Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Advances in Mathematical Physics

Notes on the Essential System to Acquire Information

Paolo Rocchi

Published Jan 1, 2010• 5 citations
Publisher

Abstract

This paper introduces a short survey on recent information theories and reviews some critical notes expressed on quantum information. The severe difficulties emerging from the literature lead us to argue about the way to follow, and in a preliminary stage, we consider how to proceed in order to provide a reasonable contribution to the conceptualization of information in classical and quantum physics. We conclude that we should go toward the essential elements of the system that acquire information and should define the common components of the measurement processes. In this way we should be able to establish fundamental properties and to circumvent tricky difficulties arisen by the concept of the observer and the variety of interferences that disturb the acquisition of information. Universal experience shows how sharpness is the indispensable feature of detected signals and we calculate the discernability of observables using various mathematical formalisms. The present logical frame brings evidence on how information is not an absolute quantity, and we close with a few notes on the information relativism which modern literature tackles from the operational stance and the philosophical stance.

DOI
10.1155/2010/480421

Related papers

Acquisition of Information is Achieved by the Measurement Process in Classical and Quantum Physics 1

Paolo Rocchi, Orlando Panella

Abstract. No consensus seems to exist as to what constitutes a measurement which is still considered somewhat mysterious in many respects in quantum mechanics. At successive stages mathematical theory of measure, metrology and measurement theory tried to systematize this field but significant questions remain open about the nature of measurement, about the characterization of the observer, about the reliability of measurement processes etc. The present paper attempts to talk about these questions through the information science. We start from the idea, rather common and intuitive, that the measurement process basically acquires information. Next we expand this idea through four formal definitions and infer some corollaries regarding the measurement process from those definitions. Relativity emerges as the basic property of measurement from the present logical framework and this rather surprising result collides with the feeling of physicists who take measurement as a myth. In the closing this paper shows how the measurement relativity wholly consists with some effects calculated in QM and in Einstein’s theory.

•Nov 21, 2012•2 citations

Acquisition of Information is achieved by the Measurement Process in Classical and Quantum Physics

Paolo Rocchi, Orlando Panella, Guillaume Adenier +4 more

No consensus seems to exist as to what constitutes a measurement which is still considered somewhat mysterious in many respects in quantum mechanics. At successive stages mathematical theory of measure, metrology and measurement theory tried to systematize this field but significant questions remain open about the nature of measurement, about the characterization of the observer, about the reliability of measurement processes etc. The present paper attempts to talk about these questions through the information science. We start from the idea, rather common and intuitive, that the measurement process basically acquires information. Next we expand this idea through four formal definitions and infer some corollaries regarding the measurement process from those definitions. Relativity emerges as the basic property of measurement from the present logical framework and this rather surprising result collides with the feeling of physicists who take measurement as a myth. In the closing this paper shows how the measurement relativity wholly consists with some effects calculated in QM and in Einstein's theory.

arXiv:0710.5386•AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2007•1 citation

Quantum Information with Meaning Inside and Outside the Quantum

Alastair A. Abbott, Cristian S. Calude, Karl Svozil

The ability to transfer information securely is essential in the modern world we live in. While the field of cryptography has long researched ways to do this, events over the last couple of years have brought the issues of secure information transfer squarely into the public eye. As a consequence, security and cryptography have quickly become issues of social and political importance, sparking debates about the values of privacy and the role of government. An essential ingredient of modern cryptography is the generation of randomness: cryptographic techniques are built on the premise that one has access to random bits. It is well known, however, that computers cannot produce algorithmically random sequences – that is, sequences with maximal algorithmic information content – but are doomed to produce ‘pseudorandomness’. This lack of randomness can be, and has been, exploited to compromise security, see [4]. The active field of quantum information theory has proposed approaches to provide supposedly ‘unbreakable’ security by exploiting various quantum phenomena. This security unfortunately relies on assumptions about the nature of quantum measurements and their ability to generate random bits. Anton Zeilinger summarises this by postulating that the simplest quantum systems, qubit, can hold only one bit of classical information [6]. This foundational principle is in line with a wider paradigm shift to view quantum information as an extension of classical information, but it is nonetheless unsatisfying to simply postulate this principle, given its importance in determining the practical advantages of quantum information theory. In order to understand better how quantum mechanics can help generate meaningful information, we instead look to relate the outcomes of quantum measurements to formal properties of the system based on more fundamental assumptions. Indeed, we have shown that a) some of the postulated properties of quantum information follow from the formal structure of the theory and b) a purely formal notion of information within a quantum world can generate, via measurement, meaningful and useful information in the macroscopic world (for example, in cryptography). The indeterminism of quantum measurements can be formalised via the notion of value indefiniteness. To explain this concept, let us consider an arbitrary quantum system and ask whether the outcome of a measurement of any observable quantity A (such as the energy of the system, its angular momentum (spin), etc.) is determined prior to the measurement. If this is the case, then we say the observable is value definite with value v(A); otherwise, the observable is value indefinite and v(A) is undefined. Mathematically, one can reduce all observable quantities to so-called projection observables, which can only take the values 0 or 1. Thus, the question of whether the outcome of several measurements can be simultaneously determined in advance can be rephrased in terms of the information ‘carried’ by a particular system in a definite quantum state. Classically, one expects that all quantities are determined in advance, and hence all observables are value definite. Quantum mechanically, however, the belief is that this is not the case, and the information content of quantum systems is limited. Formulating carefully the notion of value indefiniteness allows us to formalise the notion of (quantum) indeterminism; however, this doesn’t help clarify whether quantum systems are indeed value indefinite or not. Staying in this formal framework, the Kochen-Specker theorem [5] provides a first positive result, showing that at least some observables must be value indefinite if one makes the assumption known as non-contextuality, which states that any definite values that exist must be independent of other compatible measurements that may or may not be performed on the system. Under the same assumption, this theorem can be strengthened to show that only one single observable can have the definite value 1 (see [2]). Furthermore, only observables that can be measured simultaneously with this single one can have the definite value 0; the rest must all be value indefinite. Since the preparation of a system involves precisely ensuring that, usually via measurement, the system is in a definite state with respect to some desired observable, this result shows that no other incompatible observable can be value definite. That is, preparing a system in a definite state by making the ‘preparation’ observable value definite specifies completely the information content of the quantum system. This is an example of syntactical quantum information acquiring meaning at the level of the quantum itself. Can the syntactical information at the level of the quantum generate meaning outside the quantum, that is, at the macroscopic level? The results cited above hold in the Hilbert-space framework of quantum mechanics and are formulated only in terms of a syntactical notion of information. Their real importance becomes evident when one interprets them in the context of quantum measurements. Specifically, if we prepare a quantum system in a known state, they allow us to ‘locate’ observables which we can measure, but which are value indefinite; that is, observables whose measurement results are not specified by any pre-existing property of the quantum system. Furthermore, with respect to a mathematical model of unpredictability which we developed in [3], the results of these measurements can be shown to be absolutely unpredictable. In this way we get a mathematical explanation and justification of the largely accepted intuition that quantum mechanics is inherently unpredictable, and that this unpredictability arises from the phenomenon of indefiniteness within the quantum world. Furthermore, if one considers a hypothetical infinite sequence generated by the repeated measurement of a quantum value indefinite observable, one can prove that these sequences must be strongly incomputable, technically ‘bi-immune’ [1]. Such sequences cannot be generated by any Turing machine or classical computer, showing that value indefiniteness leads to a clear classical/quantum split in a purely algorithmic context. Importantly, bi-immunity is a property of observed, macroscopic quantities, quite separate from the quantum framework in which the value indefiniteness is formalised. This form of macroscopic meaning created from the lack of syntactic information is precisely the scenario that quantum random number generators try to create, and which is essential for the development and certification of quantum cryptographic systems. The fact that the macroscopic information created goes beyond anything classically obtainable serves as a valuable practical resource, outside of and removed from the quantum formalism. To conclude, quantum information creates meaning within the quantum and via measure- ment, the lack of information within the quantum, creates meaning and valuable information at the macroscopic level. Acknowledgments The second author thanks Prof. S. Marcus for useful conversations on quantum information theory. This work was supported in part by Marie Curie FP7-PEOPLE-2010-IRSES Grant RANPHYS. References and Notes Abbott, A.A.; Calude, C.S.; Svozil, K. Strong Kochen-Specker theorem and incomputability of quantum randomness. Physical Review A 2012, 86, 062109. Abbott, A.A.; Calude, C.S.; Svozil, K. Value-indefinite observables are almost everywhere. Physical Review A 2013, 89, 032109. Abbott, A.A.; Calude, C.S.; Svozil, K. On the unpredictability of individual quantum measurement outcomes. CDMTCS Research Report 2014, 458. Calude, C.S. Quantum randomness & cryptology. CyberTalk 2013, 3, 42–43. Kochen, S.; Specker, E. The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 1967, 17, 59–87. Zeilinger, A. A foundational principle for quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics 1999, 29(4),631–643.

ISIS Summit: The Information Society at the Crossroads•Jun 23, 2015•0 citations

The essence of quantum theory for computers

William C. Parke

. Quantum computers take advantage of interfering quantum alternatives in order to handle problems that might be too time consuming with algorithms based on classical logic. Developing quantum computers requires new ways of thinking beyond those in the familiar classical world. To help in this thinking, we give a description of the foundational ideas that hold in all of our successful physical models, including quantum theory. Our emphasis will be on the proper interpretation of our theories, and not just their statements. Our tact will be to build on the concept of information, which lies central to the operation of not just computers, but the Universe. For application to quantum computing, the essence of quantum theory is given, together with special precautions and limitations. Introduction. Having a grasp on the ideas behind a theory helps to apply it correctly, to understand its limitations, and to generate new ideas. Getting a firm hold on quantum theory is not an easy task, because our experiences and even our genetic predispositions have been developed in a world in which quantum effects are largely washed out. Remarkably, our predilection for finding logic behind the behavior of what we observe, including that of electrons and atoms, has led us to quantum theory, a description of nature that is hard for us to conceptualize, but is logical, accurate, and explains a wide variety of phenomena with only a few statements and input. As background to quantum theory and quantum computing, an attempt is made here to give the primitive notions and essential observations that underlie current physical theories, so that foundational ideas are explicit, and a common language is established. In our description, information storage and transfer is made central. A short description of quantum theory follows, and then applied to quantum computing, focusing on what the theory says, and particularly does not say, in areas where conceptual difficulties have arisen. Physical theory and reality. A physical theory is a logical model capable of making predictions of what we observe. It is judged by its accuracy in matching measurements, and by its economy, i.e. whether the proposed theory has only a few relationships and input data needed for its ability to explain observations over a wide realm.

arXiv:1409.2790•Cambridge University Press eBooks•Feb 26, 2016•0 citations

About the Nature of Quantum Information

Olímpia Lombardi

Although the interpretation of the concept of information is not clear, even in the classical framework, new interpretive problems have arisen with the advent of the so-called quantum information, which combine the difficulties in understanding the concept of information with the well-known foundational puzzles derived from quantum mechanics itself. The aim of this paper is to consider some arguments traditionally put forward to support the idea that quantum information is qualitatively different from classical information. The final conclusion is that there are no reasons to admit the existence of quantum information as qualitatively different from classical information: there is only one kind of information, physically neutral, which can be encoded by means of classical or quantum states.

International Society for the Study of Information Summit (IS4SI Summit)•Sep 19, 2021•0 citations

“Who Thinks Abstractly?”: Quantum Theory and the Architecture of Physical Concepts

Arkady Plotnitsky, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov, Gregg S. Jaeger +2 more

Beginning with its introduction by W. Heisenberg, quantum mechanics was often seen as an overly abstract theory, mathematically and physically, vis‐à‐vis classical physics or relativity. This perception was amplified by the fact that, while the quantum‐mechanical formalism provided effective predictive algorithms for the probabilistic predictions concerning quantum experiments, it appeared unable to describe, even by way idealization, quantum processes themselves in space and time, in the way classical mechanics or relativity did. The aim of the present paper is to reconsider the nature of mathematical and physical abstraction in modern physics by offering an analysis of the concept of “physical fact” and of the concept of “physical concept,” in part by following G. W. F. Hegel’s and G. Deleuze’s arguments concerning the nature of conceptual thinking. In classical physics, relativity, and quantum physics alike, I argue, physical concepts are defined by the following main features—1) their multi‐component multiplicity; 2) their essential relations to problems; 3) and the interactions between physical, mathematical, and philosophical components within each concept. It is the particular character of these interactions in quantum mechanics, as defined by its essentially predictive (rather than descriptive) nature, that distinguishes it from classical physics and relativity.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2011•0 citations
This paper introduces a short survey on recent information theories and reviews some critical notes expressed on quantum information. The severe difficulties emerging from the literature lead us to argue about the way to follow, and in a preliminary stage, we consider how to proceed in order to provide a reasonable contribution to the conceptualization of information in classical and quantum physics. We conclude that we should go toward the essential elements of the system that acquire information and should define the common components of the measurement processes. In this way we should be able to establish fundamental properties and to circumvent tricky difficulties arisen by the concept of the observer and the variety of interferences that disturb the acquisition of information. Universal experience shows how sharpness is the indispensable feature of detected signals and we calculate the discernability of observables using various mathematical formalisms. The present logical frame brings evidence on how information is not an absolute quantity, and we close with a few notes on the information relativism which modern literature tackles from the operational stance and the philosophical stance.
Abstract. No consensus seems to exist as to what constitutes a measurement which is still considered somewhat mysterious in many respects in quantum mechanics. At successive stages mathematical theory of measure, metrology and measurement theory tried to systematize this field but significant questions remain open about the nature of measurement, about the characterization of the observer, about the reliability of measurement processes etc. The present paper attempts to talk about these questions through the information science. We start from the idea, rather common and intuitive, that the measurement process basically acquires information. Next we expand this idea through four formal definitions and infer some corollaries regarding the measurement process from those definitions. Relativity emerges as the basic property of measurement from the present logical framework and this rather surprising result collides with the feeling of physicists who take measurement as a myth. In the closing this paper shows how the measurement relativity wholly consists with some effects calculated in QM and in Einstein’s theory.
No consensus seems to exist as to what constitutes a measurement which is still considered somewhat mysterious in many respects in quantum mechanics. At successive stages mathematical theory of measure, metrology and measurement theory tried to systematize this field but significant questions remain open about the nature of measurement, about the characterization of the observer, about the reliability of measurement processes etc. The present paper attempts to talk about these questions through the information science. We start from the idea, rather common and intuitive, that the measurement process basically acquires information. Next we expand this idea through four formal definitions and infer some corollaries regarding the measurement process from those definitions. Relativity emerges as the basic property of measurement from the present logical framework and this rather surprising result collides with the feeling of physicists who take measurement as a myth. In the closing this paper shows how the measurement relativity wholly consists with some effects calculated in QM and in Einstein's theory.
The ability to transfer information securely is essential in the modern world we live in. While the field of cryptography has long researched ways to do this, events over the last couple of years have brought the issues of secure information transfer squarely into the public eye. As a consequence, security and cryptography have quickly become issues of social and political importance, sparking debates about the values of privacy and the role of government. An essential ingredient of modern cryptography is the generation of randomness: cryptographic techniques are built on the premise that one has access to random bits. It is well known, however, that computers cannot produce algorithmically random sequences – that is, sequences with maximal algorithmic information content – but are doomed to produce ‘pseudorandomness’. This lack of randomness can be, and has been, exploited to compromise security, see [4]. The active field of quantum information theory has proposed approaches to provide supposedly ‘unbreakable’ security by exploiting various quantum phenomena. This security unfortunately relies on assumptions about the nature of quantum measurements and their ability to generate random bits. Anton Zeilinger summarises this by postulating that the simplest quantum systems, qubit, can hold only one bit of classical information [6]. This foundational principle is in line with a wider paradigm shift to view quantum information as an extension of classical information, but it is nonetheless unsatisfying to simply postulate this principle, given its importance in determining the practical advantages of quantum information theory. In order to understand better how quantum mechanics can help generate meaningful information, we instead look to relate the outcomes of quantum measurements to formal properties of the system based on more fundamental assumptions. Indeed, we have shown that a) some of the postulated properties of quantum information follow from the formal structure of the theory and b) a purely formal notion of information within a quantum world can generate, via measurement, meaningful and useful information in the macroscopic world (for example, in cryptography). The indeterminism of quantum measurements can be formalised via the notion of value indefiniteness. To explain this concept, let us consider an arbitrary quantum system and ask whether the outcome of a measurement of any observable quantity A (such as the energy of the system, its angular momentum (spin), etc.) is determined prior to the measurement. If this is the case, then we say the observable is value definite with value v(A); otherwise, the observable is value indefinite and v(A) is undefined. Mathematically, one can reduce all observable quantities to so-called projection observables, which can only take the values 0 or 1. Thus, the question of whether the outcome of several measurements can be simultaneously determined in advance can be rephrased in terms of the information ‘carried’ by a particular system in a definite quantum state. Classically, one expects that all quantities are determined in advance, and hence all observables are value definite. Quantum mechanically, however, the belief is that this is not the case, and the information content of quantum systems is limited. Formulating carefully the notion of value indefiniteness allows us to formalise the notion of (quantum) indeterminism; however, this doesn’t help clarify whether quantum systems are indeed value indefinite or not. Staying in this formal framework, the Kochen-Specker theorem [5] provides a first positive result, showing that at least some observables must be value indefinite if one makes the assumption known as non-contextuality, which states that any definite values that exist must be independent of other compatible measurements that may or may not be performed on the system. Under the same assumption, this theorem can be strengthened to show that only one single observable can have the definite value 1 (see [2]). Furthermore, only observables that can be measured simultaneously with this single one can have the definite value 0; the rest must all be value indefinite. Since the preparation of a system involves precisely ensuring that, usually via measurement, the system is in a definite state with respect to some desired observable, this result shows that no other incompatible observable can be value definite. That is, preparing a system in a definite state by making the ‘preparation’ observable value definite specifies completely the information content of the quantum system. This is an example of syntactical quantum information acquiring meaning at the level of the quantum itself. Can the syntactical information at the level of the quantum generate meaning outside the quantum, that is, at the macroscopic level? The results cited above hold in the Hilbert-space framework of quantum mechanics and are formulated only in terms of a syntactical notion of information. Their real importance becomes evident when one interprets them in the context of quantum measurements. Specifically, if we prepare a quantum system in a known state, they allow us to ‘locate’ observables which we can measure, but which are value indefinite; that is, observables whose measurement results are not specified by any pre-existing property of the quantum system. Furthermore, with respect to a mathematical model of unpredictability which we developed in [3], the results of these measurements can be shown to be absolutely unpredictable. In this way we get a mathematical explanation and justification of the largely accepted intuition that quantum mechanics is inherently unpredictable, and that this unpredictability arises from the phenomenon of indefiniteness within the quantum world. Furthermore, if one considers a hypothetical infinite sequence generated by the repeated measurement of a quantum value indefinite observable, one can prove that these sequences must be strongly incomputable, technically ‘bi-immune’ [1]. Such sequences cannot be generated by any Turing machine or classical computer, showing that value indefiniteness leads to a clear classical/quantum split in a purely algorithmic context. Importantly, bi-immunity is a property of observed, macroscopic quantities, quite separate from the quantum framework in which the value indefiniteness is formalised. This form of macroscopic meaning created from the lack of syntactic information is precisely the scenario that quantum random number generators try to create, and which is essential for the development and certification of quantum cryptographic systems. The fact that the macroscopic information created goes beyond anything classically obtainable serves as a valuable practical resource, outside of and removed from the quantum formalism. To conclude, quantum information creates meaning within the quantum and via measure- ment, the lack of information within the quantum, creates meaning and valuable information at the macroscopic level. Acknowledgments The second author thanks Prof. S. Marcus for useful conversations on quantum information theory. This work was supported in part by Marie Curie FP7-PEOPLE-2010-IRSES Grant RANPHYS. References and Notes Abbott, A.A.; Calude, C.S.; Svozil, K. Strong Kochen-Specker theorem and incomputability of quantum randomness. Physical Review A 2012, 86, 062109. Abbott, A.A.; Calude, C.S.; Svozil, K. Value-indefinite observables are almost everywhere. Physical Review A 2013, 89, 032109. Abbott, A.A.; Calude, C.S.; Svozil, K. On the unpredictability of individual quantum measurement outcomes. CDMTCS Research Report 2014, 458. Calude, C.S. Quantum randomness & cryptology. CyberTalk 2013, 3, 42–43. Kochen, S.; Specker, E. The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 1967, 17, 59–87. Zeilinger, A. A foundational principle for quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics 1999, 29(4),631–643.
. Quantum computers take advantage of interfering quantum alternatives in order to handle problems that might be too time consuming with algorithms based on classical logic. Developing quantum computers requires new ways of thinking beyond those in the familiar classical world. To help in this thinking, we give a description of the foundational ideas that hold in all of our successful physical models, including quantum theory. Our emphasis will be on the proper interpretation of our theories, and not just their statements. Our tact will be to build on the concept of information, which lies central to the operation of not just computers, but the Universe. For application to quantum computing, the essence of quantum theory is given, together with special precautions and limitations. Introduction. Having a grasp on the ideas behind a theory helps to apply it correctly, to understand its limitations, and to generate new ideas. Getting a firm hold on quantum theory is not an easy task, because our experiences and even our genetic predispositions have been developed in a world in which quantum effects are largely washed out. Remarkably, our predilection for finding logic behind the behavior of what we observe, including that of electrons and atoms, has led us to quantum theory, a description of nature that is hard for us to conceptualize, but is logical, accurate, and explains a wide variety of phenomena with only a few statements and input. As background to quantum theory and quantum computing, an attempt is made here to give the primitive notions and essential observations that underlie current physical theories, so that foundational ideas are explicit, and a common language is established. In our description, information storage and transfer is made central. A short description of quantum theory follows, and then applied to quantum computing, focusing on what the theory says, and particularly does not say, in areas where conceptual difficulties have arisen. Physical theory and reality. A physical theory is a logical model capable of making predictions of what we observe. It is judged by its accuracy in matching measurements, and by its economy, i.e. whether the proposed theory has only a few relationships and input data needed for its ability to explain observations over a wide realm.
Although the interpretation of the concept of information is not clear, even in the classical framework, new interpretive problems have arisen with the advent of the so-called quantum information, which combine the difficulties in understanding the concept of information with the well-known foundational puzzles derived from quantum mechanics itself. The aim of this paper is to consider some arguments traditionally put forward to support the idea that quantum information is qualitatively different from classical information. The final conclusion is that there are no reasons to admit the existence of quantum information as qualitatively different from classical information: there is only one kind of information, physically neutral, which can be encoded by means of classical or quantum states.
Beginning with its introduction by W. Heisenberg, quantum mechanics was often seen as an overly abstract theory, mathematically and physically, vis‐à‐vis classical physics or relativity. This perception was amplified by the fact that, while the quantum‐mechanical formalism provided effective predictive algorithms for the probabilistic predictions concerning quantum experiments, it appeared unable to describe, even by way idealization, quantum processes themselves in space and time, in the way classical mechanics or relativity did. The aim of the present paper is to reconsider the nature of mathematical and physical abstraction in modern physics by offering an analysis of the concept of “physical fact” and of the concept of “physical concept,” in part by following G. W. F. Hegel’s and G. Deleuze’s arguments concerning the nature of conceptual thinking. In classical physics, relativity, and quantum physics alike, I argue, physical concepts are defined by the following main features—1) their multi‐component multiplicity; 2) their essential relations to problems; 3) and the interactions between physical, mathematical, and philosophical components within each concept. It is the particular character of these interactions in quantum mechanics, as defined by its essentially predictive (rather than descriptive) nature, that distinguishes it from classical physics and relativity.