Quantum Foundations

Causality is fundamental to science, but it appears in several different forms. One is relativistic causality, which is tied to a space-time structure and forbids signalling outside the future. On the other hand, causality can be defined operationally using causal models by considering the flow of information within a network of physical systems and interventions on them. From both a foundational and practical viewpoint, it is useful to establish the class of causal models that can coexist with relativistic principles such as no superluminal signalling, noting that causation and signalling are not equivalent. We develop such a general framework that allows these different notions of causality to be independently defined and for connections between them to be established. The framework first provides an operational way to model causation in the presence of cyclic, fine-tuned and non-classical causal influences. We then consider how a causal model can be embedded in a space-time structure and propose a mathematical condition (compatibility) for ensuring that the embedded causal model does not allow signalling outside the space-time future. We identify several distinct classes of causal loops that can arise in our framework, showing that compatibility with a space-time can rule out only some of them. We then demonstrate the mathematical possibility of causal loops embedded in Minkowski space-time that can be operationally detected through interventions, without leading to superluminal signalling. Our framework provides conditions for preventing superluminal signalling within arbitrary (possibly cyclic) causal models and also allows us to model causation in post-quantum theories admitting jamming correlations. Applying our framework to such scenarios, we show that post-quantumjamming can indeed lead to superluminal  signalling contrary to previous claims. Finally, this work introduces a new causal modelling concept of ``higher-order affects relations'' and several related technical results, which have applications for causal discovery in fined-tuned causal models.

The Quantum Bayesian, or QBist, interpretation regards the quantum formalism to be a tool that a single agent may adopt to help manage their expectations for the consequences of their actions. In other words, quantum theory is an addition to decision theory, and its shape, we hope, can teach us something about the nature of reality. Beyond simple consistency, an interpretation is judged by its capacity to point the way forward. In the first half of the talk, I will highlight several ways in which my collaborators and I have applied QBist intuitions to pose and solve technical questions regarding the informational structure and conceptual function of quantum theory. At the root of many of these developments is the notion of a reference measurement, the key to a probabilistic representation of quantum theory. In this setting, we can explore the boundary of the quantum reasoning structure from a uniquely QBist angle. Working with such representations grants a new perspective and inspires questions which wouldn't have occurred otherwise; as examples, we will meet downstream results concerning quantum channels, discrete quasiprobability representations, and a variant of the information-disturbance tradeoff. Most recently, I have pursued ways in which QBism could be applied to the construction of new tools and strategies for existing problems in quantum information and computation. In the second half of the talk, we will encounter the first of these, an agent-based modeling proposal where multiple, suitably interacting, QBist decision-makers might collectively work out the solution to a task of interest in the right circumstances. I will describe some initial explorations of modeling agent belief dynamics in two contexts: first, an expectation sampling interaction with an eye to agential agreement, and, second, a setting where agents are players of quantum games. In the future, we imagine it is possible that a sufficiently mature development of the agent-based program we have begun could suggest new approaches to quantum algorithm design.

Zoom Link: https://pitp.zoom.us/j/95668668835?pwd=MUJtRGMxbEFzSEdVVmZ3TkR3dVVVZz09

The formalism of quantum theory over discrete systems is extended in two significant ways. First, tensors and traceouts are generalized, so that systems can be partitioned according to almost arbitrary logical predicates. Second, quantum evolutions are generalized to act over network configurations, in such a way that nodes be allowed to merge, split and reconnect coherently in a superposition. The hereby presented mathematical framework is anchored on solid grounds through numerous lemmas. Indeed, one might have feared that the familiar interrelations between the notions of unitarity, complete positivity, trace-preservation, non-signalling causality, locality and localizability that are standard in quantum theory be jeopardized as the partitioning of systems becomes both logical and dynamical. Such interrelations in fact carry through, albeit two new notions become instrumental: consistency and comprehension.

Joint work with Amélia Durbec and Matt Wilson

Reference: https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.10587

Zoom Link: https://pitp.zoom.us/j/97185954578?pwd=OC9mUzl4L3V4WDZzVEZoekpOS24wQT09

The formalism of general probabilistic theories provides a universal paradigm that is suitable for describing various physical systems including classical and quantum ones as particular cases. Contrary to the often assumed no-restriction hypothesis, the set of accessible measurements within a given theory can be limited for different reasons, and this raises a question of what restrictions on measurements are operationally relevant. We argue that all operational restrictions must be closed under simulation, where the simulation scheme involves mixing and classical post-processing of measurements. We distinguish three classes of such operational restrictions: restrictions on measurements originating from restrictions on effects; restrictions on measurements that do not restrict the set of effects in any way; and all other restrictions. As a setting to detect nonclassicality in restricted theories we consider generalizations of random access codes, an intriguing class of communication tasks that reveal an operational and quantitative difference between classical and quantum information processing. We formulate a natural generalization of them, called random access tests, which can be used to examine collective properties of collections of measurements. We show that the violation of a classical bound in a random access test is a signature of either measurement incompatibility or super information storability, and that we can use them to detect differences in different restrictions.
 

Bell’s theorem is typically understood as proof that quantum theory is incompatible with local hidden variable (LHV) models. In recent years, however, LHV models have been recognized as a particular and simple case of much more general causal networks that can give rise to new and stronger forms of nonclassicality. And, since nonlocality is a resource in a variety of applications, it is thus natural to ask whether these novel forms of nonclassical behavior can also be put to use in information processing. In this seminar, I will present recent results exploring quantum correlations in several such causal scenarios, ranging from foundational questions such as freedom of choice in Bell experiments to more applied situations covering cryptography, distributed computing, and game theory.

Zoom Link: TBD

General relativity does not distinguish a preferred reference frame, and conservatively one ought to expect that its quantization does not necessitate such background structure. However, this desire stands in contrast to orthodox formulations of quantum theory which rely on a background time parameter external to the theory, and in the case of quantum field theory a spacetime foliation. Such considerations have led to the development of the Page-Wootters formalism, which seeks to describe motion relative to a reference frame internal to a quantum theory that encompasses both the system of interest and employed reference frame. I will begin by reviewing a modern formulation of the Page-Wootters formalism in terms of Hamiltonian constraints, generalized coherent states, and covariant time observables. I will then present Kuchar’s criticisms of the Page-Wootters formalism, and discuss their resolution by showing the equivalence between the formalism and relational Dirac observables. These Dirac observables will then be used to introduce a gauge-invariant, relational notion of subsystems and entanglement. Finally, a field-theoretic extension of the Page-Wootters formalism will be introduced and used to recover the Schwinger-Tomonaga equation.

Zoom Link: https://pitp.zoom.us/j/91420728439?pwd=cXlGZ21tTGZEUjFDVjRKMWxaVFlVZz09

Entropic Dynamics (ED) is a framework in which Quantum Mechanics is derived as an application of entropic methods of inference. In ED the dynamics of the probability distribution is driven by entropy subject to constraints that are codified into a quantity later identified as the phase of the wave function. The challenge is to specify how those constraints are themselves updated.

The important ingredients are two: the cotangent bundle associated to the probability simplex inherits (1) a natural symplectic structure from ED, and (2) a natural metric structure from information geometry.

The requirement that the dynamics preserves both the symplectic structure (a Hamilton flow) and the metric structure (a Killing flow) leads to a Hamiltonian dynamics of probabilities in which the linearity of the Schrödinger equation, the emergence of a complex structure, Hilbert spaces, and the Born rule, are derived rather than postulated.

While complex numbers are essential in mathematics, they are not needed to describe physical experiments, expressed in terms of probabilities, hence real numbers. Physics however aims to explain, rather than describe, experiments through theories. While most theories of physics are based on real numbers, quantum theory was the first to be formulated in terms of operators acting on complex Hilbert spaces. This has puzzled countless physicists, including the fathers of the theory, for whom a real version of quantum theory, in terms of real operators, seemed much more natural. Are complex numbers really needed in the quantum formalism? Here, we show this to be case by proving that real and complex quantum theory, understood in terms of operators in Hilbert spaces and tensor products to represent independent systems, make different predictions in network scenarios comprising independent states and measurements.  This allows us to devise a Bell-like experiment whose successful realization would disprove real quantum theory, in the same way as standard Bell experiments disproved local physics.

In absence of both experimental evidence for and a fully understood  theory of quantum gravity, the possibility that gravity might be  fundamentally classical presents an option to be considered. Such a  semiclassical theory also bears the potential to be part of an  objective explanation for the emergence of classical measurement outcomes. Nonetheless, the possibility is mostly disregarded based on the grounds of arguments of consistency. I will discuss these arguments, attempting to present the broader picture of the constraints that need to be dealt with in order to formulate consistent semiclassical models of gravity, and the implications this  has with regard to concrete proposals for theoretical models and 
experimental tests of semiclassical versus quantized gravity.

Zoom Link: https://pitp.zoom.us/j/99590707415?pwd=MHFMZlhSMUdMbFFoMEFmQTIxSUhBQT09

This talk is about how to think about probabilistic reasoning and its use in physics.  It has become commonplace, in the literature on the foundations of probability, to note that the word “probability” has been used in at least two distinct senses: an objective, physical sense (often called “objective chance”), thought to be characteristic of physical situations, independent of considerations of knowledge and ignorance, and an epistemic sense, having to do with gradations of belief of agents with limited information about the world.  I will argue that in order to do justice to the use of probabilistic concepts in physics, we should go beyond this familiar dichotomy, and make use of a third concept, which I call “epistemic chance,” which combines epistemic and physical considerations.

There are many different interpretations of quantum mechanics. Among them, QBism and Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) are special because they both propose that reality itself is produced relative to "observers". For QBism, observers are defined as rational decision-making "agents", while in RQM any physical system can be an observer. But both interpretations agree that reality is shaped by what happens when observers encounter the world external to themselves. In this talk I will try to understand what these interpretations imply for the ongoing problem of defining an ontological model of quantum mechanics.