Two-way quantum computers adding CPT analog of state preparation

Standard one-way quantum computers (1WQC) combine time symmetric unitary evolution, with asymmetric treatment of boundaries: state preparation allows to enforce chosen initial state, however, for the final state measurement chooses a random value instead. As e.g. pull/push, negative/positive pressure, stimulated emission/absorption causing deexcitation/excitation are CPT analogs, and one can be used for state preparation, there should also exist its CPT analog, referred here as CPT(state preparation) - allowing for additional chosen enforcement of the final state, its more active treatment than measurement. It should act similarly to postselection, but through applied physical constraints (instead of running multiple times). Like pumped to |1> prepared state vs its "unpumped" <0| CPT analog, hopefully allowing to construct two-way quantum computers (2WQC) e.g. hydrodynamical, and hopefully photonic, with influenced both initial and final states. If possible, for example for an instance of 3-SAT problem on n variables, we could prepare ensemble of 2^n inputs with Hadamard gates, calculate 3-SAT alternatives for them, and use CPT(state preparation) to enforce outcomes of all these alternatives to '1'. This way hopefully restricting this ensemble to satisfying given 3-SAT problem, in theory allowing to attack NP problems by simultaneously pushing and pulling information through the system for better control.Standard one-way quantum computers (1WQC) combine time symmetric unitary evolution, with asymmetric treatment of boundaries: state preparation allows to enforce chosen initial state, however, for the final state measurement chooses a random value instead. As e.g. pull/push, negative/positive pressure, stimulated emission/absorption causing deexcitation/excitation are CPT analogs, and one can be used for state preparation, there should also exist its CPT analog, referred here as CPT(state preparation) - allowing for additional chosen enforcement of the final state, its more active treatment than measurement. It should act similarly to postselection, but through applied physical constraints (instead of running multiple times). Like pumped to |1> prepared state vs its "unpumped" <0| CPT analog, hopefully allowing to construct two-way quantum computers (2WQC) e.g. hydrodynamical, and hopefully photonic, with influenced both initial and final states. If possible, for example for an instance of 3-SAT problem on n variables, we could prepare ensemble of 2^n inputs with Hadamard gates, calculate 3-SAT alternatives for them, and use CPT(state preparation) to enforce outcomes of all these alternatives to '1'. This way hopefully restricting this ensemble to satisfying given 3-SAT problem, in theory allowing to attack NP problems by simultaneously pushing and pulling information through the system for better control.

Aug 23, 20230 citations

Jarek Duda

Standard one-way quantum computers (1WQC) combine time symmetric unitary evolution, with asymmetric treatment of boundaries: state preparation allows to enforce a chosen initial state, however, for the final state measurement chooses a random value instead. As e.g. pull/push, negative/positive pressure, stimulated emission/absorption causing deexcitation/excitation are CPT analogs, and one can be used for state preparation, the second should allow for its CPT analog, referred here as CPT(state preparation) - allowing for additional chosen enforcement of the final state, its more active treatment than measurement. It should act similarly to postselection, but through applied physical constraints (instead of running multiple times). Like pumped to $|1\rangle$ prepared state vs its "unpumped" $\langle 0|$ CPT analog, hopefully allowing to construct two-way quantum computers (2WQC) e.g. hydrodynamical, and hopefully photonic: seen as $\langle Φ_{\textrm{final}}|U_{\textrm{quantum gates}}|Φ_{\textrm{initial}}\rangle$ like for scattering matrix, with influenced both initial and final states. If possible, for example for an instance of 3-SAT problem on $n$ variables, we could prepare ensemble of $2^n$ inputs with Hadamard gates, calculate 3-SAT alternatives for them, and use CPT(state preparation) to enforce outcomes of all these alternatives to '1'. This way hopefully restricting this ensemble to satisfying given 3-SAT problem: $\sum_{a:\textrm{SAT}(a)} |a\rangle$ , in theory allowing to attack NP problems by simultaneously pushing and pulling information through the system for better control.Standard one-way quantum computers (1WQC) combine time symmetric unitary evolution, with asymmetric treatment of boundaries: state preparation allows to enforce a chosen initial state, however, for the final state measurement chooses a random value instead. As e.g. pull/push, negative/positive pressure, stimulated emission/absorption causing deexcitation/excitation are CPT analogs, and one can be used for state preparation, the second should allow for its CPT analog, referred here as CPT(state preparation) - allowing for additional chosen enforcement of the final state, its more active treatment than measurement. It should act similarly to postselection, but through applied physical constraints (instead of running multiple times). Like pumped to $|1\rangle$ prepared state vs its "unpumped" $\langle 0|$ CPT analog, hopefully allowing to construct two-way quantum computers (2WQC) e.g. hydrodynamical, and hopefully photonic: seen as $\langle Φ_{\textrm{final}}|U_{\textrm{quantum gates}}|Φ_{\textrm{initial}}\rangle$ like for scattering matrix, with influenced both initial and final states. If possible, for example for an instance of 3-SAT problem on $n$ variables, we could prepare ensemble of $2^n$ inputs with Hadamard gates, calculate 3-SAT alternatives for them, and use CPT(state preparation) to enforce outcomes of all these alternatives to '1'. This way hopefully restricting this ensemble to satisfying given 3-SAT problem: $\sum_{a:\textrm{SAT}(a)} |a\rangle$, in theory allowing to attack NP problems by simultaneously pushing and pulling information through the system for better control.

arXiv:2308.13522Jul 27, 20230 citations

3-SAT solver for two-way quantum computers

Jarek Duda

While quantum computers assume existence of state preparation process $|0\rangle$ , CPT symmetry of physics says that performing such process in CPT symmetry perspective, e.g. reversing used EM impulses ( $V(t)\to V(-t)$ ), we should get its symmetric analog $\langle 0|$ , referred here as state postparation - which should provide results as postselection, but with higher success rate. Two-way quantum computers (2WQC) assume having both $|0\rangle$ and $\langle 0|$ pre and postparation. In theory they allow to solve NP problems, however, basic approach would be more difficult than Shor algorithm, which is now far from being practical. This article discusses approach to make practical 2WQC 3-SAT solver, requiring exponential reduction of error rate, what should be achievable through linear increase of the numbers of gates. 2WQC also provides additional error correction capabilities, like more stable Grover algorithm, or mid-circuit enforcement of syndrome to zero, like proposed equalizer enforcing qubit equality.While quantum computers assume existence of state preparation process $|0\rangle$, CPT symmetry of physics says that performing such process in CPT symmetry perspective, e.g. reversing used EM impulses ($V(t)\to V(-t)$), we should get its symmetric analog $\langle 0|$, referred here as state postparation - which should provide results as postselection, but with higher success rate. Two-way quantum computers (2WQC) assume having both $|0\rangle$ and $\langle 0|$ pre and postparation. In theory they allow to solve NP problems, however, basic approach would be more difficult than Shor algorithm, which is now far from being practical. This article discusses approach to make practical 2WQC 3-SAT solver, requiring exponential reduction of error rate, what should be achievable through linear increase of the numbers of gates. 2WQC also provides additional error correction capabilities, like more stable Grover algorithm, or mid-circuit enforcement of syndrome to zero, like proposed equalizer enforcing qubit equality.

arXiv:2408.05812Aug 11, 20240 citations

No-cloning theorem for 2WQC and postselection

Mah Noor, Jarek Duda

Two-way quantum computers (2WQC) are proposed extension of standard 1WQC: adding conjugated state preparation operation $\langle 0|$ similar to postselection $|0\ra \langle 0|$, by performing a process which from perspective of CPT symmetry is the original state preparation process, for example by reversing EM impulses used for state preparation. As there were concerns that this extension might violate no-cloning theorem for example for attacks on quantum cryptographic protocols like BB84, here we extend the original proof to show this theorem still holds for 2WQC and postselection.Two-way quantum computers (2WQC) are proposed extension of standard 1WQC: adding conjugated state preparation operation $\langle 0|$ similar to postselection $|0\ra \langle 0|$, by performing a process which from perspective of CPT symmetry is the original state preparation process, for example by reversing EM impulses used for state preparation. As there were concerns that this extension might violate no-cloning theorem for example for attacks on quantum cryptographic protocols like BB84, here we extend the original proof to show this theorem still holds for 2WQC and postselection.

arXiv:2407.15623Jul 22, 20240 citations

Grover's algorithm on two-way quantum computer

Grzegorz Czelusta, Verma, Dev Rishi, Wanjalkar, Govind

Two-way quantum computing (2WQC) represents a novel approach to quantum computing that introduces a CPT version of state preparation. This paper analyses the influence of this approach on Grover's algorithm and compares the behaviour of typical Grover and its 2WQC version in the presence of noise in the system. Our findings indicate that, in an ideal scenario without noise, the 2WQC Grover algorithm exhibits a constant complexity of $\mathcal{O}(1)$ . In the presence of noise, the 2WQC Grover algorithm demonstrates greater resilience to different noise models than the standard Grover's algorithm.Two-way quantum computing (2WQC) represents a novel approach to quantum computing that introduces a CPT version of state preparation. This paper analyses the influence of this approach on Grover's algorithm and compares the behaviour of typical Grover and its 2WQC version in the presence of noise in the system. Our findings indicate that, in an ideal scenario without noise, the 2WQC Grover algorithm exhibits a constant complexity of $\mathcal{O}(1)$. In the presence of noise, the 2WQC Grover algorithm demonstrates greater resilience to different noise models than the standard Grover's algorithm.

arXiv:2406.09450Jun 12, 20240 citations

Deterministic photon exchange prepared from the past

Jarek Duda

Two-ended control of photons — shaped emission and a time-reversed, matched receiver, both prepared in advance — is a mature technology: 94–99.4% coupling in single elements, 98.1% absorption of an arriving photon between remote nodes, links up to 30 m, and coherent memories that receive even unknown quantum states. Like the in and out states of an S-matrix element, both ends of the apparatus are prepared; this paper collects these realizations into one efficiency budget with exact shape and timing tolerances. It then asks what two-way quantum computing (2WQC) would need for the end of a computation to act as a condition, as preparation acts at its beginning. Everything we prepare — source, processor and a universal, problem-independent ready receiver to which a verifier routes a flag photon — fixes only the initial boundary of the Feynman ensemble. Standard quantum mechanics sums over the far end (an indifferent final boundary, giving the Born rule), so an acceptance condition can only be tested, with its ordinary probability. The missing ingredient is an enforced far end: a final boundary supplied by nature that weights ready endings. If weak but renewable, such a weight would compound exponentially over linearly many endings (about n·ln2/Δw), under conditions the paper states. We have not identified a published all-attempt bound for this weight. The paper specifies a direct test on existing hardware: two balanced endings, one active and one passive, selected after an earlier record is digitized and sealed. Standard quantum mechanics predicts exactly zero contrast, including every ordinary feedback path; 1e8 eligible trials per setting give a counting sensitivity Δw ≈ 3e-4 (planning figures: about an hour of link operation; a projected 1e-4 per delay on a quantum processor, with an analysis kit in the companion range-control paper). The test needs no absolute calibration: setting-independent preparation and readout errors cancel in the randomized difference. Either outcome constrains the declared ending law; a replicated signal would motivate tests of renewal, coherence and witness preservation. A one-page proposal for experimental groups is included.Two-ended control of photons — shaped emission and a time-reversed, matched receiver, both prepared in advance — is a mature technology: 94–99.4% coupling in single elements, 98.1% absorption of an arriving photon between remote nodes, links up to 30 m, and coherent memories that receive even unknown quantum states. Like the in and out states of an S-matrix element, both ends of the apparatus are prepared; this paper collects these realizations into one efficiency budget with exact shape and timing tolerances. It then asks what two-way quantum computing (2WQC) would need for the end of a computation to act as a condition, as preparation acts at its beginning. Everything we prepare — source, processor and a universal, problem-independent ready receiver to which a verifier routes a flag photon — fixes only the initial boundary of the Feynman ensemble. Standard quantum mechanics sums over the far end (an indifferent final boundary, giving the Born rule), so an acceptance condition can only be tested, with its ordinary probability. The missing ingredient is an enforced far end: a final boundary supplied by nature that weights ready endings. If weak but renewable, such a weight would compound exponentially over linearly many endings (about n·ln2/Δw), under conditions the paper states. We have not identified a published all-attempt bound for this weight. The paper specifies a direct test on existing hardware: two balanced endings, one active and one passive, selected after an earlier record is digitized and sealed. Standard quantum mechanics predicts exactly zero contrast, including every ordinary feedback path; 1e8 eligible trials per setting give a counting sensitivity Δw ≈ 3e-4 (planning figures: about an hour of link operation; a projected 1e-4 per delay on a quantum processor, with an analysis kit in the companion range-control paper). The test needs no absolute calibration: setting-independent preparation and readout errors cancel in the randomized difference. Either outcome constrains the declared ending law; a replicated signal would motivate tests of renewal, coherence and witness preservation. A one-page proposal for experimental groups is included.

Nov 1, 20260 citations

|1\rangle

prepared state vs its "unpumped"

\langle 0|

CPT analog, hopefully allowing to construct two-way quantum computers (2WQC) e.g. hydrodynamical, and hopefully photonic: seen as

\langle Φ_{\textrm{final}}|U_{\textrm{quantum gates}}|Φ_{\textrm{initial}}\rangle

like for scattering matrix, with influenced both initial and final states. If possible, for example for an instance of 3-SAT problem on

n

variables, we could prepare ensemble of

2^n

inputs with Hadamard gates, calculate 3-SAT alternatives for them, and use CPT(state preparation) to enforce outcomes of all these alternatives to '1'. This way hopefully restricting this ensemble to satisfying given 3-SAT problem:

\sum_{a:\textrm{SAT}(a)} |a\rangle

, in theory allowing to attack NP problems by simultaneously pushing and pulling information through the system for better control.

While quantum computers assume existence of state preparation process

|0\rangle

, CPT symmetry of physics says that performing such process in CPT symmetry perspective, e.g. reversing used EM impulses (

V(t)\to V(-t)

), we should get its symmetric analog

\langle 0|

, referred here as state postparation - which should provide results as postselection, but with higher success rate. Two-way quantum computers (2WQC) assume having both

|0\rangle

and

\langle 0|

pre and postparation. In theory they allow to solve NP problems, however, basic approach would be more difficult than Shor algorithm, which is now far from being practical. This article discusses approach to make practical 2WQC 3-SAT solver, requiring exponential reduction of error rate, what should be achievable through linear increase of the numbers of gates. 2WQC also provides additional error correction capabilities, like more stable Grover algorithm, or mid-circuit enforcement of syndrome to zero, like proposed equalizer enforcing qubit equality.

Two-way quantum computers (2WQC) are proposed extension of standard 1WQC: adding conjugated state preparation operation

\langle 0|

similar to postselection $|0\ra \langle 0|$, by performing a process which from perspective of CPT symmetry is the original state preparation process, for example by reversing EM impulses used for state preparation. As there were concerns that this extension might violate no-cloning theorem for example for attacks on quantum cryptographic protocols like BB84, here we extend the original proof to show this theorem still holds for 2WQC and postselection.

\mathcal{O}(1)

. In the presence of noise, the 2WQC Grover algorithm demonstrates greater resilience to different noise models than the standard Grover's algorithm.