Connect with us

Quantum

Astronomers Find Secret Planet-Making Ingredient: Magnetic Fields

Published

on

We like to think of ourselves as unique. That conceit may even be true when it comes to our cosmic neighborhood: Despite the fact that planets between the sizes of Earth and Neptune appear to be the most common in the cosmos, no such intermediate-mass planets can be found in the solar system.

The problem is, our best theories of planet formation — cast as they are from the molds of what we observe in our own backyard — haven’t been sufficient to truly explain how planets form. A new study, however, published in Nature Astronomy in February, demonstrates that by taking magnetism into account, astronomers may be able to explain the striking diversity of planets orbiting alien stars.

It’s too early to tell if magnetism is the key missing ingredient in our planet-formation models, but the new work is nevertheless “a very cool new result,” said Anders Johansen, a planetary scientist at the University of Copenhagen who was not involved with the work.

Until recently, gravity has been the star of the show. In the most commonly cited theory for how planets form, known as core accretion, hefty rocks orbiting a young sun violently collide over and over again, attaching to one another and growing larger over time. They eventually create objects with enough gravity to scoop up ever more material — first becoming a small planetesimal, then a larger protoplanet, then perhaps a full-blown planet.

Yet gravity does not act alone. The star constantly blows out radiation and winds that push material out into space. Rocky materials are harder to expel, so they coalesce nearer the sun into rocky planets. But the radiation blasts more easily vaporized elements and compounds — various ices, hydrogen, helium and other light elements — out into the distant frontiers of the star system, where they form gas giants such as Jupiter and Saturn and ice giants like Uranus and Neptune.

But a key problem with this idea is that for most would-be planetary systems, the winds spoil the party. The dust and gas needed to make a gas giant get blown out faster than a hefty, gassy world can form. Within just a few million years, this matter either tumbles into the host star or gets pushed out by those stellar winds into deep, inaccessible space.

For some time now, scientists have suspected that magnetism may also play a role. What, specifically, magnetic fields do has remained unclear, partly because of the difficulty in including magnetic fields alongside gravity in the computer models used to investigate planet formation. In astronomy, said Meredith MacGregor, an astronomer at the University of Colorado, Boulder, there’s a common refrain: “We don’t bring up magnetic fields, because they’re difficult.”

And yet magnetic fields are commonplace around planetesimals and protoplanets, coming either from the star itself or from the movement of starlight-washed gas and dust. In general terms, astronomers know that magnetic fields may be able to protect nascent planets from a star’s wind, or perhaps stir up the disk and move planet-making material about. “We’ve known for a long time that magnetic fields can be used as a shield and be used to disrupt things,” said Zoë Leinhardt, a planetary scientist at the University of Bristol who was not involved with the work. But details have been lacking, and the physics of magnetic fields at this scale are poorly understood.

“It’s hard enough to model the gravity of these disks in high enough resolution and to understand what’s going on,” said Ravit Helled, a planetary scientist at the University of Zurich. Adding magnetic fields is a significantly larger challenge.

In the new work, Helled, along with her Zurich colleague Lucio Mayer and Hongping Deng of the University of Cambridge, used the PizDaint supercomputer, the fastest in Europe, to run extremely high-resolution simulations that incorporated magnetic fields alongside gravity.

Magnetism seems to have three key effects. First, magnetic fields shield certain clumps of gas — those that may grow up to be smaller planets — from the destructive influence of stellar radiation. In addition, those magnetic cocoons also slow down the growth of what would have become supermassive planets. The magnetic pressure pushing out into space “stops the infalling of new matter,” said Mayer, “maybe not completely, but it reduces it a lot.”

The third apparent effect is both destructive and creative. Magnetic fields can stir gas up. In some cases, this influence disintegrates protoplanetary clumps. In others, it pushes gas closer together, which encourages clumping.

Taken together, these influences seem to result in a larger number of smaller worlds, and fewer giants. And while these simulations only examined the formation of gassy worlds, in reality those prototypical realms can accrete solid material too, perhaps becoming rocky realms instead.

Altogether, these simulations hint that magnetism may be partly responsible for the abundance of intermediate-mass exoplanets out there, whether they are smaller Neptunes or larger Earths.

“I like their results; I think it shows promise,” said Leinhardt. But even though the researchers had a supercomputer on their side, the resolution of individual worlds remains fuzzy. At this stage, we can’t be totally sure what is happening with magnetic fields on a protoplanetary scale. “This is more a proof of concept, that they can do this, they can marry the gravity and the magnetic fields to do something very interesting that I haven’t seen before.”

The researchers don’t claim that magnetism is the arbiter of the fate of all worlds. Instead, magnetism is just another ingredient in the planet-forming potpourri. In some cases, it may be important; in others, not so much. Which fits, once you consider the billions upon billions of individual planets out there in our own galaxy alone. “That’s what makes the field so exciting and lively,” said Helled: There is never, nor will there ever be, a lack of astronomical curiosities to explore and understand.

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa
Source: https://www.quantamagazine.org/simulation-reveals-how-magnetism-helps-form-planets-20210607/

Quantum

Visualizing the emission of a single photon with frequency and time resolved spectroscopy

Published

on

Aleksei Sharafiev1, Mathieu L. Juan2, Oscar Gargiulo1, Maximilian Zanner3, Stephanie Wögerer3, Juan José García-Ripoll4, and Gerhard Kirchmair1,3

1Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Technikerstrasse 21a, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
2Institut quantique and Département de Physique, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, J1K 2R1, Canada
3Institute for Experimental Physics, University of Innsbruck, Technikerstrasse 25, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
4Instituto de Fisica Fundamental IFF-CSIC, 28006 Madrid, Spain

Find this paper interesting or want to discuss? Scite or leave a comment on SciRate.

Abstract

At the dawn of Quantum Physics, Wigner and Weisskopf obtained a full analytical description (a $textit{photon portrait}$) of the emission of a single photon by a two-level system, using the basis of frequency modes (Weisskopf and Wigner, “Zeitschrift für Physik”, 63, 1930). A direct experimental reconstruction of this portrait demands an accurate measurement of a time resolved fluorescence spectrum, with high sensitivity to the off-resonant frequencies and ultrafast dynamics describing the photon creation. In this work we demonstrate such an experimental technique in a superconducting waveguide Quantum Electrodynamics (wQED) platform, using single transmon qubit and two coupled transmon qubits as quantum emitters. In both scenarios, the photon portraits agree quantitatively with the predictions of the input-output theory and qualitatively with Wigner-Weisskopf theory. We believe that our technique allows not only for interesting visualization of fundamental principles, but may serve as a tool, e.g. to realize multi-dimensional spectroscopy in waveguide Quantum Electrodynamics.

We report on a direct measurement of a single photon “wave function” (electrical field amplitude distribution) in frequency and time domains. The “wavefunction” has been measured directly (without any post-processing) taking advantage of superconducting quantum circuits platform for the first time. We demonstrate the technique on a rather simple example of a two-level system emitting a single excitation into a waveguide – the situation with well known analytical description. This technique can be readily applied, for instance, to study near field radiation from an artificial atom or to realize a multi-dimensional spectroscopy of an artificial matter.

► BibTeX data

► References

[1] V. Weisskopf and E. Wigner. Berechnung der natürlichen Linienbreite auf Grund der Diracschen Lichttheorie. Zeitschrift für Physik, 63 (1): 54–73, January 1930. ISSN 0044-3328. 10.1007/​BF01336768.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF01336768

[2] Marlan O. Scully and M. Suhail Zubairy. Quantum optics. Cambridge University Press, September 1997. 10.1017/​CBO9780511813993.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1017/​CBO9780511813993

[3] J. E. Sipe. Photon wave functions. Physical Review A, 52 (3): 1875–1883, September 1995. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.52.1875.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.52.1875

[4] Iwo Bialynicki-Birula. On the wave function of the photon. Acta Physica Polonica A, 86 (1-2): 97–111, August 1994. 10.12693/​APHYSPOLA.86.97.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.12693/​APHYSPOLA.86.97

[5] Iwo Bialynicki-Birula. Progress in Optics, volume XXXVI, chapter Photon wave function, pages 245–294. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1996. 10.1016/​S0079-6638(08)70316-0.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​S0079-6638(08)70316-0

[6] Jeff S. Lundeen, Brandon Sutherland, Aabid Patel, Corey Stewart, and Charles Bamber. Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction. Nature, 474 (7350): 188–191, June 2011. ISSN 1476-4687. 10.1038/​nature10120.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​nature10120

[7] Alex O. C. Davis, Valérian Thiel, Michał Karpiński, and Brian J. Smith. Measuring the Single-Photon Temporal-Spectral Wave Function. Physical Review Letters, 121 (8): 083602, August 2018. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.121.083602.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.121.083602

[8] T. D. Newton and E. P. Wigner. Localized States for Elementary Systems. Reviews of Modern Physics, 21 (3): 400–406, July 1949. 10.1103/​RevModPhys.21.400.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​RevModPhys.21.400

[9] Srikanth J. Srinivasan, Neereja M. Sundaresan, Darius Sadri, Yanbing Liu, Jay M. Gambetta, Terri Yu, S. M. Girvin, and Andrew A. Houck. Time-reversal symmetrization of spontaneous emission for quantum state transfer. Physical Review A, 89 (3): 033857, March 2014. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.89.033857.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.89.033857

[10] M. Pechal, L. Huthmacher, C. Eichler, S. Zeytinoğlu, A. A. Abdumalikov, S. Berger, A. Wallraff, and S. Filipp. Microwave-Controlled Generation of Shaped Single Photons in Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics. Physical Review X, 4 (4): 041010, October 2014. 10.1103/​PhysRevX.4.041010.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevX.4.041010

[11] P. Forn-Díaz, J. J. García-Ripoll, B. Peropadre, M. A. Yurtalan, J.-L. Orgiazzi, R. Belyansky, C. M. Wilson, and A. Lupascu. Ultrastrong coupling of a single artificial atom to an electromagnetic continuum in the nonperturbative regime. Nature Physics, 13 (1): 39–43, October 2016. ISSN 1745-2473, 1745-2481. 10.1038/​nphys3905.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​nphys3905

[12] N. K. Langford, R. Sagastizabal, M. Kounalakis, C. Dickel, A. Bruno, F. Luthi, D. J. Thoen, A. Endo, and L. DiCarlo. Experimentally simulating the dynamics of quantum light and matter at deep-strong coupling. Nature Communications, 8 (1): 1715, November 2017. ISSN 2041-1723. 10.1038/​s41467-017-01061-x.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41467-017-01061-x

[13] Jochen Braumüller, Michael Marthaler, Andre Schneider, Alexander Stehli, Hannes Rotzinger, Martin Weides, and Alexey V. Ustinov. Analog quantum simulation of the Rabi model in the ultra-strong coupling regime. Nature Communications, 8 (1): 779, October 2017. ISSN 2041-1723. 10.1038/​s41467-017-00894-w.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41467-017-00894-w

[14] Yanbing Liu and Andrew A. Houck. Quantum electrodynamics near a photonic bandgap. Nature Physics, 13 (1): 48–52, January 2017. ISSN 1745-2481. 10.1038/​nphys3834.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​nphys3834

[15] Nicholas T. Bronn, Yanbing Liu, Jared B. Hertzberg, Antonio D. Córcoles, Andrew A. Houck, Jay M. Gambetta, and Jerry M. Chow. Broadband filters for abatement of spontaneous emission in circuit quantum electrodynamics. Applied Physics Letters, 107 (17): 172601, October 2015. ISSN 0003-6951. 10.1063/​1.4934867.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.4934867

[16] I.-C. Hoi, A. F. Kockum, L. Tornberg, A. Pourkabirian, G. Johansson, P. Delsing, and C. M. Wilson. Probing the quantum vacuum with an artificial atom in front of a mirror. Nature Physics, 11 (12): 1045–1049, 2015. ISSN 1745-2481. 10.1038/​nphys3484.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​nphys3484

[17] J. A. Mlynek, A. A. Abdumalikov, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff. Observation of Dicke superradiance for two artificial atoms in a cavity with high decay rate. Nature Communications, 5: 5186, November 2014. ISSN 2041-1723. 10.1038/​ncomms6186.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​ncomms6186

[18] Mohammad Mirhosseini, Eunjong Kim, Xueyue Zhang, Alp Sipahigil, Paul B. Dieterle, Andrew J. Keller, Ana Asenjo-Garcia, Darrick E. Chang, and Oskar Painter. Cavity quantum electrodynamics with atom-like mirrors. Nature, 569 (7758): 692–697, May 2019. ISSN 1476-4687. 10.1038/​s41586-019-1196-1.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41586-019-1196-1

[19] G. Wendin. Quantum information processing with superconducting circuits: a review. Reports on Progress in Physics, 80 (10): 106001, September 2017. ISSN 0034-4885. 10.1088/​1361-6633/​aa7e1a.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1361-6633/​aa7e1a

[20] Carlton M. Caves. Quantum limits on noise in linear amplifiers. Physical Review D, 26 (8): 1817–1839, October 1982. 10.1103/​PhysRevD.26.1817.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevD.26.1817

[21] N. Bergeal, F. Schackert, M. Metcalfe, R. Vijay, V. E. Manucharyan, L. Frunzio, D. E. Prober, R. J. Schoelkopf, S. M. Girvin, and M. H. Devoret. Phase-preserving amplification near the quantum limit with a Josephson ring modulator. Nature, 465 (7294): 64–68, May 2010. ISSN 1476-4687. 10.1038/​nature09035.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​nature09035

[22] M. Dalmonte, S. I. Mirzaei, P. R. Muppalla, D. Marcos, P. Zoller, and G. Kirchmair. Realizing dipolar spin models with arrays of superconducting qubits. Physical Review B, 92 (17): 174507, November 2015. 10.1103/​PhysRevB.92.174507.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevB.92.174507

[23] Kevin Lalumière, Barry C. Sanders, A. F. van Loo, A. Fedorov, A. Wallraff, and A. Blais. Input-output theory for waveguide QED with an ensemble of inhomogeneous atoms. Physical Review A, 88 (4): 043806, October 2013. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.88.043806.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.88.043806

[24] A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. M. Gambetta, J. A. Schreier, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf. Generating single microwave photons in a circuit. Nature, 449 (7160): 328–331, September 2007. ISSN 1476-4687. 10.1038/​nature06126.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​nature06126

[25] A. A. Abdumalikov, O. V. Astafiev, Yu. A. Pashkin, Y. Nakamura, and J. S. Tsai. Dynamics of Coherent and Incoherent Emission from an Artificial Atom in a 1d Space. Physical Review Letters, 107 (4): 043604, July 2011. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.107.043604.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.107.043604

[26] C. Eichler, D. Bozyigit, C. Lang, L. Steffen, J. Fink, and A. Wallraff. Experimental State Tomography of Itinerant Single Microwave Photons. Physical Review Letters, 106 (22): 220503, June 2011. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.106.220503.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.106.220503

[27] F. Mallet, M. A. Castellanos-Beltran, H. S. Ku, S. Glancy, E. Knill, K. D. Irwin, G. C. Hilton, L. R. Vale, and K. W. Lehnert. Quantum State Tomography of an Itinerant Squeezed Microwave Field. Physical Review Letters, 106 (22): 220502, June 2011. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.106.220502.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.106.220502

[28] Tomás Ramos and Juan José García-Ripoll. Multiphoton scattering tomography with coherent states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119: 153601, Oct 2017. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.119.153601.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.119.153601

[29] Peter C. Chen. An Introduction to Coherent Multidimensional Spectroscopy. Applied Spectroscopy, 70 (12): 1937–1951, December 2016. ISSN 0003-7028. 10.1177/​0003702816669730.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1177/​0003702816669730

[30] A. Lukashenko and A. V. Ustinov. Improved powder filters for qubit measurements. Review of Scientific Instruments, 79 (1): 014701, January 2008. ISSN 0034-6748. 10.1063/​1.2827515.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.2827515

[31] Florent Lecocq, Ioan M Pop, Zhihui Peng, Iulian Matei, Thierry Crozes, Thierry Fournier, Cécile Naud, Wiebke Guichard, and Olivier Buisson. Junction fabrication by shadow evaporation without a suspended bridge. Nanotechnology, 22 (31): 315302, August 2011. ISSN 0957-4484, 1361-6528. 10.1088/​0957-4484/​22/​31/​315302.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​0957-4484/​22/​31/​315302

[32] J.R. Johansson, P.D. Nation, and Franco Nori. Qutip: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems. Computer Physics Communications, 183 (8): 1760–1772, 2012. ISSN 0010-4655. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.cpc.2012.02.021.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.cpc.2012.02.021

[33] J.R. Johansson, P.D. Nation, and Franco Nori. Qutip 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems. Computer Physics Communications, 184 (4): 1234–1240, 2013. ISSN 0010-4655. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.cpc.2012.11.019.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.cpc.2012.11.019

Cited by

Could not fetch Crossref cited-by data during last attempt 2021-06-10 15:06:44: Could not fetch cited-by data for 10.22331/q-2021-06-10-474 from Crossref. This is normal if the DOI was registered recently. On SAO/NASA ADS no data on citing works was found (last attempt 2021-06-10 15:06:45).

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa
Source: https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2021-06-10-474/

Continue Reading

Quantum

Variational quantum solver employing the PDS energy functional

Published

on

Bo Peng and Karol Kowalski

Physical and Computational Science Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington 99354, United States of America

Find this paper interesting or want to discuss? Scite or leave a comment on SciRate.

Abstract

Recently a new class of quantum algorithms that are based on the quantum computation of the connected moment expansion has been reported to find the ground and excited state energies. In particular, the Peeters-Devreese-Soldatov (PDS) formulation is found variational and bearing the potential for further combining with the existing variational quantum infrastructure. Here we find that the PDS formulation can be considered as a new energy functional of which the PDS energy gradient can be employed in a conventional variational quantum solver. In comparison with the usual variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) and the original static PDS approach, this new variational quantum solver offers an effective approach to navigate the dynamics to be free from getting trapped in the local minima that refer to different states, and achieve high accuracy at finding the ground state and its energy through the rotation of the trial wave function of modest quality, thus improves the accuracy and efficiency of the quantum simulation. We demonstrate the performance of the proposed variational quantum solver for toy models, H$_2$ molecule, and strongly correlated planar H$_4$ system in some challenging situations. In all the case studies, the proposed variational quantum approach outperforms the usual VQE and static PDS calculations even at the lowest order. We also discuss the limitations of the proposed approach and its preliminary execution for model Hamiltonian on the NISQ device.

In this paper, we developed a new effective cost function for the variational quantum solver, which in principle can not only help avoid some Barren Plateaus, but also converge to ground state energies outside of the ansatz class, and thus outperforms the conventional one in some challenging cases.

► BibTeX data

► References

[1] S. Amari. Natural gradient works efficiently in learning. Neural Computation, 10 (2): 251–276, 1998. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1162/​089976698300017746.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1162/​089976698300017746

[2] Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C. Bardin, Rami Barends, Sergio Boixo, Michael Broughton, Bob B. Buckley, David A. Buell, Brian Burkett, Nicholas Bushnell, Yu Chen, Zijun Chen, Benjamin Chiaro, Roberto Collins, William Courtney, Sean Demura, Andrew Dunsworth, Edward Farhi, Austin Fowler, Brooks Foxen, Craig Gidney, Marissa Giustina, Rob Graff, Steve Habegger, Matthew P. Harrigan, Alan Ho, Sabrina Hong, Trent Huang, William J. Huggins, Lev Ioffe, Sergei V. Isakov, Evan Jeffrey, Zhang Jiang, Cody Jones, Dvir Kafri, Kostyantyn Kechedzhi, Julian Kelly, Seon Kim, Paul V. Klimov, Alexander Korotkov, Fedor Kostritsa, David Landhuis, Pavel Laptev, Mike Lindmark, Erik Lucero, Orion Martin, John M. Martinis, Jarrod R. McClean, Matt McEwen, Anthony Megrant, Xiao Mi, Masoud Mohseni, Wojciech Mruczkiewicz, Josh Mutus, Ofer Naaman, Matthew Neeley, Charles Neill, Hartmut Neven, Murphy Yuezhen Niu, Thomas E. O’Brien, Eric Ostby, Andre Petukhov, Harald Putterman, Chris Quintana, Pedram Roushan, Nicholas C. Rubin, Daniel Sank, Kevin J. Satzinger, Vadim Smelyanskiy, Doug Strain, Kevin J. Sung, Marco Szalay, Tyler Y. Takeshita, Amit Vainsencher, Theodore White, Nathan Wiebe, Z. Jamie Yao, Ping Yeh, and Adam Zalcman. Hartree-fock on a superconducting qubit quantum computer. Science, 369 (6507): 1084–1089, 2020. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1126/​science.abb9811.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1126/​science.abb9811

[3] Ryan Babbush, Nathan Wiebe, Jarrod McClean, James McClain, Hartmut Neven, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. Low-depth quantum simulation of materials. Phys. Rev. X, 8: 011044, 2018. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevX.8.011044.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevX.8.011044

[4] Rodney J. Bartlett, Stanisław A. Kucharski, and Jozef Noga. Alternative coupled-cluster ansätze II. the unitary coupled-cluster method. Chem. Phys. Lett., 155 (1): 133–140, 1989. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​s0009-2614(89)87372-5.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​s0009-2614(89)87372-5

[5] Dominic W Berry, Graeme Ahokas, Richard Cleve, and Barry C Sanders. Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating sparse hamiltonians. Comm. Math. Phys., 270 (2): 359–371, 2007. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00220-006-0150-x.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00220-006-0150-x

[6] Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, Richard Cleve, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D. Somma. Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated taylor series. Phys. Rev. Lett., 114: 090502, 2015. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.114.090502.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.114.090502

[7] Tatiana A. Bespalova and Oleksandr Kyriienko. Hamiltonian operator approximation for energy measurement and ground state preparation. preprint, arXiv:2009.03351, 2020. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​2009.03351.
arXiv:2009.03351

[8] N. Bogolubov. On the theory of superfluidity. J. Phys., 11: 23–32, 1947. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1142/​9789814612524_0001.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1142/​9789814612524_0001

[9] Sergey Bravyi, Jay M. Gambetta, Antonio Mezzacapo, and Kristan Temme. Tapering off qubits to simulate fermionic hamiltonians. preprint, arXiv:1701.08213, 2017. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1701.08213.
arXiv:1701.08213

[10] M. Cerezo, Akira Sone, Tyler Volkoff, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles. Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits. Nat. Commun., 12 (1), 2021. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41467-021-21728-w.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41467-021-21728-w

[11] Marco Cerezo and Patrick J Coles. Impact of barren plateaus on the hessian and higher order derivatives. preprint, arXiv:2008.07454, 2020. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​2008.07454. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​2058-9565/​abf51a.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​2058-9565/​abf51a
arXiv:2008.07454

[12] Andrew M Childs. On the relationship between continuous-and discrete-time quantum walk. Comm. Math. Phys., 294 (2): 581–603, 2010. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00220-009-0930-1.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00220-009-0930-1

[13] Andrew M. Childs and Nathan Wiebe. Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary operations. Quantum Inf. Comput., 12 (11-12): 0901–0924, 2012. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.26421/​qic12.11-12.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.26421/​qic12.11-12

[14] Daniel Claudino, Bo Peng, Nicholas P. Bauman, Karol Kowalski, and Travis S. Humble. Improving the accuracy and efficiency of quantum connected moments expansions. Quantum Sci. Technol., accepted, 2021. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​2058-9565/​ac0292.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​2058-9565/​ac0292

[15] Richard Cleve, Artur Ekert, Chiara Macchiavello, and Michele Mosca. On quantum algorithms. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 454 (1969): 339–354, 1998. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​(SICI)1099-0526(199809/​10)4:1<33::AID-CPLX10>3.0.CO;2-U.
3.0.CO;2-U”>https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​(SICI)1099-0526(199809/​10)4:1<33::AID-CPLX10>3.0.CO;2-U

[16] J. I. Colless, V. V. Ramasesh, D. Dahlen, M. S. Blok, M. E. Kimchi-Schwartz, J. R. McClean, J. Carter, W. A. de Jong, and I. Siddiqi. Computation of molecular spectra on a quantum processor with an error-resilient algorithm. Phys. Rev. X, 8: 011021, 2018. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevX.8.011021.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevX.8.011021

[17] Francesco A Evangelista, Garnet Kin-Lic Chan, and Gustavo E Scuseria. Exact parameterization of fermionic wave functions via unitary coupled cluster theory. J. Chem. Phys., 151 (24): 244112, 2019. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.5133059.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.5133059

[18] Vassilios Fessatidis, Jay D Mancini, Robert Murawski, and Samuel P Bowen. A generalized moments expansion. Phys. Lett. A, 349 (5): 320–323, 2006. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.physleta.2005.09.039.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.physleta.2005.09.039

[19] Vassilios Fessatidis, Frank A Corvino, Jay D Mancini, Robert K Murawski, and John Mikalopas. Analytic properties of moments matrices. Phys. Lett. A, 374 (28): 2890–2893, 2010. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.physleta.2010.05.010.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.physleta.2010.05.010

[20] R. P. Feynman. Slow electrons in a polar crystal. Phys. Rev., 97: 660–665, 1955. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRev.97.660.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRev.97.660

[21] András Gilyén, Yuan Su, Guang Hao Low, and Nathan Wiebe. Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: Exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2019, page 193–204, New York, NY, USA, 2019. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450367059. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1145/​3313276.3316366.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1145/​3313276.3316366

[22] Pranav Gokhale, Olivia Angiuli, Yongshan Ding, Kaiwen Gui, Teague Tomesh, Martin Suchara, Margaret Martonosi, and Frederic T. Chong. $o(n^3)$ measurement cost for variational quantum eigensolver on molecular hamiltonians. IEEE Trans. Qunatum Eng., 1: 1–24, 2020. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​TQE.2020.3035814.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​TQE.2020.3035814

[23] Jérôme F. Gonthier, Maxwell D. Radin, Corneliu Buda, Eric J. Doskocil, Clena M. Abuan, and Jhonathan Romero. Identifying challenges towards practical quantum advantage through resource estimation: the measurement roadblock in the variational quantum eigensolver. preprint, arXiv:2012.04001, 2020. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​2012.04001.
arXiv:2012.04001

[24] Harper R Grimsley, Sophia E Economou, Edwin Barnes, and Nicholas J Mayhall. An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer. Nat. Commun., 10 (1): 1–9, 2019. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41467-019-10988-2.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41467-019-10988-2

[25] Gian Giacomo Guerreschi and Mikhail Smelyanskiy. Practical optimization for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. preprint, arXiv:1701.01450, 2017. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1701.01450.
arXiv:1701.01450

[26] T. Häner, D. S. Steiger, M. Smelyanskiy, and M. Troyer. High performance emulation of quantum circuits. In SC ’16: Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pages 866–874, Nov 2016. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​SC.2016.73.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​SC.2016.73

[27] Mark R Hoffmann and Jack Simons. A unitary multiconfigurational coupled-cluster method: Theory and applications. J. Chem. Phys., 88 (2): 993–1002, 1988. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.454125.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.454125

[28] William J. Huggins, Jarrod R. McClean, Nicholas C. Rubin, Zhang Jiang, Nathan Wiebe, K. Birgitta Whaley, and Ryan Babbush. Efficient and noise resilient measurements for quantum chemistry on near-term quantum computers. npj Quantum Inf., 7 (1): 23, 2021. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41534-020-00341-7.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41534-020-00341-7

[29] William James Huggins, Joonho Lee, Unpil Baek, Bryan O’Gorman, and K Birgitta Whaley. A non-orthogonal variational quantum eigensolver. New J. Phys., 22: 073009, 2020. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​ab867b.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​ab867b

[30] Artur F. Izmaylov, Tzu-Ching Yen, Robert A. Lang, and Vladyslav Verteletskyi. Unitary partitioning approach to the measurement problem in the variational quantum eigensolver method. J. Chem. Theory Comput., 16 (1): 190–195, 2020. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1021/​acs.jctc.9b00791.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1021/​acs.jctc.9b00791

[31] Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta. Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets. Nature, 549: 242–246, 2017. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​nature23879.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​nature23879

[32] Abhinav Kandala, Kristan Temme, Antonio D Corcoles, Antonio Mezzacapo, Jerry M Chow, and Jay M Gambetta. Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor. Nature, 567: 491–495, 2019. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41586-019-1040-7.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41586-019-1040-7

[33] Peter J Knowles. On the validity and applicability of the connected moments expansion. Chem. Phys. Lett., 134 (6): 512–518, 1987. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​0009-2614(87)87184-1.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​0009-2614(87)87184-1

[34] Karol Kowalski and Bo Peng. Quantum simulations employing connected moments expansions. J. Chem. Phys., 153 (20): 201102, 2020. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​5.0030688.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​5.0030688

[35] Werner Kutzelnigg. Error analysis and improvements of coupled-cluster theory. Theor. Chim. Acta, 80 (4-5): 349–386, 1991. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF01117418.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF01117418

[36] Oleksandr Kyriienko. Quantum inverse iteration algorithm for programmable quantum simulators. npj Quantum Inf., 6 (1): 1–8, 2020. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41534-019-0239-7.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41534-019-0239-7

[37] Joonho Lee, William J. Huggins, Martin Head-Gordon, and K. Birgitta Whaley. Generalized unitary coupled cluster wave functions for quantum computation. J. Chem. Theory Comput., 15 (1): 311–324, 2019. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1021/​acs.jctc.8b01004.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1021/​acs.jctc.8b01004

[38] A Luis and J Peřina. Optimum phase-shift estimation and the quantum description of the phase difference. Phys. Rev. A, 54 (5): 4564, 1996. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.54.4564.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.54.4564

[39] Jay D Mancini, Yu Zhou, and Peter F Meier. Analytic properties of connected moments expansions. Int. J. Quantum Chem., 50 (2): 101–107, 1994. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​qua.560500203.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​qua.560500203

[40] Jay D Mancini, William J Massano, Janice D Prie, and Yu Zhuo. Avoidance of singularities in moments expansions: a numerical study. Phys. Lett. A, 209 (1-2): 107–112, 1995. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​0375-9601(95)00757-2.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​0375-9601(95)00757-2

[41] Carlos Ortiz Marrero, Mária Kieferová, and Nathan Wiebe. Entanglement induced barren plateaus. preprint, arXiv:2010.15968, 2020. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​2010.15968.
arXiv:2010.15968

[42] Sam McArdle, Tyson Jones, Suguru Endo, Ying Li, Simon C Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan. Variational ansatz-based quantum simulation of imaginary time evolution. npj Quantum Inf., 5 (1): 1–6, 2019. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41534-019-0187-2.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41534-019-0187-2

[43] Sam McArdle, Suguru Endo, Alan Aspuru-Guzik, Simon C Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan. Quantum computational chemistry. Rev. Mod. Phys., 92 (1): 015003, 2020. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​RevModPhys.92.015003.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​RevModPhys.92.015003

[44] Jarrod R McClean, Jonathan Romero, Ryan Babbush, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. New J. Phys., 18 (2): 023023, 2016. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​18/​2/​023023.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​18/​2/​023023

[45] Jarrod R McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, and Hartmut Neven. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes. Nat. Commun., 9 (1): 1–6, 2018. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41467-018-07090-4.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41467-018-07090-4

[46] Mario Motta, Chong Sun, Adrian TK Tan, Matthew J O’Rourke, Erika Ye, Austin J Minnich, Fernando GSL Brandão, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution. Nat. Phys., 16 (2): 205–210, 2020. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41567-019-0704-4.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41567-019-0704-4

[47] Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 10th edition, 2011. ISBN 1107002176, 9781107002173. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1017/​CBO9780511976667.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1017/​CBO9780511976667

[48] Robert M Parrish and Peter L McMahon. Quantum filter diagonalization: Quantum eigendecomposition without full quantum phase estimation. preprint, arXiv:1909.08925, 2019. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1909.08925.
arXiv:1909.08925

[49] François M Peeters and Jozef T Devreese. Upper bounds for the free energy. a generalisation of the bogolubov inequality and the feynman inequality. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 17 (3): 625, 1984. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​0305-4470/​17/​3/​024.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​0305-4470/​17/​3/​024

[50] Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J Love, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L O’brien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nat. Commun., 5: 4213, 2014. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​ncomms5213.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​ncomms5213

[51] Arthur Pesah, M Cerezo, Samson Wang, Tyler Volkoff, Andrew T Sornborger, and Patrick J Coles. Absence of barren plateaus in quantum convolutional neural networks. preprint, arXiv:2011.02966, 2020. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​2011.02966.
arXiv:2011.02966

[52] David Poulin, Alexei Kitaev, Damian S. Steiger, Matthew B. Hastings, and Matthias Troyer. Quantum algorithm for spectral measurement with a lower gate count. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121: 010501, 2018. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.121.010501.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.121.010501

[53] John Preskill. Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond. Quantum, 2: 79, 2018. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2018-08-06-79.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2018-08-06-79

[54] Janice D Prie, D Schwall, Jay D Mancini, D Kraus, and William J Massano. On the relation between the connected-moments expansion and the lanczos variational scheme. Nuov. Cim. D, 16 (5): 433–448, 1994. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF02463732.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF02463732

[55] Jonathan Romero, Ryan Babbush, Jarrod R McClean, Cornelius Hempel, Peter J Love, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. Strategies for quantum computing molecular energies using the unitary coupled cluster ansatz. Quantum Sci. Technol., 4 (1): 014008, 2018. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​2058-9565/​aad3e4.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​2058-9565/​aad3e4

[56] Nicholas C Rubin, Ryan Babbush, and McClean Jarrod. Application of fermionic marginal constraints to hybrid quantum algorithms. New J. Phys., 20: 053020, 2018. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​aab919.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​aab919

[57] Maria Schuld, Ville Bergholm, Christian Gogolin, Josh Izaac, and Nathan Killoran. Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hardware. Phys. Rev. A, 99: 032331, 2019. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.99.032331.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.99.032331

[58] Jacob T. Seeley, Martin J. Richard, and Peter J. Love. The bravyi-kitaev transformation for quantum computation of electronic structure. J. Chem. Phys., 137 (22): 224109, 2012. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.4768229.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.4768229

[59] Kazuhiro Seki and Seiji Yunoki. Quantum power method by a superposition of time-evolved states. PRX Quantum, 2: 010333, 2021. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PRXQuantum.2.010333.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PRXQuantum.2.010333

[60] Yangchao Shen, Xiang Zhang, Shuaining Zhang, Jing-Ning Zhang, Man-Hong Yung, and Kihwan Kim. Quantum implementation of the unitary coupled cluster for simulating molecular electronic structure. Phys. Rev. A, 95: 020501, 2017. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.95.020501.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.95.020501

[61] Peter W Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM Rev., 41 (2): 303–332, 1999. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1137/​S0036144598347011.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1137/​S0036144598347011

[62] Andrey V Soldatov. Generalized variational principle in quantum mechanics. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B, 9 (22): 2899–2936, 1995. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1142/​S0217979295001087.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1142/​S0217979295001087

[63] James Stokes, Josh Izaac, Nathan Killoran, and Giuseppe Carleo. Quantum Natural Gradient. Quantum, 4: 269, 2020. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2020-05-25-269.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2020-05-25-269

[64] Andrew G Taube and Rodney J Bartlett. New perspectives on unitary coupled-cluster theory. Int. J. Quantum Chem., 106 (15): 3393–3401, 2006. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​qua.21198.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​qua.21198

[65] Nazakat Ullah. Removal of the singularity in the moment-expansion formalism. Phys. Rev. A, 51 (3): 1808, 1995. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.51.1808.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.51.1808

[66] Alexey Uvarov and Jacob Biamonte. On barren plateaus and cost function locality in variational quantum algorithms. J. Phys. A: Math. and Theo., 54: 245301, 2021. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1751-8121/​abfac7.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1751-8121/​abfac7

[67] Harish J. Vallury, Michael A. Jones, Charles D. Hill, and Lloyd C. L. Hollenberg. Quantum computed moments correction to variational estimates. Quantum, 4: 373, 2020. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2020-12-15-373.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2020-12-15-373

[68] Samson Wang, Enrico Fontana, Marco Cerezo, Kunal Sharma, Akira Sone, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms. preprint, arXiv:2007.14384, 2020. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​2007.14384.
arXiv:2007.14384

[69] Dave Wecker, Matthew B. Hastings, and Matthias Troyer. Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms. Phys. Rev. A, 92: 042303, 2015. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.92.042303.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.92.042303

[70] David Wierichs, Christian Gogolin, and Michael Kastoryano. Avoiding local minima in variational quantum eigensolvers with the natural gradient optimizer. Phys. Rev. Research, 2: 043246, 2020. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevResearch.2.043246.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevResearch.2.043246

[71] Naoki Yamamoto. On the natural gradient for variational quantum eigensolver. preprint, arXiv:1909.05074, 2019. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1909.05074.
arXiv:1909.05074

[72] Tzu-Ching Yen, Vladyslav Verteletskyi, and Artur F. Izmaylov. Measuring all compatible operators in one series of single-qubit measurements using unitary transformations. J. Chem. Theory Comput., 16 (4): 2400–2409, 2020. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1021/​acs.jctc.0c00008.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1021/​acs.jctc.0c00008

[73] Xiao Yuan, Suguru Endo, Qi Zhao, Ying Li, and Simon C. Benjamin. Theory of variational quantum simulation. Quantum, 3: 191, 2019. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2019-10-07-191.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2019-10-07-191

Cited by

[1] Daniel Claudino, Bo Peng, Nicholas P. Bauman, Karol Kowalski, and Travis S. Humble, “Improving the accuracy and efficiency of quantum connected moments expansions”, arXiv:2103.09124.

[2] Edgar Andres Ruiz Guzman and Denis Lacroix, “Predicting ground state, excited states and long-time evolution of many-body systems from short-time evolution on a quantum computer”, arXiv:2104.08181.

[3] Daniel Claudino, Alexander J. McCaskey, and Dmitry I. Lyakh, “A backend-agnostic, quantum-classical framework for simulations of chemistry in C++”, arXiv:2105.01619.

[4] Dmitry A. Fedorov, Bo Peng, Niranjan Govind, and Yuri Alexeev, “VQE Method: A Short Survey and Recent Developments”, arXiv:2103.08505.

The above citations are from SAO/NASA ADS (last updated successfully 2021-06-10 14:55:33). The list may be incomplete as not all publishers provide suitable and complete citation data.

Could not fetch Crossref cited-by data during last attempt 2021-06-10 14:55:31: Could not fetch cited-by data for 10.22331/q-2021-06-10-473 from Crossref. This is normal if the DOI was registered recently.

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa
Source: https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2021-06-10-473/

Continue Reading

Quantum

Certifying dimension of quantum systems by sequential projective measurements

Published

on

Adel Sohbi1, Damian Markham2,3, Jaewan Kim1, and Marco Túlio Quintino4,5

1School of Computational Sciences, Korea Institute for Advanced Study, Seoul 02455, Korea
2LIP6, CNRS, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Sorbonne Universités, 75005 Paris, France
3JFLI, CNRS, National Institute of Informatics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
4Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology (VCQ), Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, 1090, Vienna, Austria
5Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI), Austrian Academy of Sciences, Boltzmanngasse 3, A-1090 Vienna, Austria

Find this paper interesting or want to discuss? Scite or leave a comment on SciRate.

Abstract

This work analyzes correlations arising from quantum systems subject to sequential projective measurements to certify that the system in question has a quantum dimension greater than some $d$. We refine previous known methods and show that dimension greater than two can be certified in scenarios which are considerably simpler than the ones presented before and, for the first time in this sequential projective scenario, we certify quantum systems with dimension strictly greater than three. We also perform a systematic numerical analysis in terms of robustness and conclude that performing random projective measurements on random pure qutrit states allows a robust certification of quantum dimensions with very high probability.

► BibTeX data

► References

[1] J. Eisert, D. Hangleiter, N. Walk, I. Roth, D. Markham, R. Parekh, U. Chabaud, and E. Kashefi, Nature Reviews Physics 2, 382 (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s42254-020-0186-4

[2] M. Kliesch and I. Roth, Theory of quantum system certification – a tutorial (2020), arXiv:2010.05925 [quant-ph].
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PRXQuantum.2.010201
arXiv:2010.05925

[3] I. Šupić and J. Bowles, Quantum 4, 337 (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2020-09-30-337

[4] K. Bharti, M. Ray, A. Varvitsiotis, N. A. Warsi, A. Cabello, and L.-C. Kwek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 250403 (2019).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.122.250403

[5] A. Tavakoli, J. m. k. Kaniewski, T. Vértesi, D. Rosset, and N. Brunner, Phys. Rev. A 98, 062307 (2018).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.98.062307

[6] A. Sohbi and J. Kim, Phys. Rev. A 100, 022117 (2019).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.100.022117

[7] D. Saha, R. Santos, and R. Augusiak, Quantum 4, 302 (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2020-08-03-302

[8] D. G. Marangon, G. Vallone, and P. Villoresi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 060503 (2017).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.118.060503

[9] A. Acín and L. Masanes, Nature 540, 213 (2016).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​nature20119

[10] T. Lunghi, J. B. Brask, C. C. W. Lim, Q. Lavigne, J. Bowles, A. Martin, H. Zbinden, and N. Brunner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 150501 (2015).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.114.150501

[11] N. Brunner, S. Pironio, A. Acin, N. Gisin, A. A. Méthot, and V. Scarani, Physical Review Letters 100, 10.1103/​physrevlett.100.210503 (2008).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​physrevlett.100.210503

[12] R. Gallego, N. Brunner, C. Hadley, and A. Acín, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 230501 (2010).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.105.230501

[13] N. Brunner, M. Navascués, and T. Vértesi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 150501 (2013).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.110.150501

[14] O. Gühne, C. Budroni, A. Cabello, M. Kleinmann, and J.-A. Larsson, Phys. Rev. A 89, 062107 (2014).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.89.062107

[15] A. Sohbi, I. Zaquine, E. Diamanti, and D. Markham, Phys. Rev. A 94, 032114 (2016).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.94.032114

[16] Y. Cai, J.-D. Bancal, J. Romero, and V. Scarani, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 49, 305301 (2016).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1751-8113/​49/​30/​305301

[17] H.-W. Li, Y.-S. Zhang, X.-B. An, Z.-F. Han, and G.-C. Guo, Communications Physics 1, 10 (2018).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s42005-018-0011-x

[18] D. Saha, P. Horodecki, and M. Pawłowski, New Journal of Physics 21, 093057 (2019).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​ab4149

[19] E. T. Campbell, H. Anwar, and D. E. Browne, Phys. Rev. X 2, 041021 (2012).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevX.2.041021

[20] E. T. Campbell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 230501 (2014).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.113.230501

[21] A. Krishna and J.-P. Tillich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 070507 (2019).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.123.070507

[22] B. P. Lanyon, M. Barbieri, M. P. Almeida, T. Jennewein, T. C. Ralph, K. J. Resch, G. J. Pryde, J. L. O’Brien, A. Gilchrist, and A. G. White, Nature Physics 5, 134 (2009).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​nphys1150

[23] H. S. Tonchev and N. V. Vitanov, Phys. Rev. A 94, 042307 (2016).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.94.042307

[24] A. Bocharov, M. Roetteler, and K. M. Svore, Phys. Rev. A 96, 012306 (2017).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.96.012306

[25] G. Duclos-Cianci and D. Poulin, Phys. Rev. A 87, 062338 (2013).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.87.062338

[26] M. H. Michael, M. Silveri, R. T. Brierley, V. V. Albert, J. Salmilehto, L. Jiang, and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031006 (2016).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevX.6.031006

[27] M. Grassl, L. Kong, Z. Wei, Z. Yin, and B. Zeng, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 64, 4674 (2018).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​TIT.2018.2790423

[28] M. Neeley, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, M. Hofheinz, E. Lucero, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, H. Wang, J. Wenner, A. N. Cleland, M. R. Geller, and J. M. Martinis, Science 325, 722 (2009).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1126/​science.1173440

[29] M. Y. Niu, I. L. Chuang, and J. H. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 160502 (2018).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.120.160502

[30] D. Cozzolino, B. Da Lio, D. Bacco, and L. K. Oxenløwe, Advanced Quantum Technologies 2, 1900038 (2019).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​qute.201900038

[31] Y.-H. Luo, H.-S. Zhong, M. Erhard, X.-L. Wang, L.-C. Peng, M. Krenn, X. Jiang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, A. Zeilinger, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 070505 (2019).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.123.070505

[32] A. Marin and D. Markham, Phys. Rev. A 88, 042332 (2013).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.88.042332

[33] J. Hoffmann, C. Spee, O. Gühne, and C. Budroni, New Journal of Physics 20, 102001 (2018).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​aae87f

[34] C. Spee, H. Siebeneich, T. F. Gloger, P. Kaufmann, M. Johanning, M. Kleinmann, C. Wunderlich, and O. Gühne, New Journal of Physics 22, 023028 (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​ab6d42

[35] Y. Mao, C. Spee, Z.-P. Xu, and O. Gühne, Structure of dimension-bounded temporal correlations (2020), arXiv:2005.13964 [quant-ph].
arXiv:2005.13964

[36] A. Sohbi, R. Ohana, I. Zaquine, E. Diamanti, and D. Markham, Experimental approach to demonstrating contextuality for qudits (2020), arXiv:2010.13278 [quant-ph].
arXiv:2010.13278

[37] M. Ray, N. G. Boddu, K. Bharti, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Cabello, Graph-theoretic approach to dimension witnessing (2020), arXiv:2007.10746 [quant-ph].
arXiv:2007.10746

[38] M. Navascués, S. Pironio, and A. Acín, New Journal of Physics 10, 073013 (2008).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​10/​7/​073013

[39] S. Pironio, M. Navascués, and A. Acín, SIAM Journal on Optimization 20, 2157 (2010).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1137/​090760155

[40] M. Navascués and T. Vértesi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 020501 (2015).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.115.020501

[41] M. Navascués, A. Feix, M. Araújo, and T. Vértesi, Phys. Rev. A 92, 042117 (2015).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.92.042117

[42] H. H. Jee, C. Sparaciari, O. Fawzi, and M. Berta, Characterising quantum correlations of fixed dimension (2020), arXiv:2005.08883 [quant-ph].
arXiv:2005.08883

[43] G. Lüders, Annalen der Physik 15, 663–670 (2006).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​andp.200610207

[44] C. Budroni and C. Emary, Physical Review Letters 113, 10.1103/​physrevlett.113.050401 (2014).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​physrevlett.113.050401

[45] G. Schild and C. Emary, Physical Review A 92, 10.1103/​physreva.92.032101 (2015).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​physreva.92.032101

[46] Guth, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 40, A31 (1933).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF01708937

[47] A. J. Leggett and A. Garg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 857 (1985).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.54.857

[48] C. Budroni, T. Moroder, M. Kleinmann, and O. Gühne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 020403 (2013).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.111.020403

[49] N. D. Mermin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 3373 (1990).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.65.3373

[50] A. Peres, Physics Letters A 151, 107 (1990).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​0375-9601(90)90172-K

[51] M. L. Almeida, J.-D. Bancal, N. Brunner, A. Acín, N. Gisin, and S. Pironio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 230404 (2010).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.104.230404

[52] A. Sohbi, Online repository: Bounding the dimension of quantum systems via sequential measurements (2021).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.5281/​zenodo.4460759

[53] M. Navascués, G. de la Torre, and T. Vértesi, Phys. Rev. X 4, 011011 (2014).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevX.4.011011

[54] J. M. Donohue and E. Wolfe, Phys. Rev. A 92, 062120 (2015).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.92.062120

[55] G. Vidal and R. Tarrach, Phys. Rev. A 59, 141 (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/​9806094 [quant-ph].
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.59.141
arXiv:quant-ph/9806094

[56] D. Cavalcanti and P. Skrzypczyk, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 024001 (2017), arXiv:1604.00501 [quant-ph].
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1361-6633/​80/​2/​024001
arXiv:1604.00501

[57] J. Bavaresco, M. T. Quintino, L. Guerini, T. O. Maciel, D. Cavalcanti, and M. T. Cunha, Physical Review A 96, 10.1103/​physreva.96.022110 (2017).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​physreva.96.022110

[58] S. Designolle, M. Farkas, and J. Kaniewski, New Journal of Physics 21, 113053 (2019), arXiv:1906.00448 [quant-ph].
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​ab5020
arXiv:1906.00448

[59] M. Araújo, C. Branciard, F. Costa, A. Feix, C. Giarmatzi, and C. Brukner, New Journal of Physics 17, 102001 (2015).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​17/​10/​102001

[60] M. Oszmaniec and T. Biswas, Quantum 3, 133 (2019).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2019-04-26-133

[61] K. Baek, A. Sohbi, J. Lee, J. Kim, and H. Nha, New Journal of Physics 22, 093019 (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​abad7e

[62] S. Diamond and S. Boyd, Journal of Machine Learning Research 17, 1 (2016).

[63] A. Agrawal, R. Verschueren, S. Diamond, and S. Boyd, Journal of Control and Decision 5, 42 (2018).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1080/​23307706.2017.1397554

[64] M. ApS, MOSEK Optimizer API for Python 9.2.28 (2020).
https:/​/​docs.mosek.com/​9.2/​pythonapi/​index.html

[65] J. Bertrand, Calcul des probabilités (Editions Jacques Gabay, 2006).

[66] I. Šupić and J. Bowles, Quantum 4, 337 (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2020-09-30-337

[67] A. A. Klyachko, M. A. Can, S. Binicioğlu, and A. S. Shumovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 020403 (2008).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.101.020403

[68] F. Mezzadri, Notices of the American Mathematical Society 54, 592 (2007).
arXiv:math-ph/0609050

[69] M. Matsumoto and T. Nishimura, ACM Trans. Model. Comput. Simul. 8, 3–30 (1998).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1145/​272991.272995

[70] S. Boyd, S. P. Boyd, and L. Vandenberghe, Convex optimization (Cambridge university press, 2004).

Cited by

[1] Lucas B. Vieira and Costantino Budroni, “Temporal correlations in the simplest measurement sequences”, arXiv:2104.02467.

The above citations are from SAO/NASA ADS (last updated successfully 2021-06-10 14:40:07). The list may be incomplete as not all publishers provide suitable and complete citation data.

Could not fetch Crossref cited-by data during last attempt 2021-06-10 14:40:05: Could not fetch cited-by data for 10.22331/q-2021-06-10-472 from Crossref. This is normal if the DOI was registered recently.

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa
Source: https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2021-06-10-472/

Continue Reading

Quantum

The Mystery at the Heart of Physics That Only Math Can Solve

Published

on

Over the past century, quantum field theory has proved to be the single most sweeping and successful physical theory ever invented. It is an umbrella term that encompasses many specific quantum field theories — the way “shape” covers specific examples like the square and the circle. The most prominent of these theories is known as the Standard Model, and it is this framework of physics that has been so successful.

“It can explain at a fundamental level literally every single experiment that we’ve ever done,” said David Tong, a physicist at the University of Cambridge.

But quantum field theory, or QFT, is indisputably incomplete. Neither physicists nor mathematicians know exactly what makes a quantum field theory a quantum field theory. They have glimpses of the full picture, but they can’t yet make it out.

“There are various indications that there could be a better way of thinking about QFT,” said Nathan Seiberg, a physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study. “It feels like it’s an animal you can touch from many places, but you don’t quite see the whole animal.”

Mathematics, which requires internal consistency and attention to every last detail, is the language that might make QFT whole. If mathematics can learn how to describe QFT with the same rigor with which it characterizes well-established mathematical objects, a more complete picture of the physical world will likely come along for the ride.

“If you really understood quantum field theory in a proper mathematical way, this would give us answers to many open physics problems, perhaps even including the quantization of gravity,” said Robbert Dijkgraaf, director of the Institute for Advanced Study (and a regular columnist for Quanta).

Nor is this a one-way street. For millennia, the physical world has been mathematics’ greatest muse. The ancient Greeks invented trigonometry to study the motion of the stars. Mathematics turned it into a discipline with definitions and rules that students now learn without any reference to the topic’s celestial origins. Almost 2,000 years later, Isaac Newton wanted to understand Kepler’s laws of planetary motion and attempted to find a rigorous way of thinking about infinitesimal change. This impulse (along with revelations from Gottfried Leibniz) birthed the field of calculus, which mathematics appropriated and improved — and today could hardly exist without.

Now mathematicians want to do the same for QFT, taking the ideas, objects and techniques that physicists have developed to study fundamental particles and incorporating them into the main body of mathematics. This means defining the basic traits of QFT so that future mathematicians won’t have to think about the physical context in which the theory first arose.

The rewards are likely to be great: Mathematics grows when it finds new objects to explore and new structures that capture some of the most important relationships — between numbers, equations and shapes. QFT offers both.

“Physics itself, as a structure, is extremely deep and often a better way to think about mathematical things we’re already interested in. It’s just a better way to organize them,” said David Ben-Zvi, a mathematician at the University of Texas, Austin.

For 40 years at least, QFT has tempted mathematicians with ideas to pursue. In recent years, they’ve finally begun to understand some of the basic objects in QFT itself — abstracting them from the world of particle physics and turning them into mathematical objects in their own right.

Yet it’s still early days in the effort.

“We won’t know until we get there, but it’s certainly my expectation that we’re just seeing the tip of the iceberg,” said Greg Moore, a physicist at Rutgers University. “If mathematicians really understood [QFT], that would lead to profound advances in mathematics.”

Fields Forever

It’s common to think of the universe as being built from fundamental particles: electrons, quarks, photons and the like. But physics long ago moved beyond this view. Instead of particles, physicists now talk about things called “quantum fields” as the real warp and woof of reality.

These fields stretch across the space-time of the universe. They come in many varieties and fluctuate like a rolling ocean. As the fields ripple and interact with each other, particles emerge out of them and then vanish back into them, like the fleeting crests of a wave.

“Particles are not objects that are there forever,” said Tong. “It’s a dance of fields.”

To understand quantum fields, it’s easiest to start with an ordinary, or classical, field. Imagine, for example, measuring the temperature at every point on Earth’s surface. Combining the infinitely many points at which you can make these measurements forms a geometric object, called a field, that packages together all this temperature information.

In general, fields emerge whenever you have some quantity that can be measured uniquely at infinitely fine resolution across a space. “You’re sort of able to ask independent questions about each point of space-time, like, what’s the electric field here versus over there,” said Davide Gaiotto, a physicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada.

Quantum fields come about when you’re observing quantum phenomena, like the energy of an electron, at every point in space and time. But quantum fields are fundamentally different from classical ones.

While the temperature at a point on Earth is what it is, regardless of whether you measure it, electrons have no definite position until the moment you observe them. Prior to that, their positions can only be described probabilistically, by assigning values to every point in a quantum field that captures the likelihood you’ll find an electron there versus somewhere else. Prior to observation, electrons essentially exist nowhere — and everywhere.

“Most things in physics aren’t just objects; they’re something that lives in every point in space and time,” said Dijkgraaf.

A quantum field theory comes with a set of rules called correlation functions that explain how measurements at one point in a field relate to — or correlate with — measurements taken at another point.

Each quantum field theory describes physics in a specific number of dimensions. Two-dimensional quantum field theories are often useful for describing the behavior of materials, like insulators; six-dimensional quantum field theories are especially relevant to string theory; and four-dimensional quantum field theories describe physics in our actual four-dimensional universe. The Standard Model is one of these; it’s the single most important quantum field theory because it’s the one that best describes the universe.

There are 12 known fundamental particles that make up the universe. Each has its own unique quantum field. To these 12 particle fields the Standard Model adds four force fields, representing the four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. It combines these 16 fields in a single equation that describes how they interact with each other. Through these interactions, fundamental particles are understood as fluctuations of their respective quantum fields, and the physical world emerges before our eyes.

It might sound strange, but physicists realized in the 1930s that physics based on fields, rather than particles, resolved some of their most pressing inconsistencies, ranging from issues regarding causality to the fact that particles don’t live forever. It also explained what otherwise appeared to be an improbable consistency in the physical world.

“All particles of the same type everywhere in the universe are the same,” said Tong. “If we go to the Large Hadron Collider and make a freshly minted proton, it’s exactly the same as one that’s been traveling for 10 billion years. That deserves some explanation.” QFT provides it: All protons are just fluctuations in the same underlying proton field (or, if you could look more closely, the underlying quark fields).

But the explanatory power of QFT comes at a high mathematical cost.

“Quantum field theories are by far the most complicated objects in mathematics, to the point where mathematicians have no idea how to make sense of them,” said Tong. “Quantum field theory is mathematics that has not yet been invented by mathematicians.”

Too Much Infinity

What makes it so complicated for mathematicians? In a word, infinity.

When you measure a quantum field at a point, the result isn’t a few numbers like coordinates and temperature. Instead, it’s a matrix, which is an array of numbers. And not just any matrix — a big one, called an operator, with infinitely many columns and rows. This reflects how a quantum field envelops all the possibilities of a particle emerging from the field.

“There are infinitely many positions that a particle can have, and this leads to the fact that the matrix that describes the measurement of position, of momentum, also has to be infinite-dimensional,” said Kasia Rejzner of the University of York.

And when theories produce infinities, it calls their physical relevance into question, because infinity exists as a concept, not as anything experiments can ever measure. It also makes the theories hard to work with mathematically.

“We don’t like having a framework that spells out infinity. That’s why you start realizing you need a better mathematical understanding of what’s going on,” said Alejandra Castro, a physicist at the University of Amsterdam.

The problems with infinity get worse when physicists start thinking about how two quantum fields interact, as they might, for instance, when particle collisions are modeled at the Large Hadron Collider outside Geneva. In classical mechanics this type of calculation is easy: To model what happens when two billiard balls collide, just use the numbers specifying the momentum of each ball at the point of collision.

When two quantum fields interact, you’d like to do a similar thing: multiply the infinite-dimensional operator for one field by the infinite-dimensional operator for the other at exactly the point in space-time where they meet. But this calculation — multiplying two infinite-dimensional objects that are infinitely close together — is difficult.

“This is where things go terribly wrong,” said Rejzner.

Smashing Success

Physicists and mathematicians can’t calculate using infinities, but they have developed workarounds — ways of approximating quantities that dodge the problem. These workarounds yield approximate predictions, which are good enough, because experiments aren’t infinitely precise either.

“We can do experiments and measure things to 13 decimal places and they agree to all 13 decimal places. It’s the most astonishing thing in all of science,” said Tong.

One workaround starts by imagining that you have a quantum field in which nothing is happening. In this setting — called a “free” theory because it’s free of interactions — you don’t have to worry about multiplying infinite-dimensional matrices because nothing’s in motion and nothing ever collides. It’s a situation that’s easy to describe in full mathematical detail, though that description isn’t worth a whole lot.

“It’s totally boring, because you’ve described a lonely field with nothing to interact with, so it’s a bit of an academic exercise,” said Rejzner.

But you can make it more interesting. Physicists dial up the interactions, trying to maintain mathematical control of the picture as they make the interactions stronger.

This approach is called perturbative QFT, in the sense that you allow for small changes, or perturbations, in a free field. You can apply the perturbative perspective to quantum field theories that are similar to a free theory. It’s also extremely useful for verifying experiments. “You get amazing accuracy, amazing experimental agreement,” said Rejzner.

But if you keep making the interactions stronger, the perturbative approach eventually overheats. Instead of producing increasingly accurate calculations that approach the real physical universe, it becomes less and less accurate. This suggests that while the perturbation method is a useful guide for experiments, ultimately it’s not the right way to try and describe the universe: It’s practically useful, but theoretically shaky.

“We do not know how to add everything up and get something sensible,” said Gaiotto.

Another approximation scheme tries to sneak up on a full-fledged quantum field theory by other means. In theory, a quantum field contains infinitely fine-grained information. To cook up these fields, physicists start with a grid, or lattice, and restrict measurements to places where the lines of the lattice cross each other. So instead of being able to measure the quantum field everywhere, at first you can only measure it at select places a fixed distance apart.

From there, physicists enhance the resolution of the lattice, drawing the threads closer together to create a finer and finer weave. As it tightens, the number of points at which you can take measurements increases, approaching the idealized notion of a field where you can take measurements everywhere.

“The distance between the points becomes very small, and such a thing becomes a continuous field,” said Seiberg. In mathematical terms, they say the continuum quantum field is the limit of the tightening lattice.

Mathematicians are accustomed to working with limits and know how to establish that certain ones really exist. For example, they’ve proved that the limit of the infinite sequence $latex frac{1}{2}$ + $latex frac{1}{4}$ +$latex frac{1}{8}$ +$latex frac{1}{16}$ … is 1. Physicists would like to prove that quantum fields are the limit of this lattice procedure. They just don’t know how.

“It’s not so clear how to take that limit and what it means mathematically,” said Moore.

Physicists don’t doubt that the tightening lattice is moving toward the idealized notion of a quantum field. The close fit between the predictions of QFT and experimental results strongly suggests that’s the case.

“There is no question that all these limits really exist, because the success of quantum field theory has been really stunning,” said Seiberg. But having strong evidence that something is correct and proving conclusively that it is are two different things.

It’s a degree of imprecision that’s out of step with the other great physical theories that QFT aspires to supersede. Isaac Newton’s laws of motion, quantum mechanics, Albert Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity — they’re all just pieces of the bigger story QFT wants to tell, but unlike QFT, they can all be written down in exact mathematical terms.

“Quantum field theory emerged as an almost universal language of physical phenomena, but it’s in bad math shape,” said Dijkgraaf. And for some physicists, that’s a reason for pause.

“If the full house is resting on this core concept that itself isn’t understood in a mathematical way, why are you so confident this is describing the world? That sharpens the whole issue,” said Dijkgraaf.

Outside Agitator

Even in this incomplete state, QFT has prompted a number of important mathematical discoveries. The general pattern of interaction has been that physicists using QFT stumble onto surprising calculations that mathematicians then try to explain.

“It’s an idea-generating machine,” said Tong.

At a basic level, physical phenomena have a tight relationship with geometry. To take a simple example, if you set a ball in motion on a smooth surface, its trajectory will illuminate the shortest path between any two points, a property known as a geodesic. In this way, physical phenomena can detect geometric features of a shape.

Now replace the billiard ball with an electron. The electron exists probabilistically everywhere on a surface. By studying the quantum field that captures those probabilities, you can learn something about the overall nature of that surface (or manifold, to use the mathematicians’ term), like how many holes it has. That’s a fundamental question that mathematicians working in geometry, and the related field of topology, want to answer.

“One particle even sitting there, doing nothing, will start to know about the topology of a manifold,” said Tong.

In the late 1970s, physicists and mathematicians began applying this perspective to solve basic questions in geometry. By the early 1990s, Seiberg and his collaborator Edward Witten figured out how to use it to create a new mathematical tool — now called the Seiberg-Witten invariants — that turns quantum phenomena into an index for purely mathematical traits of a shape: Count the number of times quantum particles behave in a certain way, and you’ve effectively counted the number of holes in a shape.

“Witten showed that quantum field theory gives completely unexpected but completely precise insights into geometrical questions, making intractable problems soluble,” said Graeme Segal, a mathematician at the University of Oxford.

Another example of this exchange also occurred in the early 1990s, when physicists were doing calculations related to string theory. They performed them in two different geometric spaces based on fundamentally different mathematical rules and kept producing long sets of numbers that matched each other exactly. Mathematicians picked up the thread and elaborated it into a whole new field of inquiry, called mirror symmetry, that investigates the concurrence — and many others like it.

“Physics would come up with these amazing predictions, and mathematicians would try to prove them by our own means,” said Ben-Zvi. “The predictions were strange and wonderful, and they turned out to be pretty much always correct.”

But while QFT has been successful at generating leads for mathematics to follow, its core ideas still exist almost entirely outside of mathematics. Quantum field theories are not objects that mathematicians understand well enough to use the way they can use polynomials, groups, manifolds and other pillars of the discipline (many of which also originated in physics).

For physicists, this distant relationship with math is a sign that there’s a lot more they need to understand about the theory they birthed. “Every other idea that’s been used in physics over the past centuries had its natural place in mathematics,” said Seiberg. “This is clearly not the case with quantum field theory.”

And for mathematicians, it seems as if the relationship between QFT and math should be deeper than the occasional interaction. That’s because quantum field theories contain many symmetries, or underlying structures, that dictate how points in different parts of a field relate to each other. These symmetries have a physical significance — they embody how quantities like energy are conserved as quantum fields evolve over time. But they’re also mathematically interesting objects in their own right.

“A mathematician might care about a certain symmetry, and we can put it in a physical context. It creates this beautiful bridge between these two fields,” said Castro.

Mathematicians already use symmetries and other aspects of geometry to investigate everything from solutions to different types of equations to the distribution of prime numbers. Often, geometry encodes answers to questions about numbers. QFT offers mathematicians a rich new type of geometric object to play with — if they can get their hands on it directly, there’s no telling what they’ll be able to do.

“We’re to some extent playing with QFT,” said Dan Freed, a mathematician at the University of Texas, Austin. “We’ve been using QFT as an outside stimulus, but it would be nice if it were an inside stimulus.”

Make Way for QFT

Mathematics does not admit new subjects lightly. Many basic concepts went through long trials before they settled into their proper, canonical places in the field.

Take the real numbers — all the infinitely many tick marks on the number line. It took math nearly 2,000 years of practice to agree on a way of defining them. Finally, in the 1850s, mathematicians settled on a precise three-word statement describing the real numbers as a “complete ordered field.” They’re complete because they contain no gaps, they’re ordered because there’s always a way of determining whether one real number is greater or less than another, and they form a “field,” which to mathematicians means they follow the rules of arithmetic.

“Those three words are historically hard fought,” said Freed.

In order to turn QFT into an inside stimulus — a tool they can use for their own purposes — mathematicians would like to give the same treatment to QFT they gave to the real numbers: a sharp list of characteristics that any specific quantum field theory needs to satisfy.

A lot of the work of translating parts of QFT into mathematics has come from a mathematician named Kevin Costello at the Perimeter Institute. In 2016 he coauthored a textbook that puts perturbative QFT on firm mathematical footing, including formalizing how to work with the infinite quantities that crop up as you increase the number of interactions. The work follows an earlier effort from the 2000s called algebraic quantum field theory that sought similar ends, and which Rejzner reviewed in a 2016 book. So now, while perturbative QFT still doesn’t really describe the universe, mathematicians know how to deal with the physically non-sensical infinities it produces.

“His contributions are extremely ingenious and insightful. He put [perturbative] theory in a nice new framework that is suitable for rigorous mathematics,” said Moore.

Costello explains he wrote the book out of a desire to make perturbative quantum field theory more coherent. “I just found certain physicists’ methods unmotivated and ad hoc. I wanted something more self-contained that a mathematician could go work with,” he said.

By specifying exactly how perturbation theory works, Costello has created a basis upon which physicists and mathematicians can construct novel quantum field theories that satisfy the dictates of his perturbation approach. It’s been quickly embraced by others in the field.

“He certainly has a lot of young people working in that framework. [His book] has had its influence,” said Freed.

Costello has also been working on defining just what a quantum field theory is. In stripped-down form, a quantum field theory requires a geometric space in which you can make observations at every point, combined with correlation functions that express how observations at different points relate to each other. Costello’s work describes the properties a collection of correlation functions needs to have in order to serve as a workable basis for a quantum field theory.

The most familiar quantum field theories, like the Standard Model, contain additional features that may not be present in all quantum field theories. Quantum field theories that lack these features likely describe other, still undiscovered properties that could help physicists explain physical phenomena the Standard Model can’t account for. If your idea of a quantum field theory is fixed too closely to the versions we already know about, you’ll have a hard time even envisioning the other, necessary possibilities.

“There is a big lamppost under which you can find theories of fields [like the Standard Model], and around it is a big darkness of [quantum field theories] we don’t know how to define, but we know they’re there,” said Gaiotto.

Costello has illuminated some of that dark space with his definitions of quantum fields. From these definitions, he’s discovered two surprising new quantum field theories. Neither describes our four-dimensional universe, but they do satisfy the core demands of a geometric space equipped with correlation functions. Their discovery through pure thought is similar to how the first shapes you might discover are ones present in the physical world, but once you have a general definition of a shape, you can think your way to examples with no physical relevance at all.

And if mathematics can determine the full space of possibilities for quantum field theories — all the many different possibilities for satisfying a general definition involving correlation functions — physicists can use that to find their way to the specific theories that explain the important physical questions they care most about.

“I want to know the space of all QFTs because I want to know what quantum gravity is,” said Castro.

A Multi-Generational Challenge

There’s a long way to go. So far, all of the quantum field theories that have been described in full mathematical terms rely on various simplifications, which make them easier to work with mathematically.

One way to simplify the problem, going back decades, is to study simpler two-dimensional QFTs rather than four-dimensional ones. A team in France recently nailed down all the mathematical details of a prominent two-dimensional QFT.

Other simplifications assume quantum fields are symmetrical in ways that don’t match physical reality, but that make them more tractable from a mathematical perspective. These include “supersymmetric” and “topological” QFTs.

The next, and much more difficult, step will be to remove the crutches and provide a mathematical description of a quantum field theory that better suits the physical world physicists most want to describe: the four-dimensional, continuous universe in which all interactions are possible at once.

“This is [a] very embarrassing thing that we don’t have a single quantum field theory we can describe in four dimensions, nonperturbatively,” said Rejzner. “It’s a hard problem, and apparently it needs more than one or two generations of mathematicians and physicists to solve it.”

But that doesn’t stop mathematicians and physicists from eyeing it greedily. For mathematicians, QFT is as rich a type of object as they could hope for. Defining the characteristic properties shared by all quantum field theories will almost certainly require merging two of the pillars of mathematics: analysis, which explains how to control infinities, and geometry, which provides a language for talking about symmetry.

“It’s a fascinating problem just in math itself, because it combines two great ideas,” said Dijkgraaf.

If mathematicians can understand QFT, there’s no telling what mathematical discoveries await in its unlocking. Mathematicians defined the characteristic properties of other objects, like manifolds and groups, long ago, and those objects now permeate virtually every corner of mathematics. When they were first defined, it would have been impossible to anticipate all their mathematical ramifications. QFT holds at least as much promise for math.

“I like to say the physicists don’t necessarily know everything, but the physics does,” said Ben-Zvi. “If you ask it the right questions, it already has the phenomena mathematicians are looking for.”

And for physicists, a complete mathematical description of QFT is the flip side of their field’s overriding goal: a complete description of physical reality.

“I feel there is one intellectual structure that covers all of it, and maybe it will encompass all of physics,” said Seiberg.

Now mathematicians just have to uncover it.

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa
Source: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-mystery-at-the-heart-of-physics-that-only-math-can-solve-20210610/

Continue Reading
Esports4 days ago

Genshin Impact Echoing Conch Locations Guide

Esports4 days ago

MLB The Show 21 Kitchen Sink 2 Pack: Base Round Revealed

Aviation3 days ago

The Story Of The Boeing 777 Family

zephyrnet4 days ago

7th Global Blockchain Congress by Agora Group & TDeFi on June 21st and 22nd, 2021, Dubai.

Esports4 days ago

Free boxes and skins up for grabs in Brawl Stars to celebrate one-year anniversary of China release

Crowdfunding3 days ago

April/May 2021 Top Campaigns

Blockchain4 days ago

Woonkly will be the official Title Sponsor of the 7th edition Global Blockchain Congress organized by Agora Group in Dubai

Big Data4 days ago

.NET DEVELOPMENT

Blockchain4 days ago

Death Cross is Appearing Over Bitcoin Price Chart

Blockchain4 days ago

Bitcoin (BTC) Officially a Legal Tender in El Salvador

Blockchain3 days ago

Crypto Fund Manager Says Bitcoin ETFs to be Approved By 2022

Crowdfunding4 days ago

US Fintech Broadridge Partners with Amazon Web Services to Expand Private Market Hub, Leveraging DLT

Big Data4 days ago

China arrests over 1,100 suspects in crackdown on crypto-related money laundering

Cleantech4 days ago

TC Energy Cancels Keystone XL Pipeline

Gaming4 days ago

TrustDice Review: Features & Promotions

Energy2 days ago

Industrial robots market in the automotive industry | $ 3.97 billion growth expected during 2021-2025 | 17000+ Technavio Research Reports

Cyber Security2 days ago

Data Breach that Impacted Both Audi of America and Volkswagen of America

Esports3 days ago

Every new Passive Power in Legends of Runeterra Lab of Legends 2.9.0

Fintech3 days ago

PayPal launches PayPal Rewards Card in Australia

Energy2 days ago

Daiki Axis Co., Ltd. (4245, First Section, Tokyo Stock Exchange) Overview of Operating Performance for the First Three Months Ended March 31, 2021

Trending