Question about the no-cloning theorem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jk22
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the no-cloning theorem in quantum mechanics, specifically examining the implications of unitary transformations in the context of cloning quantum states. Participants explore the mathematical foundations and logical consistency of the theorem, as well as the nature of unitary operations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the dependence of the unitary transformation on both states involved, suggesting that this dependence complicates the conclusion of the no-cloning theorem.
  • Another participant clarifies that the essence of the no-cloning theorem is that the proposed unitary transformation does not exist, emphasizing that a rotation dependent on the state being rotated cannot be considered a true rotation.
  • A third participant presents a mathematical argument asserting that the proposed unitary operation cannot be linear, leading to a contradiction when applied to scaled states.
  • One participant briefly mentions an alternative proof that asserts the impossibility of such an operation existing.
  • Another participant claims that only the null state can be cloned, as it results in a null state, which they describe as an impossible event.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of unitary transformations and their implications for the no-cloning theorem. There is no consensus on the interpretations or conclusions drawn from the theorem, and multiple competing viewpoints remain present in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments rely on specific mathematical properties of unitary operations, such as linearity and inner product preservation, which may not be universally accepted or fully resolved in the discussion.

jk22
Messages
732
Reaction score
25
In this theorem we have a unitary transformation ##U|a>|b>=|a>|a>##

But isn't it obvious that this is a rotation on a subspace but this rotation should depend on both |a> and |b> ?

With this dependence it seems to me the conclusion cannot be reached since the unitarity is U(a,b)U(a,b)^+=1 but U(c,b)U(a,b)^+ is not forcedly 1.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not really clear to me what you're asking. The point of the no cloning theorem is that the unitary you give does not exist. Is that the conclusion you're saying cannot be reached? Can you be more specific and quote the proof you're reading and point us to the particular part of the proof you're not following?

In any case, a "rotation" that depends on the thing you're "rotating" is not a rotation at all, so that part of your comment doesn't track.

If we consider the simple case of cloning a single qubit with no working bits then the argument is pretty simple. We have that ##U|0\rangle |0\rangle = |0\rangle |0\rangle## and ##U|1\rangle |0\rangle = |1\rangle |1\rangle## (it is not necessary to assume anything about what the proposed unitary does when the target qubit is non-zero). Then if ##|\psi\rangle = \alpha |0\rangle | + \beta |1\rangle##, ##|\alpha|^2 + |\beta|^2 = 1##, we have by linearity that
##U|\psi\rangle|0\rangle = \alpha U|0\rangle |0\rangle + \beta U |1\rangle |0\rangle = \alpha |0\rangle |0\rangle + \beta |1\rangle |1\rangle \neq |\psi\rangle|\psi\rangle## for all ##\alpha## and ##\beta##.

With a bit more work, the argument can be generalized to arbitrary states and with an arbitrarily-big ancilla register for the cloning operator to use as working space. More general proofs use the fact that a unitary operator must, by definition, preserve the inner product between all pairs of states and show that any proposed cloning operator cannot preserve inner products between non-parallel, non-orthogonal states.
 
Last edited:
U cannot be linear in fact it is not even an application since :

U|2a>|b>=|2a>|2a>=4|a>|a>=U2|a>|b>
=U|a>|2b>=|a>|a>

Which is a contradiction.
 
Another proof that such an operation cannot exist
 
To be complete only the null state can be cloned since it gives again a null state whicj is an impossible event.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K