Talks

The complete story of how the scientists’ had predicted the final stages of stars of varying masses: from the application of General Relatively, to the latest astronomical observations. Our journey starts with White Dwarfs and ends with a journey to and into a Black Hole and all the implications such a trip would hold for our visitor.

Information has always been valuable, never more so than in recent decades, and throughout history people have turned to cryptography in an attempt to keep important information secret. New technologies are now emerging based on the counterintuitive laws of quantum physics that govern the atomic scale. These technologies threaten cryptographic methods which are in widespread use today, but offer new quantum cryptographic protocols which could profoundly alter the world of cryptography.

The refinement of our understanding of Space and Time through thought experiments; starting with Newtonian ideas and ending with the mathematical adventures of Einstein and other prominent scientists as they contemplate the structure of stars.

The reason cosmologists have a job is that the Universe as a whole -- the stuff between planets and stars and galaxies -- is, despite first appearances, a pretty interesting place. The strangest fact about it is that it's expanding, and always has been, as far as we know (and though Einstein's theory of gravity predicts this, Albert himself didn't much care for the idea, at least at first). After about seventy years -- it was discovered in 1929 -- this expansion was kind of old hat, but then new observations came around that shattered the old complacency. The old idea was that the Universe was expanding, but slowing down as it went -- since gravity, as far as anyone knew, could only cause attractive forces. What the new observations demonstrated is that the Universe's expansion is, in fact, accelerating -- getting faster with time. This is so shocking that most astronomers and cosmologists couldn't believe it at first, and some still don't. In this talk, I'll explain a bit about how we know this, why it's so shocking, and tell you something about the crazy ideas people at Perimeter have for what's going on.

Classical physics of a spinning bar magnet in an external magnetic field:  energy, angular momentum, torque and its effect on angular momentum, and precession.  Application to NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance).  The peculiar physics and mathematics of quantum mechanical spin: quantization of spin and superposition of spin states.  Application of quantum mechanical spin and NMR to quantum computing..

Physics emerged from the twentieth century with two remarkably successful descriptions of nature which stand in striking contrast. Quantum mechanics describes the subatomic realm with intrinsic uncertainties and probabilities. On the other hand, Einstein's general relativity describe gravitational phenomena in an exacting geometric arena. Theoretical physicists have struggled for over fifty years trying to combine these views in a single unified framework. More recently, superstring theory has drawn a huge amount of interest as a leading contender to provide such a unification. Superstring theory is a theory of strings, branes, extra spacetime dimensions and much more. In my lecture, I will try to give a flavour for what superstring theory is all about and why physicists, like myself, continue to be so excited about this, perhaps the final theory.

The Quantum Bayesianism of Caves, Fuchs and Schack presents a distinctive starting point from which to attack the problem of axiomatising - or re-constructing - quantum theory. However, many have had the doubt that this starting point is itself already too radical. In this talk I will briefly introduce the position (it will be familiar to most, no doubt) and describe what I take to be its philosophical standpoint. More importantly, I shall seek to defend it from some bad objections, before going on to level some more substantive challenges. The background paper is: 0804.2047 on the arXiv.

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is a beautiful simple mathematical structure--- Hilbert spaces and operator algebras---with an unprecedented predicting power in the whole physical domain. However, after more than a century from its birth, we still don't have a "principle" from which to derive the mathematical framework. The situation is similar to that of Lorentz transformations before the advent of the relativity principle. The invariance of the physical law with the reference system and the existence of a limiting velocity, are not just physical principles: they are mandatory operational principles without which one cannot do experimental Physics. And it is a very seductive idea to think that QM could be derived from some other principle of such epistemological kind, which is either indispensable or crucial in dramatically reducing the experimental complexity. Indeed, the large part of the formal structure of QM is a set of formal tools for describing the process of gathering information in any experiment, independently on the particular physics involved. It is mainly a kind of "information theory", a theory about our knowledge of physical entities rather than about the entities themselves. If we strip off such informational part from the theory, what would be left should be a "principle of the quantumness" from which QM should be derived. In my talk I will analyze the consequences of two possible candidates for the principle of quantumness: 1) PFAITH: the existence of a pure bipartite state by which we can calibrate all local tests and prepare all bipartite states by local tests; 2) PURIFY: the existence of a purification for all states. We will consider the two postulates within the general context of probabilistic theories---also called test-theories. Within test-theories we will introduce the notion of "time-cascade" of tests, which entails the identifications "events=transformations" and "evolution=conditioning", and derive the general matrix-algebra representation of such theories, with particular focus on theories that satisfy the "local discriminability principle". Some of the concepts will be illustrated in some specific test-theories, including the usual cases of classical and quantum mechanics, the extended versions of the PR boxes, the so-called "spin-factors", and quantum mechanics on a real (instead of complex) Hilbert spaces. After the brief tutorial on test-theories, I will analyze all the consequences of the two candidate postulates. We will see how postulate PFAITH implies the "local observability principle" and the tensor-product structure for the linear spaces of states and effects, along with a remarkable list of additional features that are typically quantum, including purification for some states, the impossibility of bit commitment, and many others. We will see how the postulate is not satisfied by classical mechanics, and a stronger version of the postulate also exclude theories where we cannot have teleportation, e.g. PR-boxes. Finally we will analyze the consequences of postulate PURIFY, and show how it is equivalent to the possibility of dilating any probabilistic transformation on a system to a deterministic invertible transformation on the system interacting with an ancilla. Therefore PURIFY is equivalent to the general principle that "every transformation can be in-principle inverted, having sufficient control on the environment". Using a simple diagrammatic representation we will see how PURIFY implies general theorems as: 1) deterministic full teleportation; 2) inverting a transformation upon an input state (i.e. error-correction) is equivalent to the fact that environment and reference remain uncorrelated; 3) inverting some transformations by reading the environment; etc. We will see that some non-quantum theories (e.g. QM on real Hilbert spaces) still satisfy PURIFY. Finally I will address the problem on how to prove that a test-theory is quantum. One would need to show that also the "effects" of the theory---not just the transformations---make a matrix algebra. A way of deriving the "multiplication" of effects is to identify them with atomic events. This can be done assuming the atomicity of evolution in conjunction with the Choi-Jamiolkowski isomorphism. Suggested readings: 1. arXiv:0807.4383, to appear in "Philosophy of Quantum Information and Entanglement", Eds A. Bokulich and G. Jaeger (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, in press) 2. G. Chiribella, G. M. D'Ariano, and P. Perinotti (in preparation) 3. G. M. D'Ariano, A. Tosini (in preparation

Recent advances in quantum computation and quantum information theory have led to revived interest in, and cross-fertilisation with, foundational issues of quantum theory. In particular, it has become apparent that quantum theory may be interpreted as but a variant of the classical theory of probability and information. While the two theories may at first sight appear widely different, they actually share a substantial core of common properties; and their divergence can be reduced to a single attribute only, their respective degree of agent-dependency. I propose a mathematical description for this ?degree of agent-dependency? and show how assuming different values allows one to derive the classical and the quantum case from their common core. Finally, I explore ? and eventually dismiss ? the possibility that beyond quantum theory there might be other variants of classical probability theory that are relevant to physics.