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

Cambridge University Press eBooks

The Noiseless Quantum Theory

Mark M. Wilde

Published Nov 2, 2016• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The simplest quantum system is the physical quantum bit or qubit . The qubit is a two-level quantum system—example qubit systems are the spin of an electron, the polarization of a photon, or a two-level atom with a ground state and an excited state. We do not worry too much about physical implementations in this chapter, but instead focus on the mathematical postulates of the quantum theory and operations that we can perform on qubits. From qubits we progress to a study of physical qudits . Qudits are quantum systems that have d levels and are an important generalization of qubits. Again, we do not discuss physical realizations of qudits. Noise can affect quantum systems, and we must understand methods of modeling noise in the quantum theory because our ultimate aim is to construct schemes for protecting quantum systems against the detrimental effects of noise. In Chapter 1, we remarked on the different types of noise that occur in nature. The first, and perhaps more easily comprehensible type of noise, is that which is due to our lack of information about a given scenario. We observe this type of noise in a casino, with every shuffle of cards or toss of dice. These events are random, and the random variables of probability theory model them because the outcomes are unpredictable. This noise is the same as that in all classical information-processing systems. On the other hand, the quantum theory features a fundamentally different type of noise. Quantum noise is inherent in nature and is not due to our lack of information, but is due rather to nature itself. An example of this type of noise is the “Heisenberg noise” that results from the uncertainty principle. If we know the momentum of a given particle from performing a precise measurement of it, then we know absolutely nothing about its position—a measurement of its position gives a random result. Similarly, if we know the rectilinear polarization of a photon by precisely measuring it, then a future measurement of its diagonal polarization will give a random result. It is important to keep the distinction clear between these two types of noise.

DOI
10.1017/9781316809976.006

Related papers

The Noiseless Quantum Theory

Mark M. Wilde

The simplest quantum system is the physical quantum bit or qubit . The qubit is a two-level quantum system—example qubit systems are the spin of an electron, the polarization of a photon, or a two-level atom with a ground state and an excited state. We do not worry too much about physical implementations in this chapter, but instead focus on the mathematical postulates of the quantum theory and operations that we can perform on qubits. We progress from qubits to a study of physical qudits . Qudits are quantum systems that have d levels and are an important generalization of qubits. Again, we do not discuss physical realizations of qudits. Noise can affect quantum systems, and we must understand methods of modeling noise in the quantum theory because our ultimate aim is to construct schemes for protecting quantum systems against the detrimental effects of noise. In Chapter 1, we remarked on the different types of noise that occur in nature. The first, and perhaps more easily comprehensible type of noise, is that which is due to our lack of information about a given scenario. We observe this type of noise in a casino, with every shuffle of cards or toss of dice. These events are random, and the random variables of probability theory model them because the outcomes are unpredictable. This noise is the same as that in all classical information-processing systems.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 18, 2013•0 citations

States and observables

Benjamin W. Schumacher, Michael D. Westmoreland

Hilbert space The prototype qubit systems of the last chapter are very simple, but they can be generalized to more complicated versions. We can send a photon through an interferometer with three, four or more distinct beams. We can perform experiments on particles with higher intrinsic angular momentum than the spin-½ particles we have discussed. And we can analyze atomic systems in situations that involve more than two different energy levels. For these cases and others, we will need a more general version of quantum theory. That theory will include two pieces. First, we will have a general mathematical structure that is applicable to many kinds of system. Here the qubit case will be our guide, since many of the basic concepts for other quantum systems are already present in the qubit case. Second, we will have to describe how to apply the quantum formalism to specific physical situations. Though the quantum systems we discuss will appear quite various, they share strong family resemblances that are expressed in the common mathematical framework. Keeping the framework in mind will help us understand specific examples; keeping the examples in mind will help us understand the framework. The states of a quantum system are described by kets |ψ〉, which obey the principle of superposition. This means that the kets are elements of an abstract vector space ℋ called a Hilbert space .

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Mar 25, 2010•0 citations

Quantum bits and quantum gates

Jonathan A. Jones, Dieter Jaksch

Classical information processing is performed using bits , which are just two-state systems, with the two states called 0 and 1. By grouping bits togetherwe can represent arbitrary pieces of information, and by manipulating these bits we can perform arbitrary computations. The corresponding basic element used in quantum information is the quantum bit, or qubit . This is simply a quantum system with two orthonormal basis states, which we shall call |0⧽ and |1⧽. There are many possible physical implementations of a qubit, such as spin states of electrons or atomic nuclei, charge states of quantum dots, atomic energy levels, vibrational states of groups of atoms, polarization states of photons, or paths in an interferometer. At this stage the physical implementation is not important: the idea of a qubit is to abstract the discussion away from physical details. Taking the standard approach of quantum information theory, we shall begin by not worrying too much about the properties of these states, or even what their energies are; we shall simply assume that they are eigenstates of the system's Hamiltonian with known eigenvalues (that is, known energies). This approach allows us to concentrate on the fundamental properties of the system, without considering all the tedious details. We can in principle perform classical information processing on our quantum system by using the two states |0⧽ and |1⧽ as our logical states 0 and 1 and proceeding in the usual fashion, giving rise to the field of reversible computing , which will be explored briefly in Part II. This, however, misses the point.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jul 19, 2012•0 citations

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

Visualization of the Invisible: The Qubit as Key to Quantum Physics

Wolfgang Dür, Stefan Heusler

Quantum mechanics is one of the pillars of modern physics, however rather difficult to teach at the introductory level due to the conceptual difficulties and the required advanced mathematics. Nevertheless, attempts to identify relevant features of quantum mechanics and to put forward concepts of how to teach it have been proposed.1–8 Here we present an approach to quantum physics based on the simplest quantum mechanical system—the quantum bit (qubit).1 Like its classical counterpart—the bit—a qubit corresponds to a two-level system, i.e., some system with a physical property that can admit two possible values. While typically a physical system has more than just one property or the property can admit more than just two values, in many situations most degrees of freedom can be considered to be fixed or frozen. Hence a variety of systems can be effectively described as a qubit. For instance, one may consider the spin of an electron or atom, with spin up and spin down as two possible values, and where other properties of the particle such as its mass or its position are fixed. Further examples include the polarization degree of freedom of a photon (horizontal and vertical polarization), two electronic degrees of freedom (i.e., two energy levels) of an atom, or the position of an atom in a double well potential (atom in left or right well). In all cases, only two states are relevant to describe the system.

The Physics Teacher•Oct 22, 2014•49 citations

Qubits and the Framework of Quantum Mechanics

Phillip Kaye, Raymond Laflamme, Michele Mosca

In this section we introduce the framework of quantum mechanics as it pertains to the types of systems we will consider for quantum computing. Here we also introduce the notion of a quantum bit or ‘qubit’, which is a fundamental concept for quantum computing. At the beginning of the twentieth century, it was believed by most that the laws of Newton and Maxwell were the correct laws of physics. By the 1930s, however, it had become apparent that these classical theories faced serious problems in trying to account for the observed results of certain experiments. As a result, a new mathematical framework for physics called quantum mechanics was formulated, and new theories of physics called quantum physics were developed in this framework. Quantum physics includes the physical theories of quantum electrodynamics and quantum field theory, but we do not need to know these physical theories in order to learn about quantum information. Quantum information is the result of reformulating information theory in this quantum framework. We saw in Section 1.6 an example of a two-state quantum system: a photon that is constrained to follow one of two distinguishable paths. We identified the two distinguishable paths with the 2-dimensional basis vectors and then noted that a general ‘path state’ of the photon can be described by a complex vector with |α0|2 +|α1|2 = 1. This simple example captures the essence of the first postulate, which tells us how physical states are represented in quantum mechanics. Depending on the degree of freedom (i.e. the type of state) of the system being considered, H may be infinite-dimensional. For example, if the state refers to the position of a particle that is free to occupy any point in some region of space, the associated Hilbert space is usually taken to be a continuous (and thus infinite-dimensional) space. It is worth noting that in practice, with finite resources, we cannot distinguish a continuous state space from one with a discrete state space having a sufficiently small minimum spacing between adjacent locations. For describing realistic models of quantum computation, we will typically only be interested in degrees of freedom for which the state is described by a vector in a finite-dimensional (complex) Hilbert space.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Nov 16, 2006•0 citations
The simplest quantum system is the physical quantum bit or qubit . The qubit is a two-level quantum system—example qubit systems are the spin of an electron, the polarization of a photon, or a two-level atom with a ground state and an excited state. We do not worry too much about physical implementations in this chapter, but instead focus on the mathematical postulates of the quantum theory and operations that we can perform on qubits. From qubits we progress to a study of physical qudits . Qudits are quantum systems that have d levels and are an important generalization of qubits. Again, we do not discuss physical realizations of qudits. Noise can affect quantum systems, and we must understand methods of modeling noise in the quantum theory because our ultimate aim is to construct schemes for protecting quantum systems against the detrimental effects of noise. In Chapter 1, we remarked on the different types of noise that occur in nature. The first, and perhaps more easily comprehensible type of noise, is that which is due to our lack of information about a given scenario. We observe this type of noise in a casino, with every shuffle of cards or toss of dice. These events are random, and the random variables of probability theory model them because the outcomes are unpredictable. This noise is the same as that in all classical information-processing systems. On the other hand, the quantum theory features a fundamentally different type of noise. Quantum noise is inherent in nature and is not due to our lack of information, but is due rather to nature itself. An example of this type of noise is the “Heisenberg noise” that results from the uncertainty principle. If we know the momentum of a given particle from performing a precise measurement of it, then we know absolutely nothing about its position—a measurement of its position gives a random result. Similarly, if we know the rectilinear polarization of a photon by precisely measuring it, then a future measurement of its diagonal polarization will give a random result. It is important to keep the distinction clear between these two types of noise.
The simplest quantum system is the physical quantum bit or qubit . The qubit is a two-level quantum system—example qubit systems are the spin of an electron, the polarization of a photon, or a two-level atom with a ground state and an excited state. We do not worry too much about physical implementations in this chapter, but instead focus on the mathematical postulates of the quantum theory and operations that we can perform on qubits. We progress from qubits to a study of physical qudits . Qudits are quantum systems that have d levels and are an important generalization of qubits. Again, we do not discuss physical realizations of qudits. Noise can affect quantum systems, and we must understand methods of modeling noise in the quantum theory because our ultimate aim is to construct schemes for protecting quantum systems against the detrimental effects of noise. In Chapter 1, we remarked on the different types of noise that occur in nature. The first, and perhaps more easily comprehensible type of noise, is that which is due to our lack of information about a given scenario. We observe this type of noise in a casino, with every shuffle of cards or toss of dice. These events are random, and the random variables of probability theory model them because the outcomes are unpredictable. This noise is the same as that in all classical information-processing systems.
Hilbert space The prototype qubit systems of the last chapter are very simple, but they can be generalized to more complicated versions. We can send a photon through an interferometer with three, four or more distinct beams. We can perform experiments on particles with higher intrinsic angular momentum than the spin-½ particles we have discussed. And we can analyze atomic systems in situations that involve more than two different energy levels. For these cases and others, we will need a more general version of quantum theory. That theory will include two pieces. First, we will have a general mathematical structure that is applicable to many kinds of system. Here the qubit case will be our guide, since many of the basic concepts for other quantum systems are already present in the qubit case. Second, we will have to describe how to apply the quantum formalism to specific physical situations. Though the quantum systems we discuss will appear quite various, they share strong family resemblances that are expressed in the common mathematical framework. Keeping the framework in mind will help us understand specific examples; keeping the examples in mind will help us understand the framework. The states of a quantum system are described by kets |ψ〉, which obey the principle of superposition. This means that the kets are elements of an abstract vector space ℋ called a Hilbert space .
Classical information processing is performed using bits , which are just two-state systems, with the two states called 0 and 1. By grouping bits togetherwe can represent arbitrary pieces of information, and by manipulating these bits we can perform arbitrary computations. The corresponding basic element used in quantum information is the quantum bit, or qubit . This is simply a quantum system with two orthonormal basis states, which we shall call |0⧽ and |1⧽. There are many possible physical implementations of a qubit, such as spin states of electrons or atomic nuclei, charge states of quantum dots, atomic energy levels, vibrational states of groups of atoms, polarization states of photons, or paths in an interferometer. At this stage the physical implementation is not important: the idea of a qubit is to abstract the discussion away from physical details. Taking the standard approach of quantum information theory, we shall begin by not worrying too much about the properties of these states, or even what their energies are; we shall simply assume that they are eigenstates of the system's Hamiltonian with known eigenvalues (that is, known energies). This approach allows us to concentrate on the fundamental properties of the system, without considering all the tedious details. We can in principle perform classical information processing on our quantum system by using the two states |0⧽ and |1⧽ as our logical states 0 and 1 and proceeding in the usual fashion, giving rise to the field of reversible computing , which will be explored briefly in Part II. This, however, misses the point.
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 mechanics is one of the pillars of modern physics, however rather difficult to teach at the introductory level due to the conceptual difficulties and the required advanced mathematics. Nevertheless, attempts to identify relevant features of quantum mechanics and to put forward concepts of how to teach it have been proposed.1–8 Here we present an approach to quantum physics based on the simplest quantum mechanical system—the quantum bit (qubit).1 Like its classical counterpart—the bit—a qubit corresponds to a two-level system, i.e., some system with a physical property that can admit two possible values. While typically a physical system has more than just one property or the property can admit more than just two values, in many situations most degrees of freedom can be considered to be fixed or frozen. Hence a variety of systems can be effectively described as a qubit. For instance, one may consider the spin of an electron or atom, with spin up and spin down as two possible values, and where other properties of the particle such as its mass or its position are fixed. Further examples include the polarization degree of freedom of a photon (horizontal and vertical polarization), two electronic degrees of freedom (i.e., two energy levels) of an atom, or the position of an atom in a double well potential (atom in left or right well). In all cases, only two states are relevant to describe the system.
In this section we introduce the framework of quantum mechanics as it pertains to the types of systems we will consider for quantum computing. Here we also introduce the notion of a quantum bit or ‘qubit’, which is a fundamental concept for quantum computing. At the beginning of the twentieth century, it was believed by most that the laws of Newton and Maxwell were the correct laws of physics. By the 1930s, however, it had become apparent that these classical theories faced serious problems in trying to account for the observed results of certain experiments. As a result, a new mathematical framework for physics called quantum mechanics was formulated, and new theories of physics called quantum physics were developed in this framework. Quantum physics includes the physical theories of quantum electrodynamics and quantum field theory, but we do not need to know these physical theories in order to learn about quantum information. Quantum information is the result of reformulating information theory in this quantum framework. We saw in Section 1.6 an example of a two-state quantum system: a photon that is constrained to follow one of two distinguishable paths. We identified the two distinguishable paths with the 2-dimensional basis vectors and then noted that a general ‘path state’ of the photon can be described by a complex vector with |α0|2 +|α1|2 = 1. This simple example captures the essence of the first postulate, which tells us how physical states are represented in quantum mechanics. Depending on the degree of freedom (i.e. the type of state) of the system being considered, H may be infinite-dimensional. For example, if the state refers to the position of a particle that is free to occupy any point in some region of space, the associated Hilbert space is usually taken to be a continuous (and thus infinite-dimensional) space. It is worth noting that in practice, with finite resources, we cannot distinguish a continuous state space from one with a discrete state space having a sufficiently small minimum spacing between adjacent locations. For describing realistic models of quantum computation, we will typically only be interested in degrees of freedom for which the state is described by a vector in a finite-dimensional (complex) Hilbert space.