The notion of a qubit is ubiquitous in quantum information processing. In spite of the simple abstract definition of qubits as two-state quantum systems, identifying qubits in physical systems is often unexpectedly difficult. There is an astonishing variety of ways in which qubits can emerge from devices. What essential features are required for an implementation to properly instantiate a qubit? We give three typical examples and propose an operational characterization of qubits based on quantum observables and subsystems.
The notion of a qubit is ubiquitous in quantum information processing. In spite of the simple abstract definition of qubits as two-state quantum systems, identifying qubits in physical systems is often unexpectedly difficult. There is an astonishing variety of ways in which qubits can emerge from devices. What essential features are required for an implementation to properly instantiate a qubit? We give three typical examples and propose an operational characterization of qubits based on quantum observables and subsystems.
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.
Abstract Spanning a range of hardware platforms, the building-blocks of quantum processors are today sufficiently advanced to begin work on scaling-up these systems into complex quantum machines. A key subsystem of all quantum machinery is the interface between the isolated qubits that encode quantum information and the classical control and readout technology needed to operate them. As few-qubit devices are combined to construct larger, fault-tolerant quantum systems in the near future, the quantum-classical interface will pose new challenges that increasingly require approaches from the engineering disciplines in combination with continued fundamental advances in physics, materials and mathematics. This review describes the subsystems comprising the quantum-classical interface from the viewpoint of an engineer, experimental physicist or student wanting to enter the field of solid-state quantum information technology. The fundamental signalling operations of readout and control are reviewed for a variety of qubit platforms, including spin systems, superconducting implementations and future devices based on topological degrees-of-freedom. New engineering opportunities for technology development at the boundary between qubits and their control hardware are identified, transversing electronics to cryogenics.
In the mid 1990s, with the advent of quantum algorithms that could solve hard problems of practical interest, a race to develop qubits began. A myriad of approaches were proposed and tried, from nuclear spins in molecules to trapped ions and electrons to superconducting circuits, not to mention photons. Some of these qubit realizations were far more advanced than others from a technical standpoint (such as nuclear spins and superconducting circuits), thanks to decades of fundamental studies and applications in areas other than quantum computing. Other proposals were untested but very promising such as defect states in insulating materials and Rydberg atomic systems.
The basic assumption underlying various quantum information technologies, such as quantum computation and quantum communication, is that qubits are physical objects. However, this assumption is false. A qubit is a quantum superposition, which is a purely mathematical entity in a Hilbert space for description of a two-level quantum system. There is no theoretical or experimental evidence for quantum superpositions in general, and for qubits in particular, having physical counterparts in the real world, although quantum systems themselves are all physical objects. Nevertheless, quantum superpositions failing to be physical objects does not necessarily imply quantum mechanics failing to be correct. Hilbert spaces differ essentially from the three-dimensional Euclidean space; the latter is the model of space in which we live and measure physical quantities. Associated with time or space coordinates, measurements of all quantum systems must be performed in the real world. However, precise time and space coordinates are not attainable by measurement. Based on a comparison between the Euclidean space and Hilbert spaces, this paper shows that no quantum systems in the real world can realize qubits, and hence, quantum information technologies are not physically realizable; their so-called advantages over classical information technologies make little sense.
The definition of entropy in both classical and quantum contexts relies on a coarse-graining of the underlying microscopic description. While this dependence is widely acknowledged, the physical constraints that determine which coarse-grainings are admissible are rarely made explicit. This issue becomes particularly acute when the universe is treated as a closed system, where no external observer or privileged level of description can be assumed. Any characterization of entropy — including claims about the low-entropy initial conditions of the universe — must then be grounded in descriptions that can be physically instantiated from within the system itself. In this work, we introduce a rigorous operational framework that establishes explicit physical selection principles over the space of admissible descriptions. We organize these criteria into necessary conditions (local accessibility and physical implementation via internal interactions) and practical sufficiency conditions (finite resource requirements anchored in Landauer’s principle, dynamical stability, and effective consistency). To demonstrate the validity of our framework, we introduce a concrete one-dimensional spin-chain toy model, illustrating how mathematically valid global partitions fail to be physically realizable due to dynamic propagation limits and informational constraints. We analyze the far-reaching implications of this restriction across three domains. In classical statistical mechanics, it limits the arbitrariness of macrostate definitions. In quantum theory, it identifies environment-induced decoherence (einselection) not merely as a formal tool, but as the objective dynamical mechanism that forces the emergence of admissible internal partitions. In cosmology, it resolves foundational circularities in the quasi-classical histories framework and reframes the thermodynamic arrow of time as a "doubly relational" property—dependent both on cosmic boundary conditions and on the material limits of internal subsystems. Our framework clarifies the operational status of entropy as an emergent property of physically instantiated descriptions within a universe that observes itself.
As we have seen, even a single qubit is a surprisingly interesting object. However, the real power of quantum information processing begins with systems of two or more qubits. Before studying these in detail we need to expand our notation a little. Consider a system of two qubits, labeled a and b , each of which has two basis states, |0⧽ and |1⧽. The whole system then has four basis states, which can be written as |0 a 0 b ⧽, |0 a 1 b ⧽, |1 a 0 b ⧽ and |1 a 1 b ⧽, and can be found in any general superposition of these states, so that it occupies a four-dimensional Hilbert space. In the same way, a system of three qubits inhabits an eight-dimensional Hilbert space, and so on. This exponential increase in the size of the Hilbert space with a linear increase in the number of qubits underlies the power of quantum computers. Direct products The size of the Hilbert spaces involved can also be a huge problem, however, making it difficult to describe states of systems with many qubits. A partial solution is to note that some states can be described in a simpler way, using the concept of direct products . These states, in which the individual qubits can in principle be discussed separately, make up a tiny minority of the states accessible to a multi-qubit system, but include many important states, most notably the basis states. States of this kind are said to be separable , and states which are not separable are said to be entangled . Entangled states are much more interesting than separable ones, but it is wise to begin with the simpler case.