Weekly Papers on Quantum Foundations (8)

Authors: Taotao LiBaocheng ZhangLi You

We study the "anti-Unruh effect" for an entangled quantum state in reference to the counterintuitive cooling previously pointed out for an accelerated detector coupled to the vacuum. We show that quantum entanglement for an initially entangled (spacelike separated) bipartite state can be increased when either a detector attached to one particle is accelerated or both detectors attached to the two particles are in simultaneous accelerations. However, if the two particles (e.g., detectors for the bipartite system) are not initially entangled, entanglement cannot be created by the anti-Unruh effect. Thus, within certain parameter regime, this work shows that the anti-Unruh effect can be viewed as an amplification mechanism for quantum entanglement.

Norton, John D. (2018) Eternal Inflation: When Probabilities Fail. [Preprint]
Price, Huw and Liu, Yang (2017) "Click!" Bait for Causalists. [Preprint]


This study attempts to spell out more explicitly than has been done previously the connection between two types of formal correspondence that arise in the study of quantum–classical relations: one the one hand, deformation quantization and the associated continuity between quantum and classical algebras of observables in the limit \hbar \rightarrow 0 , and, on the other, a certain generalization of Ehrenfest’s Theorem and the result that expectation values of position and momentum evolve approximately classically for narrow wave packet states. While deformation quantization establishes a direct continuity between the abstract algebras of quantum and classical observables, the latter result makes in-eliminable reference to the quantum and classical state spaces on which these structures act—specifically, via restriction to narrow wave packet states. Here, we describe a certain geometrical re-formulation and extension of the result that expectation values evolve approximately classically for narrow wave packet states, which relies essentially on the postulates of deformation quantization, but describes a relationship between the actions of quantum and classical algebras and groups over their respective state spaces that is non-trivially distinct from deformation quantization. The goals of the discussion are partly pedagogical in that it aims to provide a clear, explicit synthesis of known results; however, the particular synthesis offered aspires to some novelty in its emphasis on a certain general type of mathematical and physical relationship between the state spaces of different models that represent the same physical system, and in the explicitness with which it details the above-mentioned connection between quantum and classical models.

Publication date: Available online 18 February 2018
Source:Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics
Author(s): James Read
I consider the interrelations between two decision-theoretic approaches to probability which have been developed in the context of Everettian quantum mechanics: that due to Deutsch and Wallace on the one hand, and that due to Greaves and Myrvold on the other. Having made precise these interrelations, I defend Everettian decision theory against recent objections raised by Dawid and Thébault. Finally, I discuss the import of these results from decision theory for the rationality of an Everettian agent's betting in accordance with the Born rule.


This paper presents a minimal formulation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, by which is meant a formulation which describes the theory in a succinct, self-contained, clear, unambiguous and of course correct manner. The bulk of the presentation is the so-called “microscopic theory”, applicable to any closed system S of arbitrary size N, using concepts referring to S alone, without resort to external apparatus or external agents. An example of a similar minimal microscopic theory is the standard formulation of classical mechanics, which serves as the template for a minimal quantum theory. The only substantive assumption required is the replacement of the classical Euclidean phase space by Hilbert space in the quantum case, with the attendant all-important phenomenon of quantum incompatibility. Two fundamental theorems of Hilbert space, the Kochen–Specker–Bell theorem and Gleason’s theorem, then lead inevitably to the well-known Born probability rule. For both classical and quantum mechanics, questions of physical implementation and experimental verification of the predictions of the theories are the domain of the macroscopic theory, which is argued to be a special case or application of the more general microscopic theory.


The usual representation of quantum algorithms, limited to the process of solving the problem, is physically incomplete. We complete it in three steps: (i) extending the representation to the process of setting the problem, (ii) relativizing the extended representation to the problem solver to whom the problem setting must be concealed, and (iii) symmetrizing the relativized representation for time reversal to represent the reversibility of the underlying physical process. The third steps projects the input state of the representation, where the problem solver is completely ignorant of the setting and thus the solution of the problem, on one where she knows half solution (half of the information specifying it when the solution is an unstructured bit string). Completing the physical representation shows that the number of computation steps (oracle queries) required to solve any oracle problem in an optimal quantum way should be that of a classical algorithm endowed with the advanced knowledge of half solution.

Article written by


Please comment with your real name using good manners.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.