Quantum Physics

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.

Ever since there's been money, there have been people trying to counterfeit it, and governments trying to stop them. In 1969, the physicist Stephen Wiesner raised the remarkable possibility of money whose authenticity would be guaranteed by the laws of quantum mechanics. However, the question of whether one can have secure quantum money that anyone (not only the bank) can verify has remained open for forty years. In this talk, I'll tell you about progress on the question over the last two years. (1) I'll show that no publicly-verifiable quantum money scheme can have security based on quantum physics alone: like in most cryptography, one also needs a computational hardness assumption. (2) I'll show that one can have quantum money that remains hard to counterfeit, even if a counterfeiter gains access to a "black box" for verifying the money. (3) I'll describe a candidate quantum money scheme I proposed last spring, and how that scheme was recently broken by Lutomirski et al. I'll also discuss a new class of schemes that might evade the existing attacks -- schemes with the bizarre property that not even the bank can prepare the same bill twice. The talk is designed to be accessible to those without a quantum information background. Reference for (1)-(2): S. Aaronson, "Quantum copy-protection and quantum money," in Proceedings of CCC'2009, http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/noclone-ccc.pdf. Reference for (3): A. Lutomirski, S. Aaronson, E. Farhi, D. Gosset, A. Hassidim, J. Kelner, and P. Shor. Breaking and making quantum money: toward a new quantum cryptographic protocol, Proceedings of Innovations in Computer Science (ICS), 2010. http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3825.

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.

Dualities appear in nearly all disciplines of physics and play a central role in statistical mechanics and field theory. I will discuss in a pedagogical way our recent findings motivated by a quest for a simple unifying framework for the detection and treatment of dualities. I will explain how classical and quantum dualities, as well as duality relations that appear only in a sector of certain theories (i.e. emergent dualities), can be unveiled, and systematically established. Our method relies on the use of morphisms of the "bond algebra" of a quantum Hamiltonian. Dualities are characterized as unitary mappings implementing such morphisms, whose even powers become symmetries of the quantum problem. Dual variables (non-local mappings between the elementary degrees of freedom of the theory) which were guessed in the past can be derived in our formalism. New self-dualities for four-dimensional Abelian gauge field theories will be discussed.

Is there a theory yet to be discovered that underlies quantum theory and explains its structure? If there is such a theory, one of the features it will have to explain is the central role of complex numbers as probability amplitudes. In this talk I explore the physical meaning of the statement “probability amplitudes are complex” by comparing ordinary complex-vector- space quantum theory with the real-vector-space theory having the same basic structure. Specifically, I discuss three questions that bring out qualitative differences between the two theories: (i) Is information about a preparation expressed optimally in the outcomes of a measurement? (ii) Are multipartite states locally accessible? (iii) Is entanglement “monogamous”?

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 recent breakthrough in quantum computing has been the realization that quantum computation can proceed solely through single-qubit measurements on an appropriate quantum state. One exciting prospect is that the ground or low-temperature thermal state of an interacting quantum many-body system can serve as such a resource state for quantum computation. The system would simply need to be cooled sufficiently and then subjected to local measurements. It would be unfortunate, however, if the usefulness of a ground or low-temperature thermal state for quantum computation was critically dependent on the details of the system's Hamiltonian; if so, engineering such systems would be difficult or even impossible. A much more powerful result would be the existence of a robust ordered phase which is characterized by the ability to perform measurement-based quantum computation. I’ll discuss some recent results on the existence of such a computational phase of matter. I’ll first outline some positive results on a phase of a toy model that contains the cluster state. Then, in a realistic model of coupled spin-1 particles, I’ll demonstrate the existence of a computational phase. This result is obtained by using a local measurement sequence to “renormalize” the state to a computationally-universal fixed point. Together, these results reveal that the characterization of computational phases of matter has a rich, complex structure – one which is still poorly understood. Joint work with Gavin Brennen, Akimasa Miyake, and Joseph Renes.

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.

The mysteries of quantum theory run deep. Despite 80 years of research, there is still no consensus on its interpretation. This talk will explore some of the important issues in the foundations of quantum theory, from the idea that we have only a limited knowledge of a deeper reality, like the prisoner in Plato’s cave who sees only the shadows of objects and never the objects themselves, to John Bell’s famous discovery of the difference between quantum correlations and Dr. Bertlmann’s socks, namely, that whereas the mismatched colours of the doctor’s socks can be attributed to a decision at the sock drawer that morning, certain quantum correlations cannot be explained by a common cause, at least not without doing violence to some cherished principles of physics, such as the fact that causes cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

This panel will explore some of the deepest questions facing those who would harness the power of quantum mechanics in new quantum technologies: What are the newest and most interesting discoveries researchers have made about quantum information? What progress has been made in recent years towards experimentally harnessing quantum devices for quantum computation? What are the main motivations for building quantum information processing technologies? Drs. Aharonov and Shor appear courtesy of Institute for Quantum Computing.

Quantum computers hold the promise to revolutionize the way we secure information, compute and understand the quantum world. Although general-purpose quantum computers appear to be a long way off, we do have good test-beds of small quantum processors. One of the most versatile quantum test-beds is nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR): a version of which is familiar to many in the guise of the medical imaging modality, MRI. In fact NMR has broad importance to society: it is used in drug discovery, in oil exploration and to monitor the processing of cheese and chocolate. We will introduce NMR, show how it helps us understand quantum computing and we will look at how concepts based on quantum computing can improve NMR applications.