A Relational Time-Symmetric Framework for Analyzing the Quantum Computational Speedup

The usual representation of quantum algorithms is limited to the process of solving the problem. We extend it to the process of setting the problem. Bob, the problem setter, selects a problem-setting by the initial measurement. Alice, the problem solver, unitarily computes the corresponding solution and reads it by the final measurement. This simple extension creates a new perspective from which to see the quantum algorithm. First, it highlights the relevance of time-symmetric quantum mechanics to quantum computation: the problem-setting and problem solution, in their quantum version, constitute pre- and post-selection, hence the process as a whole is bound to be affected by both boundary conditions. Second, it forces us to enter into relational quantum mechanics. There must be a representation of the quantum algorithm with respect to Bob, and another one with respect to Alice, from whom the outcome of the initial measurement, specifying the setting and thus the solution of the problem, must be concealed. Time-symmetrizing the quantum algorithm to take into account both boundary conditions leaves the representation to Bob unaltered. It shows that the representation to Alice is a sum over histories in each of which she remains shielded from the information coming to her from the initial measurement, not from that coming to her backwards in time from the final measurement. In retrospect, all is as if she knew in advance, before performing her problem-solving action, half of the information that specifies the solution of the problem she will read in the future and could use this information to reach the solution with fewer computation steps (oracle queries). This elucidates the quantum computational speedup in all the quantum algorithms examined.

[1]  Quantum Oblivion: A Master Key for Many Quantum Riddles , 2014, 1411.2278.

[2]  J. Wheeler,et al.  Interaction with the Absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation , 1945 .

[3]  Christopher A. Fuchs,et al.  On Participatory Realism , 2016, 1601.04360.

[4]  David Finkelstein,et al.  SPACE--TIME CODE. , 1969 .

[5]  G. Long Grover algorithm with zero theoretical failure rate , 2001, quant-ph/0106071.

[6]  Daniel R. Simon,et al.  On the power of quantum computation , 1994, Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[7]  Eliahu Cohen,et al.  Completely top–down hierarchical structure in quantum mechanics , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  A. Elitzur,et al.  1−1=Counterfactual: on the potency and significance of quantum non-events , 2016, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[9]  Gilles Brassard,et al.  Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing , 1997, SIAM J. Comput..

[10]  Eliahu Cohen,et al.  Extraordinary interactions between light and matter determined by anomalous weak values , 2017, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[11]  Richard Healey,et al.  Quantum Theory: A Pragmatist Approach , 2010, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[12]  Lov K. Grover A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search , 1996, STOC '96.

[13]  Space-time structure in high energy interactions , 1969 .

[14]  Gilles Brassard,et al.  Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing , 2014, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[15]  Giuseppe Castagnoli,et al.  Theory of the quantum speed-up , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[16]  J. Cramer,et al.  The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics , 1986 .

[17]  J. Lebowitz,et al.  TIME SYMMETRY IN THE QUANTUM PROCESS OF MEASUREMENT , 1964 .

[18]  Satosi Watanabe,et al.  Symmetry of Physical Laws. Part III. Prediction and Retrodiction , 1955 .

[19]  D. Struppa,et al.  Quantum violation of the pigeonhole principle and the nature of quantum correlations , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  The 1927 Einstein and 1935 E.P.R. Paradox , 1980 .

[21]  Andris Ambainis,et al.  Forrelation: A Problem That Optimally Separates Quantum from Classical Computing , 2018, SIAM J. Comput..

[22]  Raymond Laflamme,et al.  An Introduction to Quantum Computing , 2007, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[23]  J. Neumann Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics , 1955 .

[24]  C. Fuchs QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism , 2010, 1003.5209.

[25]  R. Feynman Simulating physics with computers , 1999 .

[26]  D. Deutsch,et al.  Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation , 1992, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[27]  G. Castagnoli Completing the Physical Representation of Quantum Algorithms Provides a Quantitative Explanation of Their Computational Speedup , 2017, Foundations of Physics.

[28]  F. M. Toyama,et al.  Quantum search with certainty based on modified Grover algorithms: optimum choice of parameters , 2013, Quantum Inf. Process..

[29]  Artur Ekert,et al.  Quantum algorithms: entanglement–enhanced information processing , 1998, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[30]  Eliahu Cohen,et al.  Can a future choice affect a past measurement’s outcome? , 2015 .

[31]  D. Deutsch Quantum theory, the Church–Turing principle and the universal quantum computer , 1985, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[32]  Vaidman,et al.  How the result of a measurement of a component of the spin of a spin-1/2 particle can turn out to be 100. , 1988, Physical review letters.

[33]  Michele Mosca,et al.  The Hidden Subgroup Problem and Eigenvalue Estimation on a Quantum Computer , 1998, QCQC.

[34]  Ekert,et al.  Quantum cryptography based on Bell's theorem. , 1991, Physical review letters.

[35]  Determination of weak values of hermitian operators using only strong measurement , 2018 .

[36]  Andris Ambainis,et al.  Understanding Quantum Algorithms via Query Complexity , 2017, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM 2018).

[37]  Eliahu Cohen,et al.  Accommodating Retrocausality with Free Will , 2015, 1512.06689.

[38]  A. Elitzur,et al.  Non-Sequential Behavior of the Wave Function , 2001, quant-ph/0102109.

[39]  T. Toffoli,et al.  Conservative logic , 2002, Collision-Based Computing.

[40]  V. Vedral Ju n 20 09 The elusive source of quantum effectiveness , 2009 .

[41]  Charles H. Bennett,et al.  The thermodynamics of computation—a review , 1982 .

[42]  Emily Adlam,et al.  Spooky Action at a Temporal Distance , 2018, Entropy.

[43]  Eliahu Cohen,et al.  Relativistic independence bounds nonlocality , 2018, Science Advances.

[44]  Y. Aharonov,et al.  The Two-State Vector Formalism: An Updated Review , 2008 .

[45]  R. Jozsa Quantum algorithms , 2001 .

[46]  R. Jozsa Entanglement and Quantum Computation , 1997, quant-ph/9707034.

[47]  Peter W. Shor,et al.  Algorithms for Quantum Computation: Discrete Log and Factoring (Extended Abstract) , 1994, FOCS 1994.

[48]  C. Rovelli,et al.  Relational Quantum Mechanics , 2006 .

[49]  Nonlocal Position Changes of a Photon Revealed by Quantum Routers , 2017, Scientific reports.

[50]  Fumiaki Morikoshi M ay 2 00 6 Information-theoretic temporal Bell inequality and quantum computation , 2006 .

[51]  Eliahu Cohen,et al.  The Two-Time Interpretation and Macroscopic Time-Reversibility , 2017, Entropy.