DOCSLIB.ORG

Quantum Consensus: an Overview Arxiv:2101.04192V1 [Quant-Ph] 11 Jan 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Quantum Consensus: an Overview Arxiv:2101.04192V1 [Quant-Ph] 11 Jan 2021 Quantum Consensus: an overview Marco Marcozzi1 and Leonardo Mostarda1 1Computer Science Division, University of Camerino, I-62032 Camerino (MC), Italy Abstract We review the literature about reaching agreement in quantum networks, also called quantum consensus. After a brief introduction to the key feature of quantum computing, allowing the reader with no quantum theory background to have minimal tools to under- stand, we report a formal definition of quantum consensus and the protocols proposed. Proposals are classified according to the quantum feature used to achieve agreement. Introduction scenario, the study of quantum distributed systems is fundamental for the correct The advent of Blockchain technology and, functioning of such a network [3]. To ensure more in general, of the Distributed Ledger agreement in a quantum network, thus, it is Technologies (DLTs), has attracted and vital the development of quantum consensus focused the attention on the study of Dis- protocols: from a formal definition, to actual tributed systems. It has been revised the proposals. Consensus problem, with new proposals being analysed and tested, because of the necessity of agreement on the publication Our paper is structured as follows: an of block, to ensure integrity, and to handle introduction to computational complexity faulty nodes in blockchains [1]. theory will show the importance of quantum arXiv:2101.04192v1 [quant-ph] 11 Jan 2021 Analogously, the increasing interest in computation, then a brief presentation about quantum computation is leading to a deeper quantum computing theory will give an understanding of quantum distributed sys- insight about quantum formalism to a reader tems, and eventually it will be implemented unfamiliar with quantum mechanics, finally a world wide quantum network, already an overview about quantum consensus is know as Quantum internet [2] - the quantum shown. counterpart of the World Wide Web. In this 1 Computation theory was born and it is breaking discover of the Shor’s algorithm, developing following the evolution of Inform- that allows to solve in polynomial time ation Technology: from the first computers, the factoring and the discrete logarithms through the transistors, arriving to the problem [9]. Shor’s algorithm sparked a today’s supercomputers and the enormous tremendous interest in quantum computers. amount of data produced every day [4]. The reason lies with the fact that Shor’s Even though the computational power of algorithm can theoretically break many of our devices nowadays is unbelievable high, the cryptosystems in use today [10]. if compared with the devices from a few years ago, classical computers seem not to Therefore, the discover of quantum al- be fit for the next generation of problems in gorithms solving some problems believed almost any field: chemistry, biology, medical to be computationally hard, triggered a technology, cryptography, optimisation, rephrase of the computational complexity finance, etc. [5] theory. Because of those and other applications, A problem is said to be computationally in last forty years, the possibility to build easy, hence it belongs to the computational a computer based on quantum mechanics class P, if it can be solved by a classical is focusing the attention and efforts of computer in polynomial time, respect to researchers, governments and companies. the number of bits needed to describe the The history of Quantum Computation problem. A problem is said to be computa- started in 1980, when Paul Benioff proposed tionally hard if the required resources (time) the first quantum mechanical model of for solving it rises super polynomially fast a computer [6]. The next year, Richard (often exponentially) with the input size. Feynman gave a talk at the First Conference Such problems belongs to the computational on the Physics of Computation, in which he complexity class NP (non-deterministic stated that quantum mechanical phenomena polynomial time). Regarding those problems cannot be efficiently simulated on a classical classes as sets, it is "strongly believed" that computer, proposing a basic model for a P⊂NP. "Strongly believed" means that quantum computer [7]. nowadays it is only know that P⊆NP, but it is strong the trust in the fact that NP Since then, a lot of discoveries have problems cannot be solved in polynomial been done. Among the most important time by a classical computer. ones, there are the description of the first Universal Quantum Turing machine, i.e. In this framework quantum computers play the definition of the first universal quantum their role. Shor’s algorithm (and other al- computer, that can simulate any other gorithms, e.g. Deutsch’s algorithm [11]) quantum Turing machine with at most a demonstrated that certain problems in the polynomial slowdown [8], and the ground- NP set could be solved efficiently (i.e. in 2 polynomial time) using a quantum computer. 2019, Google and NASA claimed to have It leads to a new complexity class, BQP achieved and proved the quantum suprem- (bounded-error quantum polynomial time), acy [13], [14]. The result was impressive, even that includes all the problems in P and some though there was scepticism, because some problems in NP (it is still not clear how researchers pointed out that the problem many). solved by this quantum annealer (not an uni- In Figure 1 the relationship between the dif- versal quantum Turing machine) could have ferent complexity classes is shown. been solved by a classical supercomputer in a comparable amount of time; moreover, since the machine is not a quantum computer, strictly speaking, they believe it is improper to address the achievement of quantum su- premacy in this particular context [14]. Quantum Computing Computers are physical objects, and computations are physical pro- cesses. (David Deutsch) This sentence reveals a deep connection between information theory, computer sci- ence and physics. Even though information theory can be stated in a completely math- Figure 1: The relationship between classical ematical fashion, i.e. the physical support and quantum complexity classes. While it is used can be omitted, computation theory strongly assumed that BQP is larger than and algorithms need to rely on a physical P and encompasses some problems in NP, it theory. It means that, as classical computers remains unclear how the classes are exactly uses Maxwell’s electromagnetism in a Newto- related. Figure from [12]. nian framework, a quantum computer needs quantum physics and related phenomena In this context, scientists started talking to work. A brief review, based on [12], about the possible "quantum supremacy" for about quantum mechanics is presented in what concerns computation. It was conjec- the following. tured that indeed quantum computers would solve hard problems efficiently, but an ex- Quantum mechanics is an axiomatic perimental proof was needed. In October theory used as a mathematical framework 3 for the development of physical theories. It two vectors v, w, the expressions for the inner doesn’t hold any information about physical product hvjwi and the outer product jvihwj. laws, but it provides a conceptual connection Using bra-ket notation, therefore, a qubit can between the mathematical formalism and be defined as the physical world. As an axiomatic theory, then, quantum mechanics relies on some jΨi = α j0i + β j1i ; (1) axioms, or postulates. For the purposes where α, β are complex numbers satisfying of this review, those postulates will be not 2 2 the normalisation condition jαj + jβj = 1, presented rigorously. Therefore, naïvely, 1 0 j0i = j1i = postulates of quantum mechanics define: the and 0 , 1 are two vectors, in system, as a complex vector space (i.e. an principle arbitrary: in this case the computa- state of the system Hilbert space called ), tional basis states (connected with the logical evolves how a quantum mechanical state , "0" and "1") were used. and the measurement operations. In Figure 2 there is a graphical repres- For computational purposes, the minimum entation of a qubit, commonly called Bloch quantum state is represented by a vector in sphere. The normalisation condition guaran- a bi-dimensional complex space. Such a vec- tees that the vector has unitary magnitude qubit tor is called . It is important to point and, consequently, two angles are needed to out that there exist computational paradigms fully describe an arbitrary quantum state. d where a -dimensional Hilbert space is used: Therefore, a convenient way to express a in such spaces the unit of information is called quantum state is qudit. θ θ A qubit is built on the classical concept of jΨi = cos j0i + eiφ sin j1i : (2) bit and it is the smallest information resource 2 2 for quantum computers. While a classical bit where θ; φ are angles on the Bloch sphere can be either 0 or 1, the qubit can be in a and j0i ; j1i are vectors of the computational superposition of both at the same time. This basis. feature is intrinsic in the properties of the Hil- bert space: any combination of vectors in the No-cloning Theorem Hilbert space is a vector that belongs to the same Hilbert space. The no-cloning theorem [15] states that it A convenient way of expressing vectors in cannot exist an unitary operation able to cre- an Hilbert space is the Dirac notation, also ate an identical copy of an arbitrary state. known as bra-ket notation. In such notation It means that, if we have an unknown ar- a vector v, called ket, is represented as jvi, bitrary state j i1 2 H1 and a "blank" state while hvj, called bra, is its Hermitian adjoint. jei2 2 H2, with H = H1 = H2, it is im- Using this formalism, it comes natural, given possible to find an unitary transformation U 4 but using as basis states the tensor product of the two qubits composing the system j00i ; j01i ; j10i ; j11i. As a result, any arbit- rary two-qubit state can be written as jΨi = α00 j00i + α01 j01i + α10 j10i + α11 j11i ; (4) where αij are normalised complex amp- litudes and jabi = jabi1;2 = jai1 ⊗ jbi2 is the tensor product of two different qubits jai1 and jbi2 (for simplicity, in the tensor product indices can be omitted).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Simulating Quantum Field Theory with a Quantum Computer
    Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer John Preskill Lattice 2018 28 July 2018 This talk has two parts (1) Near-term prospects for quantum computing. (2) Opportunities in quantum simulation of quantum field theory. Exascale digital computers will advance our knowledge of QCD, but some challenges will remain, especially concerning real-time evolution and properties of nuclear matter and quark-gluon plasma at nonzero temperature and chemical potential. Digital computers may never be able to address these (and other) problems; quantum computers will solve them eventually, though I’m not sure when. The physics payoff may still be far away, but today’s research can hasten the arrival of a new era in which quantum simulation fuels progress in fundamental physics. Frontiers of Physics short distance long distance complexity Higgs boson Large scale structure “More is different” Neutrino masses Cosmic microwave Many-body entanglement background Supersymmetry Phases of quantum Dark matter matter Quantum gravity Dark energy Quantum computing String theory Gravitational waves Quantum spacetime particle collision molecular chemistry entangled electrons A quantum computer can simulate efficiently any physical process that occurs in Nature. (Maybe. We don’t actually know for sure.) superconductor black hole early universe Two fundamental ideas (1) Quantum complexity Why we think quantum computing is powerful. (2) Quantum error correction Why we think quantum computing is scalable. A complete description of a typical quantum state of just 300 qubits requires more bits than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Why we think quantum computing is powerful We know examples of problems that can be solved efficiently by a quantum computer, where we believe the problems are hard for classical computers.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum State Complexity in Computationally Tractable Quantum Circuits
    PRX QUANTUM 2, 010329 (2021) Quantum State Complexity in Computationally Tractable Quantum Circuits Jason Iaconis * Department of Physics and Center for Theory of Quantum Matter, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA (Received 28 September 2020; revised 29 December 2020; accepted 26 January 2021; published 23 February 2021) Characterizing the quantum complexity of local random quantum circuits is a very deep problem with implications to the seemingly disparate fields of quantum information theory, quantum many-body physics, and high-energy physics. While our theoretical understanding of these systems has progressed in recent years, numerical approaches for studying these models remains severely limited. In this paper, we discuss a special class of numerically tractable quantum circuits, known as quantum automaton circuits, which may be particularly well suited for this task. These are circuits that preserve the computational basis, yet can produce highly entangled output wave functions. Using ideas from quantum complexity theory, especially those concerning unitary designs, we argue that automaton wave functions have high quantum state complexity. We look at a wide variety of metrics, including measurements of the output bit-string distribution and characterization of the generalized entanglement properties of the quantum state, and find that automaton wave functions closely approximate the behavior of fully Haar random states. In addition to this, we identify the generalized out-of-time ordered 2k-point correlation functions as a particularly use- ful probe of complexity in automaton circuits. Using these correlators, we are able to numerically study the growth of complexity well beyond the scrambling time for very large systems. As a result, we are able to present evidence of a linear growth of design complexity in local quantum circuits, consistent with conjectures from quantum information theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Computation and Complexity Theory
    Quantum computation and complexity theory Course given at the Institut fÈurInformationssysteme, Abteilung fÈurDatenbanken und Expertensysteme, University of Technology Vienna, Wintersemester 1994/95 K. Svozil Institut fÈur Theoretische Physik University of Technology Vienna Wiedner Hauptstraûe 8-10/136 A-1040 Vienna, Austria e-mail: [email protected] December 5, 1994 qct.tex Abstract The Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics is reviewed with emphasis on applicationsto quantum computing. Standardinterferomeric techniques are used to construct a physical device capable of universal quantum computation. Some consequences for recursion theory and complexity theory are discussed. hep-th/9412047 06 Dec 94 1 Contents 1 The Quantum of action 3 2 Quantum mechanics for the computer scientist 7 2.1 Hilbert space quantum mechanics ..................... 7 2.2 From single to multiple quanta Ð ªsecondº ®eld quantization ...... 15 2.3 Quantum interference ............................ 17 2.4 Hilbert lattices and quantum logic ..................... 22 2.5 Partial algebras ............................... 24 3 Quantum information theory 25 3.1 Information is physical ........................... 25 3.2 Copying and cloning of qbits ........................ 25 3.3 Context dependence of qbits ........................ 26 3.4 Classical versus quantum tautologies .................... 27 4 Elements of quantum computatability and complexity theory 28 4.1 Universal quantum computers ....................... 30 4.2 Universal quantum networks ........................ 31 4.3 Quantum recursion theory ......................... 35 4.4 Factoring .................................. 36 4.5 Travelling salesman ............................. 36 4.6 Will the strong Church-Turing thesis survive? ............... 37 Appendix 39 A Hilbert space 39 B Fundamental constants of physics and their relations 42 B.1 Fundamental constants of physics ..................... 42 B.2 Conversion tables .............................. 43 B.3 Electromagnetic radiation and other wave phenomena .........
    [Show full text]
  • Bohmian Mechanics Versus Madelung Quantum Hydrodynamics
    Ann. Univ. Sofia, Fac. Phys. Special Edition (2012) 112-119 [arXiv 0904.0723] Bohmian mechanics versus Madelung quantum hydrodynamics Roumen Tsekov Department of Physical Chemistry, University of Sofia, 1164 Sofia, Bulgaria It is shown that the Bohmian mechanics and the Madelung quantum hy- drodynamics are different theories and the latter is a better ontological interpre- tation of quantum mechanics. A new stochastic interpretation of quantum me- chanics is proposed, which is the background of the Madelung quantum hydro- dynamics. Its relation to the complex mechanics is also explored. A new complex hydrodynamics is proposed, which eliminates completely the Bohm quantum po- tential. It describes the quantum evolution of the probability density by a con- vective diffusion with imaginary transport coefficients. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is guilty for the quantum mys- tery and many strange phenomena such as the Schrödinger cat, parallel quantum and classical worlds, wave-particle duality, decoherence, etc. Many scientists have tried, however, to put the quantum mechanics back on ontological foundations. For instance, Bohm [1] proposed an al- ternative interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is able to overcome some puzzles of the Copenhagen interpretation. He developed further the de Broglie pilot-wave theory and, for this reason, the Bohmian mechanics is also known as the de Broglie-Bohm theory. At the time of inception of quantum mechanics Madelung [2] has demonstrated that the Schrödinger equa- tion can be transformed in hydrodynamic form. This so-called Madelung quantum hydrodynam- ics is a less elaborated theory and usually considered as a precursor of the Bohmian mechanics. The scope of the present paper is to show that these two theories are different and the Made- lung hydrodynamics is a better interpretation of quantum mechanics than the Bohmian me- chanics.
    [Show full text]
  • Bounds on Errors in Observables Computed from Molecular Dynamics Simulations
    Bounds on Errors in Observables Computed from Molecular Dynamics Simulations Vikram Sundar [email protected] Advisor: Dr. David Gelbwaser and Prof. Alan´ Aspuru-Guzik (Chemistry) Shadow Advisor: Prof. Martin Nowak Submitted in partial fulfillment of the honors requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics March 19, 2018 Contents Abstract iii Acknowledgments iv 1 Introduction1 1.1 Molecular Dynamics................................1 1.1.1 Why Molecular Dynamics?........................1 1.1.2 What is Molecular Dynamics?......................2 1.1.2.1 Force Fields and Integrators..................2 1.1.2.2 Observables...........................3 1.2 Structure of this Thesis...............................4 1.2.1 Sources of Error...............................4 1.2.2 Key Results of this Thesis.........................5 2 The St¨ormer-Verlet Method and Energy Conservation7 2.1 Symplecticity....................................8 2.1.1 Hamiltonian and Lagrangian Mechanics................8 2.1.2 Symplectic Structures on Manifolds...................9 2.1.3 Hamiltonian Flows are Symplectic.................... 10 2.1.4 Symplecticity of the Stormer-Verlet¨ Method............... 12 2.2 Backward Error Analysis.............................. 12 2.2.1 Symplectic Methods and Backward Error Analysis.......... 14 2.2.2 Bounds on Energy Conservation..................... 14 3 Integrable Systems and Bounds on Sampling Error 16 3.1 Integrable Systems and the Arnold-Liouville Theorem............. 17 3.1.1 Poisson Brackets and First Integrals................... 17 3.1.2 Liouville’s Theorem............................ 18 3.1.3 Action-Angle Coordinates......................... 20 3.1.4 Integrability and MD Force Fields.................... 22 3.2 Sampling Error................................... 23 3.2.1 Equivalence of Spatial and Time Averages............... 23 3.2.2 Bounding Sampling Error......................... 24 3.2.3 Reducing Sampling Error with Filter Functions...........
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Computing
    International Journal of Information Science and System, 2018, 6(1): 21-27 International Journal of Information Science and System ISSN: 2168-5754 Journal homepage: www.ModernScientificPress.com/Journals/IJINFOSCI.aspx Florida, USA Article Quantum Computing Adfar Majid*, Habron Rasheed Department of Electrical Engineering, SSM College of Engineering & Technology, Parihaspora, Pattan, J&K, India, 193121 * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected] . Article history: Received 26 September 2018, Revised 2 November 2018, Accepted 10 November 2018, Published 21 November 2018 Abstract: Quantum Computing employs quantum phenomenon such as superposition and entanglement for computing. A quantum computer is a device that physically realizes such computing technique. They are different from ordinary digital electronic computers based on transistors that are vastly used today in a sense that common digital computing requires the data to be encoded into binary digits (bits), each of which is always in one of two definite states (0 or 1), whereas quantum computation uses quantum bits, which can be in superposition of states. The field of quantum computing was initiated by the work of Paul Benioff and Yuri Manin in 1980, Richard Feynman in 1982, and David Deutsch in 1985. Quantum computers are incredibly powerful machines that take this new approach to processing information. As such they exploit complex and fascinating laws of nature that are always there, but usually remain hidden from view. By harnessing such natural behavior (of qubits), quantum computing can run new, complex algorithms to process information more holistically. They may one day lead to revolutionary breakthroughs in materials and drug discovery, the optimization of complex manmade systems, and artificial intelligence.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Speedup for Aeroscience and Engineering
    NASA/TM-2020-220590 Quantum Speedup for Aeroscience and Engineering Peyman Givi University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Andrew J. Daley University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom Dimitri Mavriplis University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming Mujeeb Malik Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia May 2020 NASA STI Program . in Profile Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to • CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected the advancement of aeronautics and space science. papers from scientific and technical The NASA scientific and technical information conferences, symposia, seminars, or other (STI) program plays a key part in helping NASA meetings sponsored or co-sponsored by maintain this important role. NASA. The NASA STI program operates under the • SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, auspices of the Agency Chief Information Officer. It technical, or historical information from collects, organizes, provides for archiving, and NASA programs, projects, and missions, often disseminates NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program concerned with subjects having substantial provides access to the NASA Aeronautics and Space public interest. Database and its public interface, the NASA Technical Report Server, thus providing one of the • TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. English- largest collections of aeronautical and space science language translations of foreign scientific and STI in the world. Results are published in both non- technical material pertinent to NASA’s NASA channels and by NASA in the NASA STI mission. Report Series, which includes the following report types: Specialized services also include creating custom thesauri, building customized databases, • TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of and organizing and publishing research results. completed research or a major significant phase of research that present the results of For more information about the NASA STI NASA programs and include extensive data or program, see the following: theoretical analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Stochastic Quantum Dynamics and Relativity
    Stochastic quantum dynamics and relativity Autor(en): Gisin, N. Objekttyp: Article Zeitschrift: Helvetica Physica Acta Band (Jahr): 62 (1989) Heft 4 PDF erstellt am: 25.09.2021 Persistenter Link: http://doi.org/10.5169/seals-116034 Nutzungsbedingungen Die ETH-Bibliothek ist Anbieterin der digitalisierten Zeitschriften. Sie besitzt keine Urheberrechte an den Inhalten der Zeitschriften. Die Rechte liegen in der Regel bei den Herausgebern. Die auf der Plattform e-periodica veröffentlichten Dokumente stehen für nicht-kommerzielle Zwecke in Lehre und Forschung sowie für die private Nutzung frei zur Verfügung. Einzelne Dateien oder Ausdrucke aus diesem Angebot können zusammen mit diesen Nutzungsbedingungen und den korrekten Herkunftsbezeichnungen weitergegeben werden. Das Veröffentlichen von Bildern in Print- und Online-Publikationen ist nur mit vorheriger Genehmigung der Rechteinhaber erlaubt. Die systematische Speicherung von Teilen des elektronischen Angebots auf anderen Servern bedarf ebenfalls des schriftlichen Einverständnisses der Rechteinhaber. Haftungsausschluss Alle Angaben erfolgen ohne Gewähr für Vollständigkeit oder Richtigkeit. Es wird keine Haftung übernommen für Schäden durch die Verwendung von Informationen aus diesem Online-Angebot oder durch das Fehlen von Informationen. Dies gilt auch für Inhalte Dritter, die über dieses Angebot zugänglich sind. Ein Dienst der ETH-Bibliothek ETH Zürich, Rämistrasse 101, 8092 Zürich, Schweiz, www.library.ethz.ch http://www.e-periodica.ch Helvetica Physica Acta, Vol. 62 (1989) 363-371 0018-0238/89/040363-09$l .50 + 0.20/0 © 1989 Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel Stochastic quantum dynamics and relativity By N. Gisin Groupe de Physique Appliquée, Université de Genève, 20 rue de l'Ecole de Médecine, 1211 Genève 4, Switzerland (13. I. 1989) Abstract. Our aim is to unify the Schrödinger dynamics and the projection postulate.
    [Show full text]
  • Stochastic Hydrodynamic Analogy of Quantum Mechanics
    The mass lowest limit of a black hole: the hydrodynamic approach to quantum gravity Piero Chiarelli National Council of Research of Italy, Area of Pisa, 56124 Pisa, Moruzzi 1, Italy Interdepartmental Center “E.Piaggio” University of Pisa Phone: +39-050-315-2359 Fax: +39-050-315-2166 Email: [email protected]. Abstract: In this work the quantum gravitational equations are derived by using the quantum hydrodynamic description. The outputs of the work show that the quantum dynamics of the mass distribution inside a black hole can hinder its formation if the mass is smaller than the Planck's one. The quantum-gravitational equations of motion show that the quantum potential generates a repulsive force that opposes itself to the gravitational collapse. The eigenstates in a central symmetric black hole realize themselves when the repulsive force of the quantum potential becomes equal to the gravitational one. The work shows that, in the case of maximum collapse, the mass of the black hole is concentrated inside a sphere whose radius is two times the Compton length of the black hole. The mass minimum is determined requiring that the gravitational radius is bigger than or at least equal to the radius of the state of maximum collapse. PACS: 04.60.-m Keywords: quantum gravity, minimum black hole mass, Planck's mass, quantum Kaluza Klein model 1. Introduction One of the unsolved problems of the theoretical physics is that of unifying the general relativity with the quantum mechanics. The former theory concerns the gravitation dynamics on large cosmological scale in a fully classical ambit, the latter one concerns, mainly, the atomic or sub-atomic quantum phenomena and the fundamental interactions [1-9].
    [Show full text]
  • Adobe Acrobat PDF Document
    BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH of HUGH EVERETT, III. Eugene Shikhovtsev ul. Dzerjinskogo 11-16, Kostroma, 156005, Russia [email protected] ©2003 Eugene B. Shikhovtsev and Kenneth W. Ford. All rights reserved. Sources used for this biographical sketch include papers of Hugh Everett, III stored in the Niels Bohr Library of the American Institute of Physics; Graduate Alumni Files in Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library, Princeton University; personal correspondence of the author; and information found on the Internet. The author is deeply indebted to Kenneth Ford for great assistance in polishing (often rewriting!) the English and for valuable editorial remarks and additions. If you want to get an interesting perspective do not think of Hugh as a traditional 20th century physicist but more of a Renaissance man with interests and skills in many different areas. He was smart and lots of things interested him and he brought the same general conceptual methodology to solve them. The subject matter was not so important as the solution ideas. Donald Reisler [1] Someone once noted that Hugh Everett should have been declared a “national resource,” and given all the time and resources he needed to develop new theories. Joseph George Caldwell [1a] This material may be freely used for personal or educational purposes provided acknowledgement is given to Eugene B. Shikhovtsev, author ([email protected]), and Kenneth W. Ford, editor ([email protected]). To request permission for other uses, contact the author or editor. CONTENTS 1 Family and Childhood Einstein letter (1943) Catholic University of America in Washington (1950-1953). Chemical engineering. Princeton University (1953-1956).
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Information Science: Emerging No More
    Quantum Information Science: Emerging No More Carlton M. Caves Center for Quantum Information and Control, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131-0001, USA Final: 2013 January 30 Quantum information science (QIS) is a new field of enquiry, nascent in the 1980s, founded firmly in the 1990s, exploding in the 2010s, now established as a discipline for the 21st Century. Born in obscurity, then known as the foundations of quantum mechanics, the field began in the 60s and 70s with studies of Bell inequalities. These showed that the predictions of quantum mechanics cannot be squared with the belief, called local realism, that physical systems have realistic properties whose pre-existing values are revealed by measurements. The predictions of quantum mechanics for separate systems, correlated in the quantum way that we now call entanglement, are at odds with any version of local realism. Experiments in the early 80s demonstrated convincingly that the world comes down on the side of quantum mechanics. With local realism tossed out the window, it was natural to dream that quantum correlations could be used for faster-than-light communication, but this speculation was quickly shot down, and the shooting established the principle that quantum states cannot be copied. A group consisting of quantum opticians, electrical engineers, and mathematical physicists spent the 60s and 70s studying quantum measurements, getting serious about what can be measured and how well, going well beyond the description of observables that was (and often still is) taught in quantum-mechanics courses. This was not an empty exercise: communications engineers needed a more general description of quantum measurements to describe communications channels and to assess their performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Computing in the NISQ Era and Beyond
    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond John Preskill Institute for Quantum Information and Matter and Walter Burke Institute for Theoretical Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena CA 91125, USA 30 July 2018 Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) technology will be available in the near future. Quantum computers with 50-100 qubits may be able to perform tasks which surpass the capabilities of today’s classical digital computers, but noise in quantum gates will limit the size of quantum circuits that can be executed reliably. NISQ devices will be useful tools for exploring many-body quantum physics, and may have other useful applications, but the 100-qubit quantum computer will not change the world right away — we should regard it as a significant step toward the more powerful quantum technologies of the future. Quantum technologists should continue to strive for more accurate quantum gates and, eventually, fully fault-tolerant quantum computing. 1 Introduction Now is an opportune time for a fruitful discussion among researchers, entrepreneurs, man- agers, and investors who share an interest in quantum computing. There has been a recent surge of investment by both large public companies and startup companies, a trend that has surprised many quantumists working in academia. While we have long recognized the commercial potential of quantum technology, this ramping up of industrial activity has happened sooner and more suddenly than most of us expected. In this article I assess the current status and future potential of quantum computing. Because quantum computing technology is so different from the information technology we use now, we have only a very limited ability to glimpse its future applications, or to project when these applications will come to fruition.
    [Show full text]