Echoing the recent Google success: Foundational Roots of Quantum Supremacy

The recent Google's claim on breakthrough in quantum computing is a gong signal for further analysis of foundational roots of (possible) superiority of some quantum algorithms over the corresponding classical algorithms. This note is a step in this direction. We start with critical analysis of rather common reference to entanglement and quantum nonlocality as the basic sources of quantum superiority. We elevate the role of the Bohr's {\it principle of complementarity}\footnote{} (PCOM) by interpreting the Bell-experiments as statistical tests of this principle. (Our analysis also includes comparison of classical vs genuine quantum entanglements.) After a brief presentation of PCOM and endowing it with the information interpretation, we analyze its computational counterpart. The main implication of PCOM is that by using the quantum representation of probability, one need not compute the joint probability distribution (jpd) for observables involved in the process of computation. Jpd's calculation is exponentially time consuming. Consequently, classical probabilistic algorithms involving calculation of jpd for $n$ random variables can be over-performed by quantum algorithms (for big values of $n).$ Quantum algorithms are based on quantum probability calculus. It is crucial that the latter modifies the classical formula of total probability (FTP). Probability inference based on the quantum version of FTP leads to constructive interference of probabilities increasing probabilities of some events. We also stress the role the basic feature of the genuine quantum superposition comparing with the classical wave superposition: generation of discrete events in measurements on superposition states. Finally, the problem of superiority of quantum computations is coupled with the quantum measurement problem and linearity of dynamics of the quantum state update.

[1]  Andrei Khrennikov Probability and Randomness: Quantum Versus Classical , 2016 .

[2]  Adam Paszkiewicz,et al.  On quantum information , 2012, ArXiv.

[3]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Bohr against Bell: complementarity versus nonlocality , 2017 .

[4]  P. Grangier,et al.  Experimental Evidence for a Photon Anticorrelation Effect on a Beam Splitter: A New Light on Single-Photon Interferences , 1986 .

[5]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Contextual Approach to Quantum Formalism , 2009 .

[6]  Anirban Mukherjee,et al.  Entanglement in Classical Optics , 2013, 1308.6154.

[7]  Andrei Khrennikov A Mathematician's Viewpoint to Bell's theorem: In Memory of Walter Philipp. In: Foundations of probability and physics-- 4 , 2007 .

[8]  Andrei Khrennikov Quantum probabilities and violation of CHSH-inequality from classical random signals and threshold type properly calibrated detectors , 2011 .

[9]  P. Dirac Principles of Quantum Mechanics , 1982 .

[10]  Robert J. C. Spreeuw Classical wave-optics analogy of quantum information processing , 2001 .

[11]  W. Zurek Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical , 2001, quant-ph/0105127.

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

[13]  John A. Gunnels,et al.  Leveraging Secondary Storage to Simulate Deep 54-qubit Sycamore Circuits , 2019, 1910.09534.

[14]  A. Zeilinger,et al.  Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics , 1989 .

[15]  Travis S. Humble,et al.  Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor , 2019, Nature.

[16]  Sergey V. Polyakov,et al.  Quantum Theory: Reconsideration of Foundations-4 , 2007 .

[17]  R. Ingarden,et al.  Information Dynamics and Open Systems: Classical and Quantum Approach , 1997 .

[18]  Stephen M. Barnett,et al.  Quantum information , 2005, Acta Physica Polonica A.

[19]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Foundations of Probability and Physics , 2002 .

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

[21]  Emmanuel M. Pothos,et al.  State Entropy and Differentiation Phenomenon , 2018, Entropy.

[22]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Quantum Versus Classical Entanglement: Eliminating the Issue of Quantum Nonlocality , 2019, Foundations of Physics.

[23]  Armen E. Allahverdyan,et al.  72 57 v 1 [ qu an tph ] 2 8 M ar 2 01 3 Statistical theory of ideal quantum measurement processes , 2014 .

[24]  Karl Svozil Comment on "Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor" , 2019 .

[25]  G Leuchs,et al.  Quantum correlations in separable multi-mode states and in classically entangled light , 2019, Reports on progress in physics. Physical Society.

[26]  Schumacher,et al.  Quantum coding. , 1995, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[27]  Gregg Jaeger,et al.  Quantum Objects: Non-Local Correlation, Causality and Objective Indefiniteness in the Quantum World , 2013 .

[28]  Mark Beck,et al.  Observing the quantum behavior of light in an undergraduate laboratory , 2004 .

[29]  G. Leuchs,et al.  Quantum−like nonseparable structures in optical beams , 2015 .

[30]  J. Bell,et al.  Speakable and Unspeakable in Quatum Mechanics , 1988 .

[31]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  ON AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF PREQUANTUM THEORY OF CLASSICAL RANDOM FIELDS: AN ESTIMATE FROM ABOVE OF THE COEFFICIENT OF SECOND-ORDER COHERENCE , 2012 .

[32]  Richard Phillips Feynman,et al.  The Concept of Probability in Quantum Mechanics , 1951 .

[33]  A. Kolmogoroff Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung , 1933 .

[34]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Get Rid of Nonlocality from Quantum Physics , 2019, Entropy.

[35]  R. Spreeuw A Classical Analogy of Entanglement , 1998 .