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 environ- ment 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 .