I Can we copy information using reversible operations?

zonde
Gold Member
Messages
2,960
Reaction score
224
TL;DR Summary
In QM interpretations discussions there is idea that classical world could be modeled using just reversible unitary evolution. But in classical world we can make copies of information. Is there any conflict between this idea and this observation?
I am trying to investigate my doubts that reversible operations can model (or at least mimic) information copy process.

For simple model I take two numbers ##A \neq B##. Now I can't copy value of A into B without erasing (irreversibly) value of B. However I can use transformation that replaces value of A with new value A' such that A'=B'. That would mimic information copy process because result of copy process we verify by comparing original with copy.
But now I take third number C (##C \neq B'##) and try to copy value of B' into C. Using the same transformation as previously I replace B' with B'' such that B''=C' so that it seems I copied B into C. But now ##C' \neq A'## so the appearance of copy operation fails.
So it seems that only way how to mimic copy operation is to change all the previous copies every time a new copy is made (when I copy B' into C I have to replace A', B' and C with A'', B'' and C' such that A''=B''=C').

Does this simplified model seems universal enough to apply to any reversible transformation including QM unitary evolution?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
zonde said:
Summary: In QM interpretations discussions there is idea that classical world could be modeled using just reversible unitary evolution. But in classical world we can make copies of information. Is there any conflict between this idea and this observation?

Yes, because in quantum mechanics there is something called the no cloning theorem, which says that it is impossible to make an exact copy of a quantum state. If the dynamics of reversible unitary evolution allowed copying of information, the no cloning theorem would be violated.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top