scholarly journals Bounds on the power of proofs and advice in general physical theories

Author(s):  
Ciarán M. Lee ◽  
Matty J. Hoban

Quantum theory presents us with the tools for computational and communication advantages over classical theory. One approach to uncovering the source of these advantages is to determine how computation and communication power vary as quantum theory is replaced by other operationally defined theories from a broad framework of such theories. Such investigations may reveal some of the key physical features required for powerful computation and communication. In this paper, we investigate how simple physical principles bound the power of two different computational paradigms which combine computation and communication in a non-trivial fashion: computation with advice and interactive proof systems. We show that the existence of non-trivial dynamics in a theory implies a bound on the power of computation with advice. Moreover, we provide an explicit example of a theory with no non-trivial dynamics in which the power of computation with advice is unbounded. Finally, we show that the power of simple interactive proof systems in theories where local measurements suffice for tomography is non-trivially bounded. This result provides a proof that Q M A is contained in P P , which does not make use of any uniquely quantum structure—such as the fact that observables correspond to self-adjoint operators—and thus may be of independent interest.

Symmetry ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 163
Author(s):  
Karl Hess

This review is related to the Einstein-Bohr debate and to Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen’s (EPR) and Bohm’s (EPRB) Gedanken-experiments as well as their realization in actual experiments. I examine a significant number of papers, from my minority point of view and conclude that the well-known theorems of Bell and Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt (CHSH) deal with mathematical abstractions that have only a tenuous relation to quantum theory and the actual EPRB experiments. It is also shown that, therefore, Bell-CHSH cannot be used to assess the nature of quantum entanglement, nor can physical features of entanglement be used to prove Bell-CHSH. Their proofs are, among other factors, based on a statistical sampling argument that is invalid for general physical entities and processes and only applicable for finite “populations”; not for elements of physical reality that are linked, for example, to a time-like continuum. Bell-CHSH have, furthermore, neglected the subtleties of the theorem of Vorob’ev that includes their theorems as special cases. Vorob’ev found that certain combinatorial-topological cyclicities of classical random variables form a necessary and sufficient condition for the constraints that are now known as Bell-CHSH inequalities. These constraints, however, must not be linked to the observables of quantum theory nor to the actual EPRB experiments for a variety of reasons, including the existence of continuum-related variables and appropriate considerations of symmetry.


1992 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 859-868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carsten Lund ◽  
Lance Fortnow ◽  
Howard Karloff ◽  
Noam Nisan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document