I am briefly stirring from my blog-hibernationThis blog will resume at full force sometime in the future, but not just yet.a to present a collection of frequently asked questions about experiments seeking to investigate quantum Darwinism (QD). Most of the questions were asked by (or evolved from questions asked by) Phillip Ball while we corresponded regarding his recent article “Quantum Darwinism, an Idea to Explain Objective Reality, Passes First Tests” for Quanta magazine, which I recommend you check out.
Who is trying see quantum Darwinism in experiments?
I am aware of two papers out of a group from Arizona State in 2010 (here and here) and three papers from separate groups last year (arXiv: 1803.01913, 1808.07388, 1809.10456). I haven’t looked at them all carefully so I can’t vouch for them, but I think the more recent papers would be the closest thing to a “test” of QD.
What are the experiments doing to put QD the test?
These teams construct a kind of “synthetic environment” from just a few qubits, and then interrogate them to discover the information that they contain about the quantum system to which they are coupled.
What do you think of experimental tests of QD in general?
Considered as a strictly mathematical phenomenon, QD is the dynamical creation of certain kinds of correlations between certain systems and their environments under certain conditions. These experiments directly confirm that, if such conditions are created, the expected correlations are obtained.
The experiments are, unfortunately, not likely to offer many insight or opportunities for surprise; the result can be predicted with very high confidence long in advance.… [continue reading]
In particular, he sketched the essential equivalence between matrix product states (MPS) and restricted Boltzmann machinesThis is discussed in detail by Chen et al. See also good intuition and a helpful physicist-statistician dictionary from Lin and Tegmark.b (RBM) before showing how he and collaborators could train an efficient RBM representations of the states of the transverse-field Ising and XXZ models with a small number of local measurements from the true state.
[This is akin to a living review, which will hopefully improve from time to time. Last edited 2017-11-26.]
This post will collect some models of decoherence and branching. We don’t have a rigorous definition of branches yet but I crudely define models of branching to be models of decoherenceI take decoherence to mean a model with dynamics taking the form for some tensor decomposition , where is an (approximately) stable orthonormal basis independent of initial state, and where for times and , where is the initial state of and is some characteristic time scale.a which additionally feature some combination of amplification, irreversibility, redundant records, and/or outcomes with an intuitive macroscopic interpretation. I have the following desiderata for models, which tend to be in tension with computational tractability:
Regarding that last one: we would like to recover “classical behavior” in the sense of classical Hamiltonian flow, which (presumably) means continuous degrees of freedom.In principle you could have discrete degrees of freedom that limit, as , to some sort of discrete classical systems, but most people find this unsatisfying.b Branching only becomes unambiguous in some large-N limit, so it seems satisfying models are necessarily messy and difficult to numerically simulate.… [continue reading]
A senior colleague asked me for thoughts on this paper describing a single-preferred-branch flavor of quantum mechanics, and I thought I’d copy them here. Tl;dr: I did not find an important new idea in it, but this paper nicely illustrates the appeal of Finkelstein’s partial-trace decoherence and the ambiguity inherent in connecting a many-worlds wavefunction to our direct observations.
We start by assuming that a precise wavefunction branch structure has been specified. The idea, basically, is to randomly draw a branch at late times according to the Born probability, then to evolve it backwards in time to the beginning of the universe and take that as your initial condition. The main motivating observation is that, if we assume that all branch splittings are defined by a projective decomposition of some subsystem (‘the system’) which is recorded faithfully elsewhere (‘the environment’), then the lone preferred branch — time-evolving by itself — is an eigenstate of each of the projectors defining the splits. In a sense, Weingarten lays claim to ordered consistency [arxiv:gr-qc/9607073] by assuming partial-trace decoherenceNote on terminology: What Finkelstein called “partial-trace decoherence” is really a specialized form of consistency (i.e., a mathematical criterion for sets of consistent histories) that captures some, but not all, of the properties of the physical and dynamical process of decoherence. That’s why I’ve called it “partial-trace consistency” here and here.a [arXiv:gr-qc/9301004]. In this way, the macrostate states stay the same as normal quantum mechanics but the microstates secretly conspire to confine the universe to a single branch.
I put proposals like this in the same category as Bohmian mechanics. They take as assumptions the initial state and unitary evolution of the universe, along with the conventional decoherence/amplification story that argues for (but never fully specifies from first principles) a fuzzy, time-dependent decomposition of the wavefunction into branches.… [continue reading]
Here is an underemphasized way to frame the relationship between trajectories and symmetries (in the sense of Noether’s theorem)You can find this presentation in “A short review on Noether’s theorems, gauge symmetries and boundary terms” by Máximo Bañados and Ignacio A. Reyes (H/t Godfrey Miller).a . Consider the space of all possible trajectories for a system, a real-valued Lagrangian functional on that space, the “directions” at each point, and the corresponding functional gradient in each direction. Classical solutions are exactly those trajectories such that the Lagrangian is stationary for perturbations in any direction , and continuous symmetries are exactly those directions such that the Lagrangian is stationary for any trajectory . That is,
There are many subtleties obscured in this cartoon presentation, like the fact that a symmetry , being a tangent direction on the manifold of trajectories, can vary with the tangent point it is attached to (as for rotational symmetries). If you’ve never spent a long afternoon with a good book on the calculus of variations, I recommend it.
You’re taking a vacation to Granada to enjoy a Spanish ski resort in the Sierra Nevada mountains. But as your plane is coming in for a landing, you look out the window and realize the airport is on a small tropical island. Confused, you ask the flight attendant what’s wrong. “Oh”, she says, looking at your ticket, “you’re trying to get to Granada, but you’re on the plane to Grenada in the Caribbean Sea.” A wave of distress comes over your face, but she reassures you: “Don’t worry, Granada isn’t that far from here. The Hamming distance is only 1!”.
After you’ve recovered from that side-splitting humor, let’s dissect the frog. What’s the basis of the joke? The flight attendant is conflating two different metrics: the geographic distance and the Hamming distance. The distances are completely distinct, as two named locations can be very nearby in one and very far apart in the other.
Now let’s hear another joke from renowned physicist Chris Jarzynski:
The linear Schrödinger equation, however, does not give rise to the sort of nonlinear, chaotic dynamics responsible for ergodicity and mixing in classical many-body systems. This suggests that new concepts are needed to understand thermalization in isolated quantum systems. – C. Jarzynski, “Diverse phenomena, common themes” [PDF]
Ha! Get it? This joke is so good it’s been told by S. Wimberger“Since quantum mechanics is the more fundamental theory we can ask ourselves if there is chaotic motion in quantum systems as well. A key ingredient of the chaotic phenomenology is the sensitive dependence of the time evolution upon the initial conditions.… [continue reading]
As has been discussed here before, the Reeh–Schlieder theorem is an initially confusing property of the vacuum in quantum field theory. It is difficult to find an illuminating discussion of it in the literature, whether in the context of algebraic QFT (from which it originated) or the more modern QFT grounded in RG and effective theories. I expect this to change once more field theorists get trained in quantum information.
The Reeh–Schlieder theorem states that the vacuum is cyclic with respect to the algebra of observables localized in some subset of Minkowski space. (For a single field , the algebra is defined to be generated by all finite smearings for with support in .) Here, “cyclic” means that the subspace is dense in , i.e., any state can be arbitrarily well approximated by a state of the form with . This is initially surprising because could be a state with particle excitations localized (essentially) to a region far from and that looks (essentially) like the vacuum everywhere else. The resolution derives from the fact the vacuum is highly entangled, such that the every region is entangled with every other region by an exponentially small amount.
One mistake that’s easy to make is to be fooled into thinking that this property can only be found in systems, like a field theory, with an infinite number of degrees of freedom. So let me exhibitMost likely a state with this property already exists in the quantum info literature, but I’ve got a habit of re-inventing the wheel. For my last paper, I spent the better part of a month rediscovering the Shor code…a a quantum state with the Reeh–Schlieder property that lives in the tensor product of a finite number of separable Hilbert spaces:
As emphasized above, a separable Hilbert space is one that has a countable orthonormal basis, and is therefore isomorphic to , the space of square-normalizable functions.… [continue reading]
The way that most physicists teach and talk about partial differential equations is horrible, and has surprisingly big costs for the typical understanding of the foundations of the field even among professionals. The chief victims are students of thermodynamics and analytical mechanics, and I’ve mentioned before that the preface of Sussman and Wisdom’s Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics is a good starting point for thinking about these issues. As a pointed example, in this blog post I’ll look at how badly the Legendre transform is taught in standard textbooks,I was pleased to note as this essay went to press that my choice of Landau, Goldstein, and Arnold were confirmed as the “standard” suggestions by the top Google results.a and compare it to how it could be taught. In a subsequent post, I’ll used this as a springboard for complaining about the way we record and transmit physics knowledge.
Before we begin: turn away from the screen and see if you can remember what the Legendre transform accomplishes mathematically in classical mechanics.If not, can you remember the definition? I couldn’t, a month ago.b I don’t just mean that the Legendre transform converts the Lagrangian into the Hamiltonian and vice versa, but rather: what key mathematical/geometric property does the Legendre transform have, compared to the cornucopia of other function transforms, that allows it to connect these two conceptually distinct formulations of mechanics?
(Analogously, the question “What is useful about the Fourier transform for understanding translationally invariant systems?” can be answered by something like “Translationally invariant operations in the spatial domain correspond to multiplication in the Fourier domain” or “The Fourier transform is a change of basis, within the vector space of functions, using translationally invariant basis elements, i.e., the Fourier modes”.)
The status quo
Let’s turn to the canonical text by Goldstein for an example of how the Legendre transform is usually introduced.… [continue reading]
LaTeX in comments
Include [latexpage] to render LaTeX in comments. (More.)