# From: Ramiro Frick - philsci- 03.d · Web viewThe surprising aspects of quantum information are due…

Post on 23-Jun-2018

212 views

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<p>From: Ramiro Frick</p>
<p>Quantum Information and Locality</p>
<p>Dennis Dieks</p>
<p>1. Introduction. What makes quantum information different: non-orthogonality and entanglement</p>
<p>The surprising aspects of quantum information are due to two distinctly non-classical features of the quantum world: first, different quantum states need not be orthogonal and, second, quantum states may be entangled. Of these two significant non-classical features non-orthogonality has to some extent become familiar and may therefore be called the less spectacular one; we shall only briefly review its consequences for information storage and transfer, in this introductory section. By contrast, the conceptual implications of entanglement are amazing and still incompletely understood, in spite of several decades of debate. The greater part of this chapter (from section 1 onward) is therefore devoted to an attempt to better understand the significance of entanglement, in particular for the basic physical concepts of particle and localized physical system. It will turn out, so we shall argue, that the latter concepts have only limited applicability and that quantum mechanics is accordingly best seen as not belonging to the category of space-time theories, in which physical quantities can be defined as functions on space-time points. The resulting picture of the physical world is relevant for our understanding of the precise way in which quantum theory is non-local and sheds light on how quantum information processes can succeed in being more efficient than their classical counterparts. </p>
<p>Both in quantum and classical physics physical information is conveyed by messages that are encoded in states of physical systems; these states can be thought of as letters in an alphabet. Information transfer consists in the preparation of such messages by a sender and their subsequent reproduction (possibly in states of other systems) at the location of a receiver.</p>
<p>This characterization may seem to entail that the prospects of efficient information storage and transfer are generally worse in quantum theory than in classical physics. The reason is that in quantum theory different states of physical systems, even if maximally complete (pure states), may overlap: they need not be represented by orthogonal vectors in Hilbert space. This non-orthogonality stands in the way of unequivocally distinguishing between states and so between the letters of the alphabet that is being used. Consider, for example, a message written in a binary code using states and , with ; attempts to decode the message via measurements will inevitably lead to ambiguities. By contrast to the case of (ideal) measurements on classical states or on orthogonal quantum states, in which it is always possible to completely retrieve the original message, performing yes-no measurements represented by the projection operators and introduces a probability of incorrect classification.</p>
<p>More sophisticated measurement schemes exist that do enable classification without error (Dieks 1988; Jaeger 1995). However, the price to be paid is that in these schemes some measurements will have outcomes that lead to no classification at all. The best one can achieve this way is that a fraction of all bits remains unclassified, so that non-orthogonality again leads to a loss of information.</p>
<p>The possibility of distinct though non-orthogonal states has the further consequence that statistical mixtures of quantum states cannot be uniquely decomposed into pure components. A statistical (impure) state , prepared by probabilistically mixing an arbitrary number of non-orthogonal states with associated probabilities is the same mathematical entity as (and empirically indistinguishable from) the mixture of orthogonal states with probabilities , , where the and are the eigenstates and eigenvalues of the density operator () and where n denotes the number of dimensions of the systems Hilbert space. From an informational viewpoint, the latter mixture (of at most n orthogonal and therefore perfectly distinguishable quantum states) is equivalent to a classical probability distribution with probabilities over n distinct classical states. Therefore, the amount of information that can be extracted from is generally less than the (classical) information needed to specify the mixing procedure, in which the number of mixed states may be much larger than n. </p>
<p>This difference is made precise by the noiseless quantum coding theorem (Schumacher 1995). Essentially, this theorem tells us that the amount of information contained in a mixed state is given by the von Neumann entropy , . This von Neumann entropy of is smaller than (or at most equal to) the classical Shannon entropy of the probability distribution pi that determined the mixing process from which originated. The latter entropy quantifies the amount of classical information needed to describe the mixing (where we take the different components as distinct classical possibilities). So instead of the classical result (Shannon 1948) that the Shannon entropy determines the number of bits needed to specify a state, we find that for quantum messaging the use of the smaller von Neumann entropy is appropriate. </p>
<p>This brief sketch illustrates how the concept of information does not change by the transition to quantum theory: as in the classical case, we are dealing with messages encoded in states of physical systems and with their transport through a physical channel. But the differences between classical systems and quantum systems, mirrored in the physical properties of their states, are responsible for differences in the amounts of information that can be stored and transferred. </p>
<p>The impression that quantum messaging is at best equally powerful as its classical predecessor would be incorrect, however. There are also situations in which quantum mechanics predicts more effective information transfer. The essential ingredient of these new quantum possibilities is the consideration of composite systems in entangled states. Entangled states represent systems that are correlated in a stronger way than deemed possible in classical physics, and enable instantaneous non-local influences between systems. This typical quantum non-locality underlies revolutionary new quantum information protocols like teleportation. At least, this is the common view on the meaning of entanglement; we shall analyze it, and also criticize it, below.</p>
<p>2. Particle individuality and labels, classical and quantum</p>
<p>The conceptual landscape of classical physics is dominated by the notion of a localized individual system, with a particle as its paradigm case. Classical particles can be characterized by individuating sets of properties, like position, momentum, mass and electric charge. Different classical particles may possess the same masses, charges and momenta, but they cannot find themselves at the same position since repulsive forces are assumed to become increasingly strong when mutual distances become smaller. Consequently, two distinct particles differ in the values of at least one of their physical characteristics, namely their localization.</p>
<p>Within the framework of Newtonian physics, in which absolute space legitimates the notion of absolute position as a physical property, this guarantees that a version of Leibnizs principle of the identity of indistinguishable objects is respected: Newtonian particles are distinguishable from each other on the basis of their complete sets of physical properties and this distinguishability grounds their individuality. Within a relational space-time framework a weakened Leibnizean notion, namely that of weak discernibility, may be invoked to ground individuality (in cases like that of Blacks spheres; see Dieks and Versteegh 2008 and references contained therein for further discussion). The general message is that in classical physics the specification, counting and labeling of particles is done on the basis of physical distinctions, position being the most important.</p>
<p>Numerical particle labels () accordingly correspond to such sets of physical properties; they have no content beyond this and function as conventionally chosen names. Thus, although it is true that a numerical labeling induces an ordering on sets of particles, this ordering is without physical significance and may be replaced by any other, permuted ordering: labels can be permuted in the equations without any physical consequence. It is therefore possible to switch over to a completely symmetrical description, in which all states that follow from each other by permutations of the particle labels are combined and the resulting complex is taken as the representation of one physical state (the Z-star introduced by Ehrenfest (1909)). For example, in the simple case of two particles of the same kind (same mass, charge, and other kind-specific physical properties) two electrons, say we could have that one particle is at position with momentum and the other at position , with momentum . This gives rise to two points in phase space (with axes , , , representing the momenta and positions of the two particles, respectively): , , , and , , , . But these two points correspond to the exact same physical situation, so that one is entitled to view the Z-star comprising both as representative of this single physical situation. This yields a description that is symmetrical in the particle labels and avoids an empirically empty numerical identity of the particles (alternatively, one could switch to a reduced phase space, by quotienting out the equivalence generated by the 12 permutation).</p>
<p>The essential point is that classical systems are individuated by co-instantiated sets of physical properties and that labels possess the status of conventional names for such sets they contain no information about the identity and individuality of particles beyond this. That physical properties are co-instantiated in fixed combinations is a basic principle of classical physics, with law-like status: physical properties only occur in specific bundles (like mass, position and momentum, etc.) and not in isolation. These bundles define the physical individuals (Lombardi and Dieks 2015).</p>
<p>Quantum mechanics prima facie respects a similar bundle principle. Indeed, quantum systems like electrons are characterized by fixed sets of physical quantities: e.g., charge, mass, spin and position. Compared to classical physics there is the complication that not all these quantum quantities can simultaneously be definite-valued, as a consequence of complementarity. (The characterization of quantum particles that we give here is not interpretation independent: for example, in interpretations of the Bohm-type it is a first principle that the world consists of particles with always definite positions, contrary to what we assume here. Our analysis proceeds within a broadly construed no-hidden-variables approach). Thus, position and momentum cannot possess sharp values simultaneously (although it is still possible to have both quantities in the same list of particle properties if one allows a certain unsharpness in their values or latitudes, as Bohr called it (Dieks 2016)). This incompatibility between sharp values of certain quantum quantities is taken into account through the use of non-commutative operator algebras instead of numerical quantities for the physical properties, plus the use of quantum states (vectors in Hilbert space) instead of classical states like . In this way we can generalize the classical idea of a set of physical properties whose values together define an individual system, by specifying an algebra of observables (hermitian operators on a Hilbert space), together with a pure quantum state. In such a state the observable represented by the projection on the state, plus all observables commuting with this projection operator, are assigned definite values. This restricted value ascription is the best quantum mechanics can achieve: a complete set of quantum properties that takes the place of the classical property sets. Observables of which the state is not an eigenstate are characterized by probability distributions specifying the probabilities of possible outcomes in a measurement of the observables in question.</p>
<p>Modulo this complication of complementarity and non-definiteness in the numerical sense, the situation may seem not too different from the classical one: for example, instead of the values of position, momentum, and angular momentum characterizing a spinning classical particle we may now write down the corresponding position, momentum and spin operators that characterize the system, e.g. an electron, and we can use a state like to characterize its space-time characteristics through plus its spin through .</p>
<p>Summing up, quantum particles can be characterized by fixed algebras of operators plus pure quantum states. (Mixed states do not characterize a single actual system when they are proper mixtures. Why improper mixtures, coming from entangled states, do not individuate particles is explained below). The algebra plus the state give us a complete set of quantum properties. The difference with classical mechanics thus appears to be solely in the replacement of definite numerical values of quantities with probability distributions determined by the quantum states. However, we shall see that things are not this easy, and that there are reasons to doubt the general applicability of the concept of a particle.</p>
<p>In the case of more than one particle quantum theory works with labels that are meant to index the particles, in the same spirit as in classical physics. As before, we expect and require that labels only individuate by proxy, via physical properties or states. As we shall see, in the quantum case it is more difficult than before to put this simple principle into practice.</p>
<p>First, there is a technical complication due to the fact that the quantum mechanical state space is a vector space, in which the superposition principle holds. The latter has the consequence that the natural way of forming symmetrical states is different from the Z-star procedure explained above. Instead of the collection of permuted states, one now takes their superposition. In the case of particles of the same sort this is precisely what the (anti-) symmetrization postulates demand: instead of considering product states of the form (for a situation in which particle 1 is located to the left, particle 2 to the right) or (the same physical situation, but with the particle labels permuted), we should write down (anti-) symmetrical states of the form</p>
<p>(1)</p>
<p>The state (1) is the quantum counterpart of Ehrenfests symmetrical Z-star for two particles with the same intrinsic properties. If we look at the labels occurring in Eq.(1) we see that they are symmetrically distributed over the two terms in so if we were to ass...</p>

Recommended

View more >