Quantum mechanics defies causal order

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of a recent experiment confirming that quantum mechanics defies causal order, as detailed in the article from Physics World and the paper on arXiv (1803.04302). The experiment demonstrates that there is no known causal order in many quantum operations, challenging traditional deterministic views of nature. Key operations implemented include "if C then A*B else B*A," where C is a qubit and A, B are unitary operations. The findings align with standard quantum mechanics and suggest that deeper theories may not exist to define causal order in quantum systems.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with qubits and unitary operations
  • Knowledge of causal order in quantum systems
  • Awareness of significant quantum experiments, such as those by Chiribella
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Chiribella's paper on causal order in quantum mechanics (arXiv:1109.5154)
  • Explore the concept of non-determinism in quantum mechanics
  • Study the latest advancements in quantum computing and their applications
  • Watch educational videos from the Brukner Group to deepen understanding of quantum foundations
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum computing researchers, and students interested in the foundational aspects of quantum mechanics and its implications for determinism and causal order.

kurt101
Messages
285
Reaction score
35
I came across this article at physicsworld.com which has the headline "Quantum mechanics defies causal order, experiment confirms".
https://physicsworld.com/a/quantum-mechanics-defies-causal-order-experiment-confirms/

The actual experiment is described here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04302

I had a difficult time understanding the experiment and the implications of this experiment. Is it novel in any way? Can anyone shed light on what the headline is implying?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kurt101 said:
The actual experiment is described here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04302

I had a difficult time understanding the experiment and the implications of this experiment. Is it novel in any way? Can anyone shed light on what the headline is implying?

Not sure I can add anything to your understanding of this paper from a top team. Sure, it's an improvement over some similar prior versions of the experiment. That we are even reading about experiments like this is nothing short of amazing.

The key thing is that this result is fully consistent with standard QM. There is no known causal order in many quantum operations/setups. There has been speculation that a deeper theory (than current QM) might point out such causal order. Experiments such as this tend to show that no such theory exists.
 
They implemented the operation "if C then A*B else B*A", where C is a qubit and A,B are unitary operations on a second qubit. For some reason I can't fathom they interpreted this as "defying causal order". To my eyes there's a very clear causal order. First the setup performs "if C then A else B", then it performs "if C then B else A". That's the order.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and DrChinese
I am also interested in this.. I read about it before but didn't fully grasp it.
Any more insights about this experiment?
What does it mean for quantum computing?
And what are possible applications?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DrChinese
StevieTNZ said:
There is this video, , from the "Brukner Group" at www.quantum.at (https://www.quantumfoundations.org/index.html check out links at the top of the latest publications list)


Wow, they managed to "dumb it down" so I can almost understand it! Thanks for the link, I definitely recommend it. Although the 3:49 video took me a bit longer as I had to stop and replay a few sections a couple of times. LOL.

The video mentions this key paper by Chiribella. Its result demonstrates that the result of an experiment to discriminate causal order produces results inconsistent with the predictions of QM. (Somewhat analogous to Bell in that respect.) So the OP's citation is the latest/greatest implementation of this idea.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5154

Accepting this result is another way of saying that nature is not deterministic. I doubt this will change anyone's favorite interpretation, but this is all very impressive stuff.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 122 ·
5
Replies
122
Views
10K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K