- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Testing quantum foundations with quantum computers

Simanraj Sadana1, Lorenzo Maccone2, and Urbasi Sinha1,*

  • 1Light and Matter Physics, Raman Research Institute, Bengaluru-560080, India
  • 2Dipartimento di Fisica and INFN Sezione di Pavia, University of Pavia, via Bassi 6, I-27100 Pavia, Italy

  • *usinha@rri.res.in
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 4, L022001 – Published 1 April, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L022001

Abstract

We present two complementary viewpoints for combining quantum computers and the foundations of quantum mechanics. On the one hand, ideal devices can be used as test beds for experimental tests of the foundations of quantum mechanics: We provide algorithms for the Peres test for complex numbers in quantum superpositions and the Sorkin test of Born's rule. On the other hand, noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices can be benchmarked using these same tests. These are deep quantum benchmarks based on the foundations of quantum theory itself. We present test data from Rigetti hardware.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (32)

  1. K. Wright, K. M. Beck, S. Debnath, J. M. Amini, Y. Nam, N. Grzesiak, J.-S. Chen, N. C. Pisenti, M. Chmielewski, C. Collins, K. M. Hudek, J. Mizrahi, J. D. Wong-Campos, S. Allen, J. Apisdorf, P. Solomon, M. Williams, A. M. Ducore, A. Blinov, S. M. Kreikemeier et al., Benchmarking an 11-qubit quantum computer, Nat. Commun. 10, 5464 (2019).
  2. J. Eisert, D. Hangleiter, N. Walk, I. Roth, D. Markham, R. Parekh, U. Chabaud, and E. Kashefi, Quantum certification and benchmarking, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 382 (2020).
  3. K. Georgopoulos, C. Emary, and P. Zuliani, Quantum computer benchmarking via quantum algorithms, arXiv:2112.09457.
  4. W. K. Wootters, Optimal information transfer and real-vector-space quantum theory, in Quantum Theory: Informational Foundations and Foils, edited by G. Chiribella and R. Spekkens, Fundamental Theories of Physics Vol. 181 (Springer, New York, 2016), pp. 21–43.
  5. E. C. G. Stueckelberg, Quantum theory in real Hilbert space, Helv. Phys. Acta 33, 727 (1960).
  6. A. Peres, Proposed Test for Complex versus Quaternion Quantum Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 683 (1979).
  7. M.-O. Renou, D. Trillo, M. Weilenmann, T. P. Le, A. Tavakoli, N. Gisin, A. Acin, and M. Navascues, Quantum theory based on real numbers can be experimentally falsified, Nature 600, 625 (2021).
  8. L. M. Procopio, L. A. Rozema, Z. J. Wong, D. R. Hamel, K. O'Brien, X. Zhang, B. Dakic, and P. Walther, Single-photon test of hyper-complex quantum theories using a metamaterial, Nat. Commun. 8, 15044 (2017).
  9. R. Keil, T. Kaufmann, T. Kauten, S. Gstir, C. Dittel, R. Heilmann, A. Szameit, and G. Weihs, Hybrid waveguide-bulk multi-path interferometer with switchable amplitude and phase, APL Photon. 1, 081302 (2016).
  10. S. Gstir, E. Chan, T. Eichelkraut, A. Szameit, R. Keil, and G. Weihs, Towards probing for hypercomplex quantum mechanics in a waveguide interferometer, New J. Phys. 23, 093038 (2021).
  11. M.-C. Chen, C. Wang, F.-M. Liu, J.-W. Wang, C. Ying, Z.-X. Shang, Y. Wu, M. Gong, H. Deng, F.-T. Liang, Q. Zhang, C.-Z. Peng, X. Zhu, A. Cabello, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Ruling Out Real-Valued Standard Formalism of Quantum Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 040403 (2022).
  12. K.-D. Wu, T. Varun Kondra, S. Rana, C. M. Scandolo, G.-Y. Xiang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and A. Streltsov, Operational Resource Theory of Imaginarity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 090401 (2021).
  13. G. Chiribella, G. M. D'Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Informational derivation of quantum theory, Phys. Rev. A 84, 012311 (2011).
  14. R. D. Sorkin, Quantum mechanics as quantum measure theory, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 09, 3119 (1994).
  15. B. Daki, T. Paterek, and C. Brukner, Density cubes and higher-order interference theories, New J. Phys. 16, 023028 (2014).
  16. K. Zyczkowski, Quartic quantum theory: an extension of the standard quantum mechanics, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41, 355302 (2008).
  17. C. M. Lee and J. H. Selby, Higher-order interference in extensions of quantum theory, Found. Phys. 47, 89 (2017).
  18. U. Sinha, C. Couteau, T. Jennewein, R. Laflamme, and G. Weihs, Ruling out multi-order interference in quantum mechanics, Science 329, 418 (2010).
  19. D. K. Park, O. Moussa, and R. Laflamme, Three path interference using nuclear magnetic resonance: a test of the consistency of Born's rule, New J. Phys. 14, 113025 (2012).
  20. H. Kaiser, E. A. George, and S. A. Werner, Neutron interferometric search for quaternions in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. A 29, 2276(R) (1984).
  21. S. L. Adler, Generalized quantum dynamics, Nucl. Phys. B 415, 195 (1994).
  22. S. De Leo and K. Abdel-Khalek, Octionionic quantum mechanics and complex geometry, Prog. Theor. Phys. 96, 823 (1996).
  23. S. Sadana, L. Maccone, and U. Sinha, Quantum computational tests of the Born rule (unpublished).
  24. Using Naimark's theorem, this formulation encompasses also measurements described by positive operator-valued measures (POVMs). It can be extended trivially to nondegenerate observables by adding a degeneracy index: O=∑jkoj|j,k〉〈j,k| gives a probability p(oj|ψ)=∑k|〈ψ|j,k〉|2 [32].
  25. R. Sawant, J. Samuel, A. Sinha, S. Sinha, and U. Sinha, Nonclassical Paths in Quantum Interference Experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 120406 (2014).
  26. G. Rengaraj, U. Prathwiraj, S. N. Sahoo, R. Somashekhar, and U. Sinha, Measuring the deviation from the superposition principle in interference experiments, New J. Phys. 20, 063049 (2018).
  27. A. Sinha, A. H. Vijay, and U. Sinha, On the superposition principle in interference experiments, Sci. Rep. 5, 10304 (2015).
  28. I. Söllner, B. Gschösser, P. Mai, B. Pressl, Z. Vörös, and G. Weihs, Testing Born's rule in quantum mechanics for three mutually exclusive events, Found. Phys. 42, 742 (2012).
  29. See, https://github.com/rigetti/pyquil/.
  30. Rigetti SDK at https://qcs.rigetti.com/sdk-downloads.
  31. See, http://www.rri.res.in/QuicLab/Peres_Sorkin/.
  32. G. Lüders, Über die Zustandsänderung durch den Messprozess, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 8, 322 (1951).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 4, L022001– Published 1 April, 2022
  • Received 28 November 2021
  • Accepted 23 February 2022
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation