat, since it combines the symmetric monoidal stricture with Sorkin's CauSets within a single mathematical concept. The relations which now respect causal structure are referred to as processes, which make up the actual `happenings'. As a proof of concept, we show that if in a quantum teleportation protocol one omits classical communication, no information is transfered. We also characterize Galilean theories. Classicality is an attribute of certain processes, and measurements are special kinds of processes, defined in terms of their capabilities to correlate other processes to these classical attributes. So rather than quantization, what we do is classicization within our universe of processes. We show how classicality and the causal structure are tightly intertwined. All of this is still very much work in progress!

The Wheeler delayed choice experiment, Elitzur-Vaidman interaction-free measurement, and Hosten-Kwiat counterfactual computation will be discussed to answer Bohr's forbidden question: "Where is a quantum particle while it is inside a Mach-Zehnder Interferometer?". I will argue that the naive application of Wheeler's approach fails to explain a weak trace left by the particle and that the two-state vector description is required.

In the Scholium in Newton's Principia which contains the discussions about absolute space, time, and the bucket experiment, Newton also posed a problem that Julian Barbour has denoted the "Scholium problem". Newton writes there "But how are we to obtain the true motions from their causes, effects, and apparent differences, and the converse, shall be explained more at large in the following treatise. For to this end it was that I composed it". This problem was clearly considered very important by Newton who claims he wrote the Principia dedicated to this problem. Interestingly Newton never returned to the problem. In this talk we are going to give a mathematical precise formulation of the Scholium problem. A subpart of the Scholium problem consists of determining how accurate the observers clock is. We are going to start from that end and see that the problem of defining duration is inseparately intertwined with the full scholium problem.

In this talk, I will demonstrate that correlations inconsistent with any locally causal description can be a generic feature of measurements on entangled quantum states. Specifically, spatially-separated parties who perform local measurements on a maximally-entangled state using randomly chosen measurement bases can, with significant probability, generate nonclassical correlations that violate a Bell inequality. For n parties using a Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger state, this probability of violation rapidly tends to unity as the number of parties increases. Moreover, even with both a randomly chosen two-qubit pure state and randomly chosen measurement bases, a violation can be found about 10% of the time. Amongst other applications, our work provides a feasible alternative for the demonstration of Bell inequality violation without a shared reference frame.

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.