Quantum picturalism

Why did it take us 50 years since the birth of the quantum mechanical formalism to discover that unknown quantum states cannot be cloned? Yet, the proof of the ‘no-cloning theorem’ is easy, and its consequences and potential for applications are immense. Similarly, why did it take us 60 years to discover the conceptually intriguing and easily derivable physical phenomenon of ‘quantum teleportation’? We claim that the quantum mechanical formalism doesn't support our intuition, nor does it elucidate the key concepts that govern the behaviour of the entities that are subject to the laws of quantum physics. The arrays of complex numbers are kin to the arrays of 0s and 1s of the early days of computer programming practice. Using a technical term from computer science, the quantum mechanical formalism is ‘low-level’. In this review we present steps towards a diagrammatic ‘high-level’ alternative for the Hilbert space formalism, one which appeals to our intuition. The diagrammatic language as it currently stands allows for intuitive reasoning about interacting quantum systems, and trivialises many otherwise involved and tedious computations. It clearly exposes limitations such as the no-cloning theorem, and phenomena such as quantum teleportation. As a logic, it supports ‘automation’: it enables a (classical) computer to reason about interacting quantum systems, prove theorems, and design protocols. It allows for a wider variety of underlying theories, and can be easily modified, having the potential to provide the required step-stone towards a deeper conceptual understanding of quantum theory, as well as its unification with other physical theories. Specific applications discussed here are purely diagrammatic proofs of several quantum computational schemes, as well as an analysis of the structural origin of quantum non-locality. The underlying mathematical foundation of this high-level diagrammatic formalism relies on so-called monoidal categories, a product of a fairly recent development in mathematics. Its logical underpinning is linear logic, an even more recent product of research in logic and computer science. These monoidal categories do not only provide a natural foundation for physical theories, but also for proof theory, logic, programming languages, biology, cooking, … So the challenge is to discover the necessary additional pieces of structure that allow us to predict genuine quantum phenomena. These additional pieces of structure represent the capabilities nature has provided us with to manipulate entities subject to the laws of quantum theory.

[1]  P. Gregory,et al.  February , 1890, The Hospital.

[2]  G. G. Stokes.  "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[3]  Tobias J. Hagge,et al.  Physics , 1929, Nature.

[4]  J. Neumann.  Mathematische grundlagen der Quantenmechanik , 1935 .

[5]  Albert Einstein,et al.  Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? , 1935 .

[6]  E. Schrödinger.  Discussion of Probability Relations between Separated Systems , 1935, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[7]  S. Maclane,et al.  General theory of natural equivalences , 1945 .

[8]  Garrett Birkhoff.  Von Neumann and lattice theory , 1958 .

[9]  J. Schwinger.  UNITARY OPERATOR BASES. , 1960, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  Miss A.O. Penney.  (b) , 1974, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[11]  H. Dishkant,et al.  Logic of Quantum Mechanics , 1976 .

[12]  G. M. Kelly,et al.  Coherence for compact closed categories , 1980 .

[13]  G. Roger,et al.  Experimental Test of Bell's Inequalities Using Time- Varying Analyzers , 1982 .

[14]  W. Wootters,et al.  A single quantum cannot be cloned , 1982, Nature.

[15]  D. Dieks.  Communication by EPR devices , 1982 .

[16]  A. Carboni,et al.  Cartesian bicategories I , 1987 .

[17]  Kraus.  Complementary observables and uncertainty relations. , 1987, Physical review. D, Particles and fields.

[18]  Vincent Danos,et al.  The structure of multiplicatives , 1989, Arch. Math. Log..

[19]  A. Shimony,et al.  Bell’s theorem without inequalities , 1990 .

[20]  A. Joyal,et al.  The geometry of tensor calculus, I , 1991 .

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

[22]  Patrick Lincoln,et al.  Linear logic , 1992, SIGA.

[23]  Rudolf Haag,et al.  Local quantum physics : fields, particles, algebras , 1993 .

[24]  Charles H. Bennett,et al.  Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels. , 1993, Physical review letters.

[25]  Ekert,et al.  "Event-ready-detectors" Bell experiment via entanglement swapping. , 1993, Physical review letters.

[26]  J. Baez,et al.  Higher dimensional algebra and topological quantum field theory , 1995, q-alg/9503002.

[27]  M. Rédei.  Why John von Neumann did not Like the Hilbert Space formalism of quantum mechanics (and what he liked instead) , 1996 .

[28]  Greg Kuperberg.  Spiders for rank 2 Lie algebras , 1996 .

[29]  F. William Lawvere,et al.  Conceptual Mathematics: A First Introduction to Categories , 1997 .

[30]  Jeffrey Bub,et al.  Interpreting the Quantum World , 1997 .

[31]  I. Chuang,et al.  Quantum Teleportation is a Universal Computational Primitive , 1999, quant-ph/9908010.

[32]  B. Coecke,et al.  Operational Quantum Logic: An Overview , 2000, quant-ph/0008019.

[33]  S. Braunstein,et al.  Impossibility of deleting an unknown quantum state , 2000, Nature.

[34]  J. Cirac,et al.  Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways , 2000, quant-ph/0005115.

[35]  Albert Schwarz,et al.  Topological quantum field theories , 2000, hep-th/0011260.

[36]  Ingo Runkel,et al.  TFT construction of RCFT correlators I: Partition functions , 2002, hep-th/0204148.

[37]  H. Briegel,et al.  Measurement-based quantum computation on cluster states , 2003, quant-ph/0301052.

[38]  Joachim Kock,et al.  Frobenius Algebras and 2-D Topological Quantum Field Theories , 2004 .

[39]  J. Baez.  Quantum Quandaries: a Category-Theoretic Perspective , 2004, quant-ph/0404040.

[40]  Samson Abramsky,et al.  A categorical semantics of quantum protocols , 2004, Proceedings of the 19th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, 2004..

[41]  R. Laflamme,et al.  Time-reversal formalism applied to maximal bipartite entanglement: Theoretical and experimental exploration , 2005 .

[42]  B. Coecke.  Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics , 2005, quant-ph/0510032.

[43]  Ross Duncan,et al.  Types for quantum computing , 2006 .

[45]  C. Rovelli.  The Structural Foundations of Quantum Gravity , 2007 .

[46]  Bob Coecke,et al.  De-linearizing Linearity: Projective Quantum Axiomatics From Strong Compact Closure , 2005, QPL.

[47]  Thierry Paul,et al.  Quantum computation and quantum information , 2007, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science.

[48]  R. Spekkens.  Evidence for the epistemic view of quantum states: A toy theory , 2004, quant-ph/0401052.

[49]  Dusko Pavlovic,et al.  Quantum measurements without sums , 2007 .

[50]  Ross Street.  Quantum groups: a path to current algebra , 2007 .

[51]  Scott Morrison,et al.  A diagrammatic category for the representation theory of ( Uqsln ) , 2007, 0704.1503.

[52]  Peter Selinger,et al.  Dagger Compact Closed Categories and Completely Positive Maps: (Extended Abstract) , 2007, QPL.

[53]  Dominic R. Verity,et al.  Traced monoidal categories , 1996, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[54]  Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh.  Pregroup Analysis of Persian Sentences , 2007 .

[55]  Bob Coecke,et al.  Interacting Quantum Observables , 2008, ICALP.

[56]  B. Coecke.  Introducing categories to the practicing physicist , 2008, 0808.1032.

[57]  Bob Coecke,et al.  POVMs and Naimark's Theorem Without Sums , 2006, QPL.

[58]  Bill Edwards,et al.  Toy quantum categories , 2008, 0808.1037.

[59]  Martin Hofmann,et al.  Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces Are Complete for Traced Symmetric Monoidal Categories , 2008, Pillars of Computer Science.

[60]  Simon Perdrix,et al.  Bases in Diagrammatic Quantum Protocols , 2008, MFPS.

[61]  William Edwards.  The Group Theoretic Origin of Non−Locality For Qubits , 2009 .

[62]  Graphs States and the necessity of Euler Decomposition , 2009, 0902.0500.

[63]  S. Abramsky.  No-Cloning In Categorical Quantum Mechanics , 2009, 0910.2401.

[64]  Lucas Dixon,et al.  Graphical reasoning in compact closed categories for quantum computation , 2009, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[65]  John C. Baez,et al.  Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone , 2009, 0903.0340.

[66]  B. Coecke,et al.  Categories for the practising physicist , 2009, 0905.3010.

[67]  B. Coecke,et al.  Classical and quantum structuralism , 2009, 0904.1997.

[68]  P. Selinger.  A Survey of Graphical Languages for Monoidal Categories , 2009, 0908.3347.

[69]  Samson Abramsky,et al.  Introduction to Categories and Categorical Logic , 2011, ArXiv.

[70]  W. Marsden.  I and J , 2012 .

[71]  Peter Selinger,et al.  Finite Dimensional Hilbert Spaces are Complete for Dagger Compact Closed Categories (Extended Abstract) , 2011, QPL/DCM@ICALP.

[72]  Dusko Pavlovic,et al.  A new description of orthogonal bases , 2008, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science.