Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Foundations
On the Hardness of Detecting Macroscopic Superpositions
arXiv
Authors: Scott Aaronson, Yosi Atia, Leonard Susskind
Year
2020
Paper ID
20668
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
212
Citations
N/A
Abstract
When is decoherence "effectively irreversible"? Here we examine this central question of quantum foundations using the tools of quantum computational complexity. We prove that, if one had a quantum circuit to determine if a system was in an equal superposition of two orthogonal states for example, the $|$Alive$rangle$ and $|$Dead$rangle$ states of Schrödinger's cat, then with only a slightly larger circuit, one could also mathit{swap} the two states (e.g., bring a dead cat back to life). In other words, observing interference between the |Aliverangleand |Deadrangle states is a "necromancy-hard" problem, technologically infeasible in any world where death is permanent. As for the converse statement (i.e., ability to swap implies ability to detect interference), we show that it holds modulo a single exception, involving unitaries that (for example) map |Aliverangle to |Deadrangle but |Deadrangle to -|Aliverangle. We also show that these statements are robust---i.e., even a mathit{partial} ability to observe interference implies partial swapping ability, and vice versa. Finally, without relying on any unproved complexity conjectures, we show that all of these results are quantitatively tight. Our results have possible implications for the state dependence of observables in quantum gravity, the subject that originally motivated this study.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2020 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- When is decoherence "effectively irreversible"?
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.