Quantum mechanics is traditionally formulated using the reversible coordinate time
t, which enforces a globally reversible unitary group structure and time‑symmetric propagators. This conflicts with physically irreversible processes such as decoherence, measurement, entropy production, causal propagation, and curvature‑driven focusing in general relativity. We resolve this mismatch by replacing
t with the monotonic temporal field
T, previously developed in the context of global causal structure, temporal focusing, and worldline ordering in curved spacetime. Once
T is taken as the fundamental evolution parameter, quantum dynamics cannot be reversible: the inverse operator
U−1 is not physically realizable, and unitary evolution becomes a forward‑directed semigroup. We formulate **forward unitarity**, in which physical evolution is generated only by forward‑directed operators
Uphys(T2,T1) with
T2>T1. Pure states evolve according to a forward Schrödinger equation with an intrinsic, monotonic decoherence functional
D(T), while mixed states evolve under a forward Lindblad structure. Probability is conserved, but coherent recoverability is forbidden by geometric irreversibility, causal structure, and temporal focusing. We construct a Forward‑QM Lagrangian, a forward Heisenberg picture, and a forward path integral restricted to histories with non‑decreasing
T, showing how operator algebras, propagators, correlation functions, and creation/annihilation operators inherit the arrow of time. Forward‑QM provides a unified, forward‑directed formulation of quantum mechanics compatible with general relativity, causal geometry, and the irreversible structure of spacetime. It replaces reversible unitary groups with physically meaningful semigroup evolution, aligns quantum dynamics with measurement, decoherence, and entropy production, and establishes the foundation for Forward Quantum Field Theory (FQFT). The extension to FQFT—covering forward propagators, interacting fields, renormalization in the presence of monotonic decoherence, and causal compatibility in curved spacetime—will be developed in future work.
Whereas quantum computing circuits follow the symmetries of the unitary Lie group, classical reversible computation circuits follow the symmetries of a finite group, i.e., the symmetric group. We confront the decomposition of an arbitrary classical reversible circuit with w bits and the decomposition of an arbitrary quantum circuit with w qubits. Both decompositions use the control gate as building block, i.e., a circuit transforming only one (qu)bit, the transformation being controlled by the other w−1 (qu)bits. We explain why the former circuit can be decomposed into 2w − 1 control gates, whereas the latter circuit needs 2w − 1 control gates. We investigate whether computer circuits, not based on the full unitary group but instead on a subgroup of the unitary group, may be decomposable either into 2w − 1 or into 2w − 1 control gates.
In this thesis I explore two different types of limits on the time complexity of quantum computation—that is, limits on how much time is required to perform a given class of quantum operations on a quantum system. Upper limits can be found by explicit construction; I explore this approach for the problem of determining whether two graphs are isomorphic. Finding lower limits, on the other hand, usually requires appeal to some fundamental principle of the operation under consideration; I use this approach to derive lower limits placed by the requirements of relativistic causality on the time required for implementation of some nonlocal quantum operations. In some situations these limits are attainable, but for other physical spacetime geometries we exhibit classes of operations which do not violate relativistic causality but which are nevertheless not implementable.
Except for the NOT gate, all the other familiar classical gates are irreversible in the sense that we cannot uniquely reconstruct the input states from the output states. For example, OR, AND, NAND, NOR, etc. are irreversible. They all map a two-bit input state into a single bit output state. Thus one bit is erased during operation of each of these gates, and according to Landauer’s principle that requires dissipation of a minimum amount of energy. Now a simple question arises in our curious mind: Is it possible to avoid this loss of energy? The answer is yes. If we don’t erase any bit then we can circumvent this energy loss. Thus we need to map n bit input states to n bit output states. In addition, if a one-toone correspondence exists between the input states and the output states then only we will be able to uniquely reconstruct the input states from the output states. In such a case the gate is called reversible. For example, if we have f(00) = 00, f(01) = 10, f(10) = 01, f(11) = 11 then f represents a reversible gate. Quantum evolution operators are unitary so for every operator U we have an inverse operator U−1 = U†. Therefore, quantum evolution operators are the natural choice for the construction of energy efficient reversible gates. However, it is not the only choice. We can have classical reversible gates, too. Usually by reversible gates we refer to classical reversible gates, and quantum gates are specifically referred to as quantum gates. Reversible gates and quantum gates are similar but there exists a fundamental difference that reversible gates cannot accept superposition states (e.g. α|0〉 + β|1〉) as input states, whereas quantum gates can. Thus all quantum gates are essentially reversible but the converse is not true.
In Section 1.3, we introduced the circuit model of (classical) computation. We restricted attention to reversible circuits since they can simulate any non-reversible circuit with modest overhead. This model can be generalized to a model of quantum circuits. In the quantum circuit model, we have logical qubits carried along ‘wires’, and quantum gates that act on the qubits. A quantum gate acting on n qubits has the input qubits carried to it by n wires, and n other wires carry the output qubits away from the gate. A quantum circuit is often illustrated schematically by a circuit diagram as shown in Figure 4.1. The wires are shown as horizontal lines, and we imagine the qubits propagating along the wires from left to right in time. The gates are shown as rectangular blocks. For convenience, we will restrict attention to unitary quantum gates (which are also reversible). Recall from Section 3.5.3 that non-unitary (non-reversible) quantum operations can be simulated by unitary (reversible) quantum gates if we allow the possibility of adding an ancilla and of discarding some output qubits. A circuit diagram describing a superoperator being implemented using a unitary operator is illustrated in Figure 4.2. In the example of Figure 4.1, the 4-qubit state |ψi⟩= |0⟩⊗ |0⟩⊗ |0⟩⊗ |0⟩ enters the circuit at the left (recall we often write this state as |ψi⟩ = |0⟩|0⟩|0⟩|0⟩ or |ψi⟩ = |0000⟩.) These qubits are processed by the gates U1, U2, U3, and U4. At the output of the circuit we have the collective (possibly entangled) 4-qubit state |ψf⟩. A measurement is then made of the resulting state. The measurement will often be a simple qubit-by-qubit measurement in the computational basis, but in some cases may be a more general measurement of the joint state. A measurement of a single qubit in the computational basis is denoted on a circuit diagram by a small triangle, as shown in Figure 4.1 (there are other symbols used in the literature, but we adopt this one). The triangle symbol will be modified for cases in which there is a need to indicate different types of measurements.R50
We study scattering of particles which obey an
SU(N) global symmetry through the lens of quantum computation and quantum algorithms. We show that for scattering between particles which transform in the fundamental or anti-fundamental representations, i.e. qudits, all 2-2 scattering amplitudes can be constructed from only three quantum gates. Further, for any
N, all 2-2 scattering channels are shown to emerge from the span of a
Z2 algebra, suggesting that scattering in this context is fundamentally governed by the action of ``bit flips'' on the internal quantum numbers. We frame these findings in terms of quantum algorithms constructed from Linear Combinations of Unitaries and block encoding.