Arxiv:2107.00035V1 [Quant-Ph] 30 Jun 2021

Eavesdropping on the Decohering Environment: Quantum Darwinism, Ampliﬁcation, and the Origin of Objective Classical Reality

1, 2, 2, 3 4 1, 5 3 Akram Touil, ∗ Bin Yan, Davide Girolami, Sebastian Deffner, and Wojciech Hubert Zurek 1Department of Physics, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA 2Center for Nonlinear Studies, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 3Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 4Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, Torino, 10129, Italy 5Instituto de F´ısica ‘Gleb Wataghin’, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 13083-859, Campinas, Sao˜ Paulo, Brazil “How much information about a system can one extract from a fragment of the environment that decohered it?” is the central questionS of Quantum Darwinism. To date,F most answers relied onE the quantum mutual information of , or on the data extracted by measuring directly. These are reasonable upper bounds on what isSF really needed but much harder to calculate –S the channel capacity of the fragment for the information about . We consider a model based on imperfect c-not gates where all the aboveF can be computed, and discussS its implications for the emergence of objective classical reality. We ﬁnd that all relevant quantities, such as the quantum mutual information as well as the channel capacity exhibit similar behavior. In the regime relevant for the emergence of objective classical reality this includes scaling independent from the quality of the imperfect c-not gates or the size of , and even nearly independent of the initial state of . E S

Quantum Darwinism [1–5] explains the emergence of The parameters c and s (c2 + s2 = 1) quantify the imper- objective classical reality in our quantum Universe: The fection, and the c-not is recovered for c = 1 and s = 0. decohering environment is a “witness” who monitors and Our Quantum Universe starts in a pure state: can reveal the state of theE system . Indeed, agents like us SE S N never measure systems of interest directly. Rather, we ac- Ψ0 = (√p 0 + √q 1 ) 0i , (2) cesses fragments of that carry information about them. SE S S | i | i | i i=1 | i Since its inceptionF [1],E Quantum Darwinism has advanced O where p + q = 1. The unitary U correlates each qubit in on both theory [6–25] and experimental fronts [26–29]. Quantum mutual information I( : ) between an en- with , and we obtain a branching state [41], S F E S vironment fragment and the system yields an upper bound N N on what can reveal about . It has been used to esti- Ψ = √p 0 0 i + √q 1 1 i . (3) F S SE S E S E mate the capacity of the environment as a communication | i | i i=1 | i | i i=1 | i channel. We analyze a solvable model based on imper- O O Note that by construction 0 and 1 are the pointer fect tunable c-not (or c-maybe) gates that couple to | S i | S i the subsystems of . We compute the mutual informationS states [42, 43]. They are orthogonal and immune to de- E coherence. The corresponding record states of are I( : ) as well as the Holevo bounds χ( : ) [30, 31] E – tightS E bounds on the channel capacity ofS eitherF and i i i 0 i 0 and 1 i s 0 + c 1 , (4) c-maybe S F | E i ≡ | i | E i ≡ | i | i – in our - based model. We also compute the i i quantum discord [1, 32–36] – the difference of I( : ) in terms of the orthogonal basis 0 and 1 of the ith S F qubit that defines U , so that 0 |1 i = s.| i and χ( : ) that quantifies the genuinely quantum corre- h Ei | Ei i lationsS betweenF and [37–40]. We will be interested in the correlations between the S F fragment and . The marginal states of , an m-qubit We find that I( : ) and χ( , ) exhibit strikingly F S S similar dependenceS onF the size of S ,F with the initial steep fragment m, and a bipartition m are rank-two density arXiv:2107.00035v1 [quant-ph] 30 Jun 2021 F SF rise followed by the classical plateauF where – at the level matrices [44]: set by the entropy H of the system, the information N S p s √pq has about saturates: Enlarging only confirms whatF ρ tr Ψ Ψ = N , (5) S ≡ E | SE ih SE | s √pq q S F is already known. This behavior is universal and nearly independent of the initial state of and the size of . S E p sm√pq The model. The system is a central qubit coupled to ρ = m , (6) S Fm s √pq q N independent and non-interacting qubits of the environment via a c-maybe gate, E N m p s − √pq 1 0 0 0 ρ m = N m . (7) SF s − √pq q 0 1 0 0 U = . (1) 0 0 s c  Symmetric mutual information is often used as an esti- 0 0 c s mate of the channel capacity of in Quantum Darwinism  −  F 2

[2–4, 11–13, 45–47]. It is deﬁned using the von Neumann entropy, H(ρ) = tr ρ log (ρ) as; − { 2 } I( : m) = H + H H , . (8) S F S Fm − S Fm Joint entropy H , quantiﬁes the ignorance about the S Fm state of m in the tensor product of the Hilbert spaces of andSF. InS our modelF I( : ) can be computed exactly [48]; S Fm + + + I( : m) = h(λN,p) + h(λm,p) h(λN m,p), (9) S F − − where h(x) = x log2(x) (1 x) log2(1 x) and λk,p± are the eigenvalues− of the reduced− − density matrices− (5)– (7). They are given by:

1 2 FIG. 1. Approximate universality of mutual information: Sym- ± 2k λk,p = 1 (q p) + 4s pq , (10) metric I( : m) and Holevo bound χ( ˇ : m) coincide until 2 ± − S F S F q the fragment m becomes almost as large as . Renormalized F E and we thus have a closed expression for the mutual infor- I( : )/H and χ( ˇ : )/H depend only weakly on the mation I( : ). probabilitiesS F ofS the outcomesS F (see inset).S Their difference – quan- S Fm As seen in Fig.1, symmetric mutual information I( : tum discord D( ˇ : ) – vanishes until m begins to encompass S F F S almost all of , m N/R . The inset also compares Holevo m) exhibits a steep initial rise with increasing fragment E ∼ δ F bounds χ( ˇ : )/H and χ( : ˇ)/H computed for N = 50 size m, as a larger m provides more data about . This S F S S F S F S and N = and several probabilities p of the pointer state 0 initial rise is followed by a long classical plateau, where ∞ | S i m the additional information imprinted on the environment is in Eq. (3). Note that the fragment sizes δ that supply 80% of information about are only modestly affected by p and quite redundant – it only confirms what is already known. similar for these twoS different information measures. Note that, when is in a pure state, the entropy of a SE fragment is equal to H d , that is the entropy would have if it wasF decohered onlyS F by the fragment . WhenS we In realistic models I( : ) = H only when f = S further assume good decoherence [41, 48] –F i.e., that the 1/2 (see [41]). Thus, significantS F redundancy appears only off-diagonal terms of ρ and ρ m are negligible (which when the requirement of completeness of the information S NSFm m in our model corresponds to s − s ) – we obtain an about that can be extracted from is relaxed. Moreover, S F approximate equality; Eq. (12) is an overestimate since I( : mδ ) is only an upper bound of what can be foundS out aboutF from I( : m) = H m = H d m , (11) S F S F F S F [50]. since H = H cancel one another in Eq. (8). Fur- We will now consider better estimates: Inset in Fig.1 S SFm thermore, when the environment fragments are typical [49] compares I( : mδ ) with the two Holevo bounds on the (and in our model all fragments of the same size are iden- channel capacityS F we are about to discuss and illustrates re- tical – hence, each is typical) the plot of I( : ) is sulting fragment sizes (hence, redundancies) they imply. S Fm antisymmetric around I( : m) = H and m = N/2 Asymmetric mutual information. Using the joint en- S F S [41]. tropy H , in Eq. (8) to estimate mutual information that S F Below, we will see that the behavior of I( : m) is can be accessed by observer is no longer justified in the approximately universal. This means that afterS suitableF re- quantum setting, as agents can usually measure only local scaling its functional form is nearly independent of the size observables of one of the two entities. Moreover, it matters of the environment N, of the quality of the c-maybe gate which of the two is accessed first, as their joint state is mod- U , and almost independent of the initial state of . ified in a way that depends on what is measured. We will Agents generally do not insist on knowing the stateS of mark the measured entity by an inverted “hat”, so when it completely, but tolerate a finite information deficit δ. WhenS is ˇ we consider the asymmetric mutual information: I( : ) (1 δ)H is attained already for a fragment S mδ J( ˇ : ) = H H ˇ . (13) S F ≥ − S m sk s with mδ N subsystems, a fraction fδ = mδ/N of the S F {| i} F − F|S{| ki} ˇ environment, then there are many (1/fδ) such fragments. Above, H m s is the conditional entropy [31] that F |S{| ki} We define redundancy of the information about in via: quantifies the missing information about remaining after S E F the observable with the eigenstates sk was measured. δ N/mδ with I( : mδ ) = (1 δ)H . (12) {| i} R ≡ S F − S Accordingly, the joint entropy in Eq. (8) is replaced by; Redundancy δ is the length of the classical plateau in the ˇ ˇ ˇ R H m, s = H m s + H s . (14) units set by mδ, see Fig. (1). More precisely, the beginning F S{| ki} F |S{| ki} S{| ki} of the plateau is determined by the smallest m such that The asymmetric joint entropy depends on whether or δ S F I( : m ) (1 δ)H . are measured and on the measurements that are used. The S F δ ≥ − S 3 entropy increase associated with the wavepacket reduction In our model, in case of good decoherence, measurement [51] means that the asymmetric entropy (14) is typically of the pointer observable of is optimal [48]. Indeed, Eq. S larger than the symmetric version H , in Eq. (8): Local (3) shows that in the pointer basis 0 , 1 the con- S Fm {| S i | S i} measurements cannot extract information encoded in the ditional entropy disappears, H ˇ = 0, as states of m Fm|S F quantum correlations between and m, which is why the correlated with pointer states of are pure. asymmetric J( ˇ : ) is needed,E [31F]; see also [52]. The limit of large (N N Sm m) reflects typical S Fm E ≥ − For optimal measurements the asymmetric J( ˇ : ) situation of agents (who do not even know the size of , S Fm E defines the Holevo bound [30], and only access “their m”, with m N). This is good N NFm m decoherence, s s − s , and equations simplify: ˇ ˇ ˇ ≤ J( : m) = max J( : m) sk χ( : m). s {| i} Using H , m = H and Eq. (11) we can thus write, S F {| ki} S F ≡ S F S F S (15) + ˇ I( : m) H m = h(λm,p) = χ( : m). (16) Here, “optimal” stands for the measurements that maxi- S F ≈ F S F mize the asymmetric mutual information. The basis sub- An immediate important consequence is that H m deter- F script will be eliminated from now on as optimization de- mines both the symmetric I( : m) as well as the asym- S F termines the measurement. metric (optimal) J( ˇ : ) = χ( ˇ : ). We have: S Fm S Fm

1 2m 2m 2m H m = log2 pq 1 s 1 4pq (1 s ) Arctanh2 1 4pq (1 s ) , (17) F −2 − − − − − − q q where “Arctanh2” denotes Arctanh / ln(2). tual information extracted by optimal measurements on the Fig.1 compares χ( ˇ : ) with I( : ) for finite environment fragment m is: m m F and infinite N and forS differentF valuesS of sFand p. As it ˇ ˇ ˇ shows, Eq. (17) matches I( : m) until the far end (N J( : m) = H H m = χ( : m) . (18) S F S − S|F S F m m) of the classical plateau.S F This is a consequence of− two scalings: (i) “vertically”, the plateau appears at H = Thus, is now the source of information and m is mea- NS sured,S reversing the roles of and fromF our above p log2(p) q log2(q), and it is easy to see that for s S F −m − discussion. Nevertheless, most of the mathematical steps s 1 we have χ( ˇ : m) = H in Eq. (17); (ii) S F m S carry over. In particular, the joint entropy given in terms of “horizontally”, H m depends on s , so weakly entangling F the conditional entropy H ˇ now becomes, gates can be compensated by using more of them – larger S|Fm m. What is surprising is how insensitive are these plots to H , ˇ = H ˇ + H ˇ . (19) p, the probability of the outcome. S Fm S|Fm Fm This remarkably universal behavior is a consequence of As in Eq. (14) above, all terms in Eq. (19) depend on how good decoherence [48]. Both, ρ and ρ , Eqs. (5) and S SFm is measured. However, while measuring in the pointer (6), become diagonal in the pointer basis. Moreover, the F S ˇ basis simplified the analysis (since e.g. H s = 0) quality of U (set by c and s) determines the “ information F|S{| ki} flow rate” from to . Thus, when (at a fixed p) one this is no longer the case when m is measured. ˇ F demands the sameS H F, this translates into identical ρ To compute χ( : m) we rely on the Koashi-Winter m m S F m1 m2 F F monogamy relation [53]. It involves quantum and classi- when s1 s2 . Therefore, less efficiently entangling gates can be' compensated by relying on more of them – on cal correlations between three systems – in our case they are the fragment , the system , and the rest of the envi- a suitably enlarged , with m2 = m1 log(s1)/ log(s2). F S Environment as aF communication channel. Observers ronment, . We use it to derive the Holevo information ˇ E\F eavesdrop on environments to find out the state of the sys- χ( : m). Details of that calcuation are relegated to the S F tem. While the mutual information I( : m) is easier to supplementary material [54]. compute and a safe upper bound on theS channelF capacity of We focus again on the limit of large (N N m , it is important to verify it is also a reasonable estimate m): It reflects the usual situation of agentsE (who≥ only− ac- Fm of that channel capacity (as generally assumed in much of cess “their m”, a small fraction of with m N). the quantum Darwinism literature). The asymmetric mu- Again assumingF good decoherence weE obtain

1 ˇ 2m 2m 2m χ( : m) = H + log2 pqs + 1 4pqs Arctanh2 1 4pqs . (20) S F S 2 − − p p

Equation (20) constitutes our main result. We have decom- posed the Holevo quantity χ( : ˇ ) into the plateau en- S Fm 4

tropy H and H ˇm – the ignorance about remaining in spiteS of the optimalS|F measurement on .S Rather re- Fm markably, H ˇ = H χ( : ˇm) – the conditional S|Fm S − S F entropy – scales exactly with pqs2m. What remains to do is to quantify the differences of I( : ) and χ( ˇ : ) S Fm S Fm with χ( : ˇm). In Fig.2 we compare it with these other, easier toS compute,F quantities. Redundancy of the information about in the channel S m can be now computed using χ( : ˇm), Eq. (20), Fand compared with the estimates basedS onF I( : ). S Fm The fragment mδ can carry all but the deficit δ of the classical informationF about the pointer state of when S χ( : ˇm ) (1 δ)H . This leads to a transcendental S F δ ≥ − S equation for mδ that we solve numerically. Rδ = N/mδ, FIG. 2. Channel capacity of the environment fragment. Fragment where N is the number of subsystems in . m carries at most χ( : ˇ) of classical information about the E F S F The inset in Fig.1 shows that – while mδ deduced us- system it helped decohere. As seen above, this Holevo bound is ˇ less than the symmetric mutual information I( : ). Their dif- ing I( : m) χ( : m) do not coincide with those S F S F ≈ S F ference (quantum discord D( : ˇ)) is significant already early obtained using χ( : ˇ ) – the difference is modest, un- S F m on (in contrast to D( ˇ : )), but disappears as the plateau is likely to materiallyS affectF conclusions about the order of S F reached. It reappears again (as did D( ˇ : )) when m begins magnitude or significance of redundancy for the emergence S F F to encompass almost all of , as m N/Rδ. of objective classical reality. Indeed, in the supplementary E ∼ materials we estimate that the redundancy estimates based ˇ on I( : m) and χ( : m) differ at most by 37% for H d H d , so D( ˇ : m) 0. As long as is S F S F ∼ S E S E\F \F δ 0.2, and by much less in the regime where δ 0. large enough≈ to induce goodS F decoherence,≈ Eq. (16)E holds, ≤ → In situations relevant for observers who rely on photons, and, hence, the systemic discord (21) vanishes [56]. 8 Rδ=0.1 10 is amassed when sunlight illuminates a 1µm Systemic quantum discord can become large again when dust grain' in a superposition with a 1µm spatial separation m encompasses almost all , as in this case H m ap- for 1µs [46, 47]. It may seem like we are stretching the proachesF H = 0 (given ourE assumption of a pureSF ). In applicability of our c-maybe model too far, but the equa- SE SE this (unphysical) limit I( : m) climbs to H m + H = tions for I( : ) and χ( ˇ : ) derived for photon S F F S m m 2H , while χ( ˇ : m) H . As good decoherence scattering coincideS F with ourS Eq.F (17). Thus, it appears S S F ≤ Fm implies χ( ˇ : m) H , D( ˇ : m) can reach H . that the information transfer from to leading to the S F ≈ Fm S F Fm Indeed, when is pure, χ( ˇ : ) and D( ˇ : ) – buildup of redundancy has universalS featuresE captured by m m classical and quantumSE contentS of theF correlationS – areF com- our model. plementary [36], see Fig.1. Quantum discord is the difference between symmetric The fragmentary discord is also the difference between (9) and asymmetric quantum mutual information [32–40]. the information that can be extracted from by measur- It quantifies the quantum part of the correlations between ing the system or the fragment : SF and m. The systemic discord is defined as; S F S F ˇ ˇ ˇ D( ˇ : ) = I( : ) χ( ˇ : ) . (21) I( : ) χ( : ) χ( : ) χ( : ). (24) S Fm S Fm − S Fm S F − S F ≈ S F − S F The measurements on pointer observables of are optimal. It can be evaluated: Mutual information for pure decoherenceS induced by ˇ D( : m) H ˇm H H ˇm , non-interacting subsystems of can be written as [48, 55]: S F ≈ F − S − S|F (25) ˇ ˇ E = H m + H m H . local/classical global/quantum S|F F − S The bracketed terms in the last two expressions repre- I( : ) = H H (0) + H d H d . S F F − F S E − S E\F (22) sent different quantities. The difference between the symmetric and asymmetric mutual information H ˇ As is a pure product state, H (0) = 0. Assuming good m SE F F − decoherence and optimal measurements in the pointer basis H H ˇm is the original definition of discord. It co- S − S|F (hence, χ( ˇ : m) = H , Eq. (16) we have incides with the difference between H ˇ + H ˇ , the Fm m m S F ˇ S|F F I( : ) J( ˇ : ) = H H , joint entropy of m, and H of the system alone. m m d d m (23) SF S S F − S F S E − S E\F Note that initially decoherence does not suppress frag- where H d (H d ) is the entropy of the system deco- mentary discord D( : ˇm). This is because the states S E S E\F S F hered by (or just by – i.e., less the fragment ). of m that are correlated with the pointer states of are The global/quantumE E term\F representsE quantum discordF in notF orthogonal: The scalar product of the branch fragmentsS m the pointer basis of [48]. Good decoherence implies m corresponding to 0 and 1 is s . Thus, while the S F | S i | S i 5 symmetric mutual information increases with m, orthogo- ley Community Foundation (SD), as well as by the Depart- nality is approached gradually, also as m increases. Perfect ment of Energy under the LDRD program in Los Alamos. distinguishability, i.e., orthogonality of record states of A.T. and B.Y. also acknowledge support from U.S. De- is needed to pass on the information about [57–59]. SeeF partment of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sci- again Fig.2 for an illustration of these findings.S ences, Materials Sciences and Engineering Division, Con- Concluding remarks. Quantum Darwinism explains densed Matter Theory Program, and the Center for Nonlin- how objective classical reality arises via selective ampli- ear Studies. D. G. is supported by a Rita Levi Montalcini fication and spreading of information in our fundamentally Fellowship of the Italian Ministry of Research and Educa- quantum Universe. Redundancy of the information im- tion (MIUR), grant number 54 AI20GD01. printed in the environment is a measure of classicality of pointer states of the system decohered by the environment . Classical agents find out about , by eavesdropping on Efragments of . Redundancy guaranteesS consensus about the pointer observables,E and enables local inaccessibility ∗ [email protected] of the quantum information. [1] Wojciech H Zurek, “Einselection and decoherence from an information theory perspective,” Ann. Phys. 9, 855 (2000). We found that in the pre-plateau regime relevant for [2] Wojciech Hubert Zurek, “Decoherence, einselection, and emergence of objective reality (where I( : ) increases the quantum origins of the classical,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, with the size of ) the mutual informationS asF well as the F 715–775 (2003). Holevo bound χ( ˇ : ) coincide and exhibit universal [3] Harold Ollivier, David Poulin, and Wojciech H. Zurek, scaling behaviorsS independentF of the size of , of how “Objective properties from subjective quantum states: Envi- imperfect are the gates c-maybe’s, and only weaklyE de- ronment as a witness,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 220401 (2004). pendent on the probabilities of pointer states. When the [4] Harold Ollivier, David Poulin, and Wojciech H. Zurek, “En- system is measured, the corresponding Holevo information vironment as a witness: Selective proliferation of informa- χ( ˇ : ) and I( : ) coincide until encompasses tion and emergence of objectivity in a quantum universe,” almostS allF of . S F F Phys. Rev. A 72, 042113 (2005). E χ( : ˇ) [5] W. H. Zurek, “Quantum Darwinism,” Nat. Phys. 5, 181 However, the channel capacity of the envi- (2009). ronment fragments differs somewhatS fromF I( : ) in F S F [6] Gian Luca Giorgi, Fernando Galve, and Roberta Zam- the pre-plateau region. This difference tends to be small brini, “Quantum darwinism and non-markovian dissipative compared to, e.g., the level of the plateau, and disappears dynamics from quantum phases of the spin-1/2 xx model,” as the plateau is reached for larger fragments. This behav- Phys. Rev. A 92, 022105 (2015). ior – generic when many copies of the information about [7] Nenad Balaneskovic,´ “Random unitary evolution model of are deposited in the environment – facilitates estimates quantum darwinism with pure decoherence,” Eur. Phys. J. D ofS the redundancy of the information about the system in 69, 232 (2015). the environment, as the differences between I( : ) or [8] Nenad Balaneskovic and Marc Mendler, “Dissipation, de- S F phasing and quantum darwinism in qubit systems with ran- χ( : ˇ) are inconsequential. S F dom unitary interactions,” Eur. Phys. J. D 70, 177 (2016). To sum up, the channel capacity of the environmental [9] Paul A. Knott, Tommaso Tufarelli, Marco Piani, and Ger- fragments given by Holevo quantity is, in our model, close ardo Adesso, “Generic emergence of objectivity of observ- to the more generous bound – the symmetric mutual in- ables in infinite dimensions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 160401 formation, suggesting that different, sensible measures of (2018). information flow will lead to compatible conclusions about [10] Nadia Milazzo, Salvatore Lorenzo, Mauro Paternostro, and Rδ. Indeed, the estimates of redundancy based on these G. Massimo Palma, “Role of information backflow in the quantities are insignificant from the standpoint of the emer- emergence of quantum darwinism,” Phys. Rev. A 100, gence of objective classical reality – the overarching goal 012101 (2019). ¨ of quantum Darwinism. The functional dependence of [11] Steve Campbell, B. Çakmak, Ozgur¨ E. Mustecaplıo¨ glu,˘ Mauro Paternostro, and Bassano Vacchini, “Collisional un- the symmetric mutual information in the photon scatter- folding of quantum darwinism,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 042103 ing model [46, 47] is the same as in our model. Thus, the (2019). universality we noted in scaling with s and p (approximate [12] E. Ryan, M. Paternostro, and S. Campbell, “Quantum dar- for I( : ) = χ( ˇ : ) exact for χ( : ˇ )) may S F S Fm S Fm winism in a structured spin environment,” arXiv preprint ar- be a general or at least common attribute of decoherence rix:2011.13385 (2020). caused by environments composed of noninteracting sub- [13] Guillermo Garc´ıa-Perez,´ Dario A. Chisholm, Matteo A. C. systems such as photons, and photon scattering is respon- Rossi, G. Massimo Palma, and Sabrina Maniscalco, “De- sible for vast majority of the information that reaches us, coherence without entanglement and quantum darwinism,” human observers. Phys. Rev. Research 2, 012061 (2020). This research was supported by grant number FQXi- [14] Salvatore Lorenzo, Mauro Paternostro, and G. Massimo RFP-1808 from the Foundational Questions Institute and Palma, “Anti-zeno-based dynamical control of the unfold- ing of quantum darwinism,” Phys. Rev. Research 2, 013164 Fetzer Franklin Fund, a donor advised fund of Silicon Val- 6

(2020). [33] Leah Henderson and Vlatko Vedral, “Classical, quantum [15] Mateusz Kicinski´ and Jarosław K Korbicz, “Decoherence and total correlations,” J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34, 6899 and objectivity in higher spin environments,” arXiv preprint (2001). arXiv:2105.09093 (2021). [34] Paolo Giorda and Matteo G. A. Paris, “Gaussian quantum [16] JK Korbicz, “Roads to objectivity: Quantum darwinism, discord,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 020503 (2010). spectrum broadcast structures, and strong quantum darwin- [35] Mingjun Shi, Wei Yang, Fengjian Jiang, and Jiangfeng Du, ism,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.04276 (2020). “Quantum discord of two-qubit rank-2 states,” J. Phys. A: [17] Robin Blume-Kohout and Wojciech H. Zurek, “Quantum Math. Theor. 44, 415304 (2011). darwinism in quantum brownian motion,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [36] Michael Zwolak and Wojciech H Zurek, “Complementarity 101, 240405 (2008). of quantum discord and classically accessible information,” [18] Michael Zwolak, C. Jess Riedel, and Wojciech H. Zurek, Sci. Rep. 3, 1729 (2013). “Ampliﬁcation, redundancy, and quantum chernoff informa- [37] Aharon Brodutch, Alexei Gilchrist, Daniel R Terno, and tion,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 140406 (2014). Christopher J Wood, “Quantum discord in quantum compu- [19] Michael Zwolak, H. T. Quan, and Wojciech H. Zurek, tation,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 306, 012030 (2011). “Quantum darwinism in a mixed environment,” Phys. Rev. [38] Gerardo Adesso, Marco Cianciaruso, and Thomas R. Lett. 103, 110402 (2009). Bromley, “An introduction to quantum discord and non- [20] Juan Pablo Paz and Augusto J. Roncaglia, “Redundancy classical correlations beyond entanglement,” arXiv preprint of classical and quantum correlations during decoherence,” arXiv:1611.01959 (2016). Phys. Rev. A 80, 042111 (2009). [39] Anindita Bera, Tamoghna Das, Debasis Sadhukhan, [21] C. Jess Riedel, Wojciech H. Zurek, and Michael Zwolak, Sudipto Singha Roy, Aditi Sen(De), and Ujjwal Sen, “Objective past of a quantum universe: Redundant records “Quantum discord and its allies: a review of recent of consistent histories,” Phys. Rev. A 93, 032126 (2016). progress,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 024001 (2017). [22] C. Jess Riedel, “Classical branch structure from spatial re- [40] Kavan Modi, Aharon Brodutch, Hugo Cable, Tomasz Pa- dundancy in a many-body wave function,” Phys. Rev. Lett. terek, and Vlatko Vedral, “The classical-quantum boundary 118, 120402 (2017). for correlations: Discord and related measures,” Rev. Mod. [23] Fernando GSL Brandao, Marco Piani, and Paweł Phys. 84, 1655–1707 (2012). Horodecki, “Generic emergence of classical features in [41] Robin Blume-Kohout and Wojciech H Zurek, “A simple quantum darwinism,” Nature communications 6, 1–8 example of “quantum darwinism”: Redundant informa- (2015). tion storage in many-spin environments,” Found. Phys. 35, [24] Xiao-Liang Qi and Daniel Ranard, “Emergent classicality 1857–1876 (2005). in general multipartite states and channels,” arXiv preprint [42] W. H. Zurek, “Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: Into arXiv:2001.01507 (2020). what mixture does the wave packet collapse?” Phys. Rev. [25] Hui-Feng Fu, “Uniqueness of the observable leaving redun- D 24, 1516–1525 (1981). dant imprints in the environment in the context of quantum [43] W. H. Zurek, “Environment-induced superselection rules,” darwinism,” Phys. Rev. A 103, 042210 (2021). Phys. Rev. D 26, 1862–1880 (1982). [26] Mario A. Ciampini, Giorgia Pinna, Paolo Mataloni, and [44] Deducing the reduced quantum states ρ and ρ in S SFm Mauro Paternostro, “Experimental signature of quantum Eqs. (5) and (7) is straightforward, whereas ρ m is slightly darwinism in photonic cluster states,” Phys. Rev. A 98, more involved, see e.g. [48]. F 020101 (2018). [45] R. Blume-Kohout and W. H. Zurek, “Quantum darwinism: [27] Ming-Cheng Chen, Han-Sen Zhong, Yuan Li, Dian Wu, Xi- Entanglement, branches, and the emergent classicality of re- Lin Wang, Li Li, Nai-Le Liu, Chao-Yang Lu, and Jian-Wei dundantly stored quantum information,” Phys. Rev. A 73, Pan, “Emergence of classical objectivity of quantum dar- 062310 (2006). winism in a photonic quantum simulator,” Science Bulletin [46] C. Jess Riedel and Wojciech H. Zurek, “Quantum darwin- 64, 580–585 (2019). ism in an everyday environment: Huge redundancy in scat- [28] T. K. Unden, D. Louzon, M. Zwolak, W. H. Zurek, and tered photons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 020404 (2010). F. Jelezko, “Revealing the emergence of classicality us- [47] C Jess Riedel and Wojciech H Zurek, “Redundant informa- ing nitrogen-vacancy centers,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 140402 tion from thermal illumination: quantum darwinism in scat- (2019). tered photons,” New J. Phys. 13, 073038 (2011). [29] Guillermo Garc´ıa-Perez,´ Matteo A. C. Rossi, and Sabrina [48] Michael Zwolak, H. T. Quan, and Wojciech H. Zurek, Maniscalco, “Ibm q experience as a versatile experimental “Redundant imprinting of information in nonideal environ- testbed for simulating open quantum systems,” npj Quantum ments: Objective reality via a noisy channel,” Phys. Rev. A Inf. 6, 1 (2020). 81, 062110 (2010). [30] Alexander Semenovich Holevo, “Bounds for the quantity of [49] Thomas M Cover and Joy A Thomas, Elements of informa- information transmitted by a quantum communication chan- tion theory (John Wiley & Sons, 1999). nel,” Problemy Peredachi Informatsii 9, 3–11 (1973). [50] Note that H – in the circumstances typically encountered [31] M. A Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum computation and by observersS and of interest to us here – is not the thermo- quantum information (American Association of Physics dynamic entropy of . Rather, it is the missing information Teachers, 2002). about the few relevantS degrees of freedom of . This is an [32] H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, “Quantum discord: A mea- important distinction: The thermodynamic entropyS of a cat, sure of the quantumness of correlations,” Phys. Rev. Lett. for instance, will vastly exceed the information an observer 88, 017901 (2001). is most interested in – e.g., the one crucial bit in the ‘di- 7

abolical contraption’ envisaged by Schrodinger.¨ Moreover, surement of (rather than I( : m)) would play a key only such salient features of the macrostates will be usually role. At leastS in case of goodS decoherence,F and in view of preserved or will evolve in a predictable manner under the Eq. (16) which implies χ( ˇ : m) = I( : m) when S F S F combined inﬂuence of the self-Hamiltonian of and of the m N m < N, stronger arguments appear unnecessary. decohering environment. S [57] Wojciech − Hubert Zurek, “Quantum origin of quantum [51] Note that measurements of a classical system do not affect jumps: Breaking of unitary symmetry induced by informa- its state. Thus, for classical systems symmetric and asym- tion transfer in the transition from quantum to classical,” metric expressions are identical [49]. Phys. Rev. A 76, 052110 (2007). [52] Akram Touil, Kevin Weber, and Sebastian Deffner, “Quan- [58] Wojciech H. Zurek, “Wave-packet collapse and the core tum euler relation for local measurements,” arXiv preprint quantum postulates: Discreteness of quantum jumps from arXiv:2106.04459 (2021). unitarity, repeatability, and actionable information,” Phys. [53] Masato Koashi and Andreas Winter, “Monogamy of quan- Rev. A 87, 052111 (2013). tum entanglement and other correlations,” Phys. Rev. A 69, [59] Bartłomiej Gardas, Sebastian Deffner, and Avadh Saxena, 022309 (2004). “Repeatability of measurements: Non-hermitian observ- [54] “Supplementary information,” Insert link here. ables and quantum coriolis force,” Phys. Rev. A 94, 022121 [55] Wojciech Hubert Zurek, “Relative states and the environ- (2016). ment: einselection, envariance, quantum darwinism, and the [60] Thao P. Le and Alexandra Olaya-Castro, “Strong quantum existential interpretation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:0707.2832 darwinism and strong independence are equivalent to spec- (2007). trum broadcast structure,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 010403 [56] Some have advocated “strong quantum Darwinism” [60] (2019). where the Holevo information χ( ˇ : m) based on the mea- S F Supplemental Material Eavesdropping on the Decohering Environment: Quantum Darwinism, Ampliﬁcation, and the Origin of Objective Classical Reality

Within the framework of Quantum Darwinism, the emergence of classicality from the quantum substrate is a direct consequence of the redundant imprinting of classical information, about the system of interest , in different fragments of the environment. This classical information, obtained by eavesdropping on environmental fragments,S is upper boundedF by the Holevo quantity χ( : ˇ) (aka the Holevo bound), which can be expressed as S F χ( : ˇ) = H H ˇ, (S1) S F S − S|F such that Hi = tr ρi log2(ρi) stands for the von Neumann entropy, and H ˇ is the conditional von Neumann entropy [R1] that accounts− { for the missing} information about the system after optimalS|F measurements are applied on the fragment . S In the presentF supplemental material, we provide the technical details leading to analytic expressions of χ( : ˇ), in the physical model we described in the manuscript [R2]. We separate the supplemental material into four sections.S F First, we present a general overview of the Koashi-Winter relation as the main tool of our derivation. We then show how it applies to our speciﬁc physical model of a central qubit undergoing decoherence in a many-qubit environment. The second part of the supplemental material details the necessary steps leading to analytic expressions of the Holevo bound (in the general case and in the limit of good decoherence). Using this result, we illustrate, in the last two sections, the statements made in the manuscript regarding the redundancy of information and the breaking of the universal behavior of both the mutual information and the Holevo bound.

THE KOASHI-WINTER RELATION

For any tripartite system ABC, such that ρABC is pure, the Koashi-Winter relation can be written as [R3]

χ(A : Bˇ) + E(A : C) = HA, (S2)

where “E(A : C)” refers to the entanglement of formation [R4–R6] of ρAC , which is an entanglement measure for bipartite mixed quantum states (deﬁned as an extension of the entanglement entropy to mixed states). To elaborate, the entanglement of formation “E(A : C)” quantiﬁes the amount of entanglement in the mixed state ρAC , since for such cases (i.e. for mixed states) the entanglement entropy is no longer a viable measure of entanglement. The latter is due to the fact that the von Neumann entropy is not symmetric for general mixed states [R1]. The Koashi-Winter relation (S2) represents a monogamy relation between the entanglement of formation and the classical correlations in an extended Hilbert space. In other words, this relation captures the trade-off between entanglement arXiv:2107.00035v1 [quant-ph] 30 Jun 2021 and classical correlations. For a given value of the von Neumann entropy HA, the higher the entanglement subsystem “A” shares with “C”, the less classical information about “A” is accessible through optimal measurements on “B”. For two-qubit states ρAC , the entanglement of formation can be expressed as a function of the concurrence [R6]

1 + 1 (Con (A : C))2 E (A : C) = h − , (S3)  q 2    where “Con (A : C)” stands for the concurrence of the state ρAC , and h(x) = x log2(x) (1 x) log2(1 x). Further- more, the entanglement measure [R6, R7]“Con (A : C)” can be analytically− determined− by computing− the− eigenvalues µi of the 4x4 density matrix ρAC ρ˜AC , where ρ˜AC = (σy σy) ρAC∗ (σy σy). For two-qubit states where µi µi+1, the analytic formula reads [R5] ⊗ ⊗ ≥ Con(A : C) = max 0, √µ √µ √µ √µ . (S4) { 1 − 2 − 3 − 4} 2

In the physical model of a central qubit undergoing decoherence in a many-qubit environment , assuming that the state of the quantum universe is pure impliesS that, by decomposing the environment into typicalE fragments, the state SE ρ m N m is pure. Therefore, in this model, the Koashi-Winter relation is written as SF F − χ( : ˇm) + E( : N m) = H . (S5) S F S F − S Based on the above expression, in order to determine the Holevo bound we need to evaluate the entanglement of formation. In fact, given the structure of the branching state of the dynamics [R2] N N Ψ = √p 0 0 + √q 1 1 , (S6) SE S Ei S Ei | i | i i=1 | i | i i=1 | i O O tracing out the degrees of freedom of a given partition of the environment, or the system of interest, results in a density matrix of rank-two at most, i.e. the resulting density matrices are regarded as virtual qubits [R8]. This implies that the bipartite system “ N m” is a qubit-virtual qubit pair. Therefore, we have SF − 2 1 + 1 (Con ( : N m)) − E ( : N m) = h − S F . (S7) S F −  q 2  Additionally, since we are dealing with rank-two (at most) density matrices, when computing the concurrence there are only two nonzero eigenvalues (µ1 and µ2), which implies that Eq. (S4) simpliﬁes to

Con ( : N m) = √µ1 √µ2 . (S8) S F − | − | In summary, to determine the Holevo bound χ( : ˇ ) we ﬁrst need to evaluate µ and µ from the expression of the S Fm 1 2 4x4 density matrix ρ N m . From these eigenvalues we can determine the concurrence (cf. Eq. (S8) ), which directly results in an analyticSF expression− for the entanglement of formation (cf. Eq. (S7) ). Thus, we can infer the general form of the Holevo bound χ( : ˇm), and the corresponding expression in the good decoherence limit (presented in Equation (20) of the manuscript [R2S ]).F In what follows, we present the technical details that led to the expressions of µ1 and µ2. We start with instructive case of m = 1, and then generalize to arbitrary values of m such that 1 m < N. ≤

THE HOLEVO BOUND

Single qubit of the environment 1: We split the branching state Ψ into two partitions. The ﬁrst is composed of the central qubit and a single qubitF of , while the second partition is| theSE resti of the environment. We adopt the following notations, S E N 1 N 1 N 1 − − − 1 N 1 0 0 , 1 1 s − 0 , Ei Ei Ei | i ≡ i=1 | i | i ≡ i=1 | i − i=1 | i! (S9) O N O O ¯0 00 , ¯1 s 10 + c 11 , | i ≡ | i | i ≡ | i | i with = √1 s2(N 1), and N − − ( i 1,N ); 0 0 , 1 s 0 + c 1 . (S10) ∀ ∈ | Ei i ≡ | i | Ei i ≡ | i | i The real parameters c and s, quantify the degree with which the environmental qubits monitor the central qubit . From ¯¯ 2 S the above deﬁnitions, we have i j = δi,jJ andK i j = δi,j for (i, j) 0, 1 , and the state of the universe can be written as h | i h | i ∈ { } SE N 1 2(N 1) Ψ = √p ¯00 + √qs − ¯10 + √q 1 s − ¯11 . (S11) | SE i | i | i − | i Therefore, the rank-two density matrix representing the composite state of the central qubit and a single qubit of the p S environment 1 is F N N 1 p 0 s √pq s − c√pq 0 0 0 0 ρ =  N 2  . (S12) SF1 s √pq 0 s q scq N 1 2 s − c√pq 0 scq c q    Now we generalize to the case of an arbitrary environmental fragment (with m qubits) in order to determine the density Fm matrix ρ m , for any 1 m < N, which directly implies the expression of ρ N m and the corresponding eigenvalues SF ≤ SF − µ1 and µ2. 3

Environmental fragment m: Considering a partition of the environment (with m qubits), and similar to the previous single qubit analysis (cf. Eq.F (S9) ), we group the central qubit with “m” qubits from the environment to get m m ¯0 0 0 , ¯1 1 1 , (S13) Ei Ei | i ≡ | i i=1 | i | i ≡ | i i=1 | i O O which in turn can be written as a basis for “the qubit-virtual qubit” pair

¯0 00 , ¯1 1 sm 0 + √1 s2m 1 , (S14) | i ≡ | i | i ≡ | i | i − | i with m 1 m m 0 0 , 1 1 sm 0 , (S15) Ei Ei Ei | i ≡ i=1 | i | i ≡ i=1 | i − i=1 | i! O M O O such that = √1 s2m and i j = δ . Following this “qubit-virtual qubit” decomposition, we can infer the expression M − h | i i,j of the rank-two density matrix ρ N m , SF − N m 2(N m) p 0 s √pq s √1 s − √pq 0 0 0− 0 ρ N m =  N 2(N m) N m 2(N m)  . (S16) SF − s √pq 0 qs − qs − √1 s − m 2(N m) N m 2(N m) 2(−N m) s √1 s pq 0 qs − √1 s q(1 s − )   − √ −   − − −  The eigenvalues, µ1 and µ2, of the matrix ρ N m ρ˜ N m , are SF − SF − m 2 2(N m) m 2 2(N m) µ = pq (1 s ) (1 s − ), µ = pq (1 + s ) (1 s − ). (S17) 1 − − 2 − From the above eigenvalues, and based on Eqs. (S5), (S7) and (S8), we get the general analytic expression for the Holevo bound, χ( : ˇ ) = h (r ) h (t ) , (S18) S Fm p − p,m where 1 1 r = 1 + 1 4pq (1 s2N ) and t = 1 + 1 4pq (s2m s2N ) . (S19) p 2 − − p,m 2 − − q q N m m From this expression, it is a simple exercise to show that for good decoherence (i.e. in the limit s − s ) we have the following simpliﬁcation 1 χ ˇ 2m 2m 2m ( : m) = H + log2 pqs + 1 4pqs Arctanh2 1 4pqs , (S20) S F S 2 − − p p such that H = p log2(p) q log2(q) is the von Neumann entropy of the decohered state of the central qubit . In the lastS two sections,− based− on the above result, we will illustrate the following statements made in the manuscript.S The ﬁrst statement is that the redundancy evaluated through the quantum mutual information overestimates the redundancy from the viewpoint of observers eavesdropping on fragments of the environment viaI optimal measurements. The difference between the two quantities can be computed numerically.F The second statement concerns the weak dependence of the re-scaled quantum mutual information and Holevo bounds on the state preparation of the central qubit , i.e. on the probability of the pointer states “p”. S

REDUNDANCY

In Fig. S1, we illustrate the behavior of the redundancy Rδ = N/mδ (with information deﬁcit δ = 0.1), evaluated using I (red curve) and χ (black curve), as a function of the parameter c. We observe that the redundancy is monotonically increasing as a function of c, such that the maximum redundancy is achieved when c 1. The latter is due to the fact that in the limit where c 1 the coupling between the central qubit and each qubit→ from the environment is now modeled by the c-not gate,→ and the branching state is a GHZ state. We also observe that for almost all values of c [0, 1] the redundancy computed using the quantum mutual information is an overestimate to the redundancy observed by∈ eavesdropping on fragments of the environment through optimal measurements. 4

100

60 I

40 χ

c 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

FIG. S1. Plots of the redundancy R0.1 computed through the mutual information I (red curve) and the Holevo bound χ (black curve), as a function of c, for p = 1/2 and N = 100.

Using the analytic expressions of the mutual information and the Holevo bound, we can numerically determine the degree with which the redundancy obtained from the mutual information overestimates the actual redundancy. We can define ∆m = mχ mI , such that mχ (mI ) represents the minimum number of environmental qubits needed in order for the Holevo bound (mutual− information) to reflect the missing information about the central qubit , up to an information deficit δ, i.e., (1 δ)H . Therefore, the quantity ∆m/mχ reflects the difference between the redundanciesS obtained from the two different− informationS theoretic measures (I and χ). In Fig. S2, we illustrate, in the limit of large N (N ), ∆m/mχ as a function of δ and p. In panel (a), we observe that the maximum difference, for a given value of δ, is attained→ ∞ for p = 1/2. From panel (b), in the limit where δ 0 we conclude that the redundancies differ by at most 13%, and for δ = 0.2 (similar to the case presented in the inset→ of Figure 1 of the manuscript [R2]) the difference is at most∼ 37%. ∼

0.3

0.2 Δm mχ 0.1

δ 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 (a) (b)

FIG. S2. Plots of ∆m/mχ as a function of δ [0, 0.2] and p. In panel (a), we plot ∆m/mχ for all values of p [0.01, 0.99], and in ∈ ∈ panel (b) we focus on the case of p = 1/2.

BREAKING OF UNIVERSALITY

In the manuscript, we show that the quantum mutual information and the Holevo bound display a universal scaling behavior which is weakly dependent on the state preparation of the central qubit . Namely, through appropriate re- scaling, the two information theoretic quantities exhibit a universal rising behavior insensitiveS to the value of the parameter p, up to some limitations. Here, our goal is to quantify and illustrate these limitations, which shows the breaking of the aforementioned universality when the parameter p approaches a value of zero or one. To this end, we choose the case of the initial equal superposition (p = 1/2) as a reference, and we compare its corresponding expressions of the mutual 5 information and the Holevo bound with those for arbitrary p0, which leads to deﬁning ∆I and ∆χ as follows. I ( : ) ∆ = I ( : ) p0 S Fm , (S21) I p=1/2 S Fm − H ( ) p0 S such that I ( : ) and I ( : ) are the values of the mutual information for p = 1/2 and arbitrary p0 [0, 1], p=1/2 S Fm p0 S Fm ∈ respectively. The quantity H ( ) is the maximum von Neumann entropy of the system corresponding to p0 (i.e. the p0 S S plateau of the curve of I ( : )). Similarly, for the Holevo bound we deﬁne the quantity ∆χ such that p0 S Fm χ ˇ p0 ( : m) ∆χ = χ ( : ˇ ) + S F . (S22) − p=1/2 S Fm H ( ) p0 S In Fig. S3, we plot ∆I and ∆χ as functions of both m and p0. For small m, the breaking of the universal rise of both the mutual information and the Holevo bound is observed when p0 is either close to zero or one, otherwise ∆ 0 I ≈ and ∆χ 0. For completeness, we also plot our quantities for large values of m (i.e. when the environment fraction ≈ approaches one). In this limit, ∆χ = 0 for all p0 while ∆I = 0 for p0 close to zero or one. This is due to the fact that the quantum mutual information rises beyond the plateau when6 we capture almost all of the environment, which is a direct consequence of the purity of the state of the universe . SE

(a)

(b)

FIG. S3. Plots of ∆I (panel (a)) and ∆χ (panel (b)), as a function of m and p0, for N = 100 and c = √0.4. Note that changing the value of the parameter c for a ﬁxed total number of qubits N is equivalent to a straightforward re-scaling of the x-axis of our plots (displaying the number of qubits “m” in a typical environmental fragment), with log(s) as the re-scaling factor [R2]. It is also noteworthy that the initial rise of the mutual information or the Holevo bound is independent of the total number of qubits N in our environment [R2]. 6

∗ [email protected] [R1] M. A. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (2002). [R2] A. Touil, B. Yan, D. Girolami, S. Deffner, and W. H. Zurek, Eavesdropping on the decohering environment: Quantum darwinism, ampliﬁcation, and the origin of objective classical reality, arXiv preprint (2021). [R3] M. Koashi and A. Winter, Monogamy of quantum entanglement and other correlations, Phys. Rev. A 69, 022309 (2004). [R4] S. Hill and W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 5022 (1997). [R5] W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998). [R6] W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation and concurrence, Quantum Inf. Comput. 1, 27 (2001). [R7] V. Vedral, M. B. Plenio, M. A. Rippin, and P. L. Knight, Quantifying entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2275 (1997). [R8] Here, the notion of virtual qubit is a mathematical construct where the corresponding states can be mapped to a Hilbert space of dimension equal to two.