From the early days of quantum theory, it is felt that the classical ideas about information may need reorientation under a quantum theoretical framework. In quantum theory, where Heisenberg uncertainty principle is the guiding philosophy, a non-commuting observable cannot simultaneously have precisely defined values. In fact, if two observations do not commute, performing a measurement of one observable will necessarily influence the outcome of a subsequent measurement of the other observable. Hence, the act of acquiring information about a physical system inevitably disturbs the state of the system. This is because of the fact that the outcome of a measurement has some random elements due to uncertainty of the initial state of the system. Moreover, acquiring information causes a disturbance, and due to this disturbance the information cannot be copied with perfect fidelity. The information under this framework is termed as quantum information [1].
From the early days of quantum theory, it is felt that the classical ideas about information may need reorientation under a quantum theoretical framework. In quantum theory, where Heisenberg uncertainty principle is the guiding philosophy, a non-commuting observable cannot simultaneously have precisely defined values. In fact, if two observations do not commute, performing a measurement of one observable will necessarily influence the outcome of a subsequent measurement of the other observable. Hence, the act of acquiring information about a physical system inevitably disturbs the state of the system. This is because of the fact that the outcome of a measurement has some random elements due to uncertainty of the initial state of the system. Moreover, acquiring information causes a disturbance, and due to this disturbance the information cannot be copied with perfect fidelity. The information under this framework is termed as quantum information [1].
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.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. – Max Planck, 1936 The only way quantum theory allows us to interact with quantum systems is via quantum processes. Thus, the only way we can extract information about the state of a quantum system is to apply some non-deterministic process and observe which of the branches happened. For that reason, many people refer to the act of applying certain quantum processes as measurement and sometimes even as observation . A consequence of this unfortunate terminology is that one of the most touted ‘strange’ features of quantum theory is often misleadingly described as follows: ‘The mere act of observing a quantum state changes it.’ ‘Misleading’, since the concept of measurement described in the previous paragraph is far from the passive concept of observation familiar from our macroscopic world, but is rather a non-trivial process that will almost always drastically affect the quantum state. So, the mysterious aspect of quantum theory is not that ‘observation’ alters the quantum state but, rather, that it is impossible, even in principle, to ‘observe’ a quantum system in the classical sense. Given this fundamental restriction on how we can extract information from a quantum system, what can we learn about that system by means of a quantum process? The answer is, in fact, very little! First, performing a particular measurement could, for the vast majority of quantum states, yield any outcome i with a non-zero probability. In that case, obtaining an outcome i doesn't tell us much about what the state of the system was. Second, we say ‘was’, because the measurement will moreover irreversibly change the state according to the outcome. So rather than revealing the state of a system, a quantum measurement typically erases that state from history! Nonetheless, these quantum measurements are crucial to quantum theory since they constitute the only interface between us, in our classical world, and the quantum world. The great insight of the quantum computing community is that the non-deterministic changes induced by these quantum measurements are not a nuisance, but rather an extremely useful resource.
In the study of Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation, it is commonly believed that the non-unitary change of states hinders us from deducing the information encoded in original states about subsequently measured observable. However, we find that the disturbance can be corrected iff the pre-measurement is non-projective. In this work, by analysing the effect of decoherence on statistics of the subsequential measurement, we find the acquired information from pre-measurement can be used to developed a correction strategy, and then the information about post-measured observable can be recovered. In viewpoint of estimation theory, this result is the unbiasedness condition, which enable us to define precisions of measurement directly in terms of Fisher information. Moreover, we study the precisions trade-off relations in the information theoretic viewpoint.
The topic of these lectures lies in the new and rapidly growing field of quantum computing,which explores connections between physics and computing in general. Quantum informa-tion processing is a cross-disciplinary field and is of great importance from both a funda-mental, as well as technological perspective [27]. From the fundamental perspective we havedeepened our understanding of the relationship between physics, information and computa-tion in general, and have also gained a deeper understanding of the fundamental aspects ofquantum theory - non-locality and entanglement in particular [31]. From the technologicalperspective we have manipulated larger and larger quantum systems and obtained power-ful practical applications in the domain of communication and cryptography such as theunconditionally secure quantum cryptography (key exchange) and quantum teleportation[7, 14, 5].Historically, the greater potential of the quantum computer was first realised by Feyn-man, who noted that quantum systems appear to be exponentially hard to simulate withclassical computers [15]. He speculated that, therefore, quantum computers could poten-tially be much more powerful than their classical counterparts. This intuition has beenproven to be correct for some tasks, such as factoring large numbers and searching unstruc-tured databases. Every computer is fundamentally a physical system, and any computationis just a physical process undergone by this system. Quantum physics is the most accurateway of describing physical systems and their behaviour in general. Encoding informationinto quantum systems and processing it according to the laws of quantum physics results innew features which do not exist in the classical computation.Large scale quantum computation is still hypothetical. However, Moore’s law
The notions of error and disturbance appearing in quantum uncertainty relations are often quantified by the discrepancy of a physical quantity from its ideal value. However, these real and ideal values are not the outcomes of simultaneous measurements, and comparing the values of unmeasured observables is not necessarily meaningful according to quantum theory. To overcome these conceptual difficulties, we take a different approach and define error and disturbance in an operational manner. In particular, we formulate both in terms of the probability that one can successfully distinguish the actual measurement device from the relevant hypothetical ideal by any experimental test whatsoever. This definition itself does not rely on the formalism of quantum theory, avoiding many of the conceptual difficulties of usual definitions. We then derive new Heisenberg-type uncertainty relations for both joint measurability and the error-disturbance tradeoff for arbitrary observables of finite-dimensional systems, as well as for the case of position and momentum. Our relations may be directly applied in information processing settings, for example to infer that devices which can faithfully transmit information regarding one observable do not leak any information about conjugate observables to the environment. We also show that Englert's wave-particle duality relation [PRL 77, 2154 (1996)] can be viewed as an error-disturbance uncertainty relation.
Information and computation theory have undergone a spurt of new growth, and a renewal of their historic connection to basic physics, as they have expanded to treat the intact transmission and processing of quantum states, and the interaction of such 'quantum information' with traditional forms of information. We may wonder why this did not happen earlier, as quantum principles have long been accepted as fundamental to all of physics. Perhaps the founders of information and computation theory, such as Shannon, Turing and von Neumann, were too accustomed to thinking of information processing in macroscopic terms, not yet having before them the powerful examples of the genetic code and ever-shrinking microelectronics. Be that as it may, information until recently has largely been thought of in classical terms, with quantum mechanics playing a supporting role in the design of the equipment to process it, and setting limits on the rate at which it could be sent through certain channels. Now we know that a fully quantum theory of information and information processing offers, among other benefits, a brand of cryptography whose security rests on fundamental physics, and a reasonable hope of constructing quan- tum computers that could dramatically speed up the solution of certain mathematical problems. These benefits depend on distinc- tively quantum properties such as uncertainty, interference and entanglement. At a more fundamental level, it has become clear that an information theory based on quantum principles extends and completes classical information theory, just as complex numbers extend and complete the reals. Besides quantum generalizations of classical notions such as sources, channels and codes, the new theory includes two complementary, quantifiable kinds of information— classical information and quantum entanglement. Classical infor- mation can be copied at will, but can only be transmitted forward in time, to a receiver in the sender's forward light cone. Entanglement in contrast, cannot be copied, but can connect any two points in space-time. Conventional data processing operations destroy entanglement, but quantum operations can create it and use it for various purposes, such as speeding up certain classical computa- tions and assisting in the transmission of classical information or intact quantum states. Part of the new quantum information theory is the qualitative and quantitative study of entanglement, and its interactions with classical information. Any means, such as an optical fibre, of delivering quantum systems more or less intact from one place to another, may be viewed as a quantum channel. Unlike classical channels, which are well characterized by a single capacity, quantum channels have several distinct capacities, depending on what one is trying to use them for, and what auxiliary resources are brought into play. New effects involving quantum information continue to be discovered, not only in the traditional areas of computation, channel capacity, and cryptography, but in areas such as commu- nication complexity and game theory.