Quantum Picturalism

(or, The Logic of Quantum Mechanics take 2) PSA Montreal November 2010
ALICE

f f

f
BOB

does Alice

not
not

like

Bob

Alice

Bob Coecke
Oxford University Computing Laboratory

=
BOB

f f

ALICE

like
not

Bob

The Hilbert space quantum formalism

The Hilbert space quantum formalism [von Neumann 1932] Formalized quantum mechanics in Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik

The Hilbert space quantum formalism [von Neumann 1932] Formalized quantum mechanics in Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik [von Neumann to Birkhoff 1935] I would like to make a confession which may seem immoral: I do not believe absolutely in Hilbert space no more. (sic)

The Hilbert space quantum formalism [von Neumann 1932] Formalized quantum mechanics in Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik [von Neumann to Birkhoff 1935] I would like to make a confession which may seem immoral: I do not believe absolutely in Hilbert space no more. (sic) [Birkhoff and von Neumann 1936] The logic of Quantum Mechanics, Annals of Mathematics.

The Hilbert space quantum formalism [von Neumann 1932] Formalized quantum mechanics in Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik [von Neumann to Birkhoff 1935] I would like to make a confession which may seem immoral: I do not believe absolutely in Hilbert space no more. (sic) [Birkhoff and von Neumann 1936] The logic of Quantum Mechanics, Annals of Mathematics. [1936 2000] many followed them, ... and FAILED.

The Hilbert space quantum formalism [von Neumann 1932] Formalized quantum mechanics in Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik [von Neumann to Birkhoff 1935] I would like to make a confession which may seem immoral: I do not believe absolutely in Hilbert space no more. (sic) [Birkhoff and von Neumann 1936] The logic of Quantum Mechanics, Annals of Mathematics. [1936 2000] many followed them, ... and FAILED.

The Hilbert space quantum formalism Hilber space stuff: continuum, eld structure of complex numbers, vector space over it, inner-product, etc.

The Hilbert space quantum formalism Hilber space stuff: continuum, eld structure of complex numbers, vector space over it, inner-product, etc. WHY?

The Hilbert space quantum formalism Hilber space stuff: continuum, eld structure of complex numbers, vector space over it, inner-product, etc. WHY? von Neumann: only used it since it was available.

The Hilbert space quantum formalism Hilber space stuff: continuum, eld structure of complex numbers, vector space over it, inner-product, etc. WHY? von Neumann: only used it since it was available. Model theory: one can do almost anything with it.

The Hilbert space quantum formalism Hilber space stuff: continuum, eld structure of complex numbers, vector space over it, inner-product, etc. WHY? von Neumann: only used it since it was available. Model theory: one can do almost anything with it. Schr dinger (1935): the stuff which is the true soul of o quantum theory is how quantum systems compose.

tensor product structure = ? the other stuff

tensor product structure = ? the other stuff Conceptually: not about properties of the individual, but about relationships among the individuals

tensor product structure = ? the other stuff Conceptually: not about properties of the individual, but about relationships among the individuals Mathematically: axiomatize an abstract tensor product without reference to underlying spaces

tensor product structure = ? the other stuff Conceptually: not about properties of the individual, but about relationships among the individuals Mathematically: axiomatize an abstract tensor product without reference to underlying spaces 1. Game plan: Which assumptions (i.e. which structure) on is needed to deduce physical phenomena?

tensor product structure = ? the other stuff Conceptually: not about properties of the individual, but about relationships among the individuals Mathematically: axiomatize an abstract tensor product without reference to underlying spaces 1. Game plan: Which assumptions (i.e. which structure) on is needed to deduce physical phenomena? 2. Additional question: Does such an interaction structure appear elsewhere in our classical reality?

Outcome 1a: Sheer ratio of results to assumptions

Hans Halvorson (2010) Editorial to: Deep Beauty: Understanding the Quantum World through Mathematical Innovation, Cambridge University Press.

Outcome 1a: Sheer ratio of results to assumptions conrms that we are probing something very essential.

Hans Halvorson (2010) Editorial to: Deep Beauty: Understanding the Quantum World through Mathematical Innovation, Cambridge University Press.

Outcome 1a: Sheer ratio of results to assumptions conrms that we are probing something very essential. Outcome 1b: Exposing this structure has already helped to solve open problems elsewhere. (e.g. 2 ICALP10)

EG: Ross Duncan & Simon Perdrix (2010) Rewriting measurement-based quantum computations with generalised ow. ICALP10.

Outcome 1a: Sheer ratio of results to assumptions conrms that we are probing something very essential. Outcome 1b: Exposing this structure has already helped to solve open problems elsewhere. (e.g. 2 ICALP10) Outcome 1c: Simple intuitive (but rigorous) diagrammatic language, meanwhile adopted by others: ... we join the quantum picturalism revolution [1]
Lucien Hardy (2010) A formalism-local framework for general probabilistic theories including quantum theory. arXiv:1005.5164
[1] Coecke (2010) Quantum picturalism. Contemporary Physics 51, 5983. arXiv:0908.1787 (survey)

Outcome 1a: Sheer ratio of results to assumptions conrms that we are probing something very essential. Outcome 1b: Exposing this structure has already helped to solve open problems elsewhere. (e.g. 2 ICALP10) Outcome 1c: Simple intuitive (but rigorous) diagrammatic language, meanwhile adopted by others: ... we join the quantum picturalism revolution [1]
Lucien Hardy (2010) A formalism-local framework for general probabilistic theories including quantum theory. arXiv:1005.5164
[1] Coecke (2010) Quantum picturalism. Contemporary Physics 51, 5983. arXiv:0908.1787 (survey)

Outcome 2a:
ALICE

Behaviors of matter:
f f f

f
BOB

=
BOB

f f

ALICE

Outcome 2a:
ALICE

Behaviors of matter:
f f f

f
BOB

Meaning in language:
meaning vectors of words

does Alice
pregroup grammar

not
not

like

Bob

=
BOB

f f

ALICE

like
Alice
not

Bob

Outcome 2a:
ALICE

Behaviors of matter:
f f f

f
BOB

Meaning in language:
meaning vectors of words

does Alice
pregroup grammar

not
not

like

Bob

Knowledge updating :
B
P(C|AB) P(AB|C) P(A|C) P(B|C)

B A A

P(C|A)

A conditional independence

P(C|B)

=
BOB

f f

ALICE

=
=

=
=

like
Alice
not

Bob

C C-1 C-1
P(C|B) P(C|A)

B A (BA) -1

Outcome 2b: The structure is a true (quantum) logic:

- I can give you a demo backstage -

A MINIMAL LANGUAGE FOR QUANTUM REASONING

Abramsky & Coecke (2004) A categorical semantics for quantum protocols. arXiv:quant-ph/0402130 Coecke (2005) Kindergarten quantum mechanics. arXiv:quant-ph/0510032

 (physical) data in the language Systems: A B C Processes: A

f
-

Compound systems: AB A
hg
-

AC
g
-

f g

BD A
1A
-

Temporal composition: C := A B
h
-

 graphical notation

g
gf

f g

g f

Roger Penrose (1971) Applications of negative dimensional tensors. In: Combinatorial Mathematics and its Applications. Academic Press. Andr Joyal & Ross Street (1991) The geometry of tensor calculus I. e Advances in Mathematics 88, 55112.

 merely a new notation?

(g f ) (k h) = (g k) (f h)

g f

k h

 merely a new notation?

(g f ) (k h) = (g k) (f h)

h
=

peel potato and then fry it, while, clean carrot and then boil it

g f

k h

peel potato while clean carrot, and then, fry potato while boil carrot

 graphical notation :IA :AI :II

 graphical notation :IA :AI :II

 graphical notation :IA :AI :II

 graphical notation :IA :AI :II

 graphical notation :IA :AI :II

 graphical notation :IA :AI :II

 graphical notation :IA :AI :II

 graphical notation :IA :AI :II

 graphical notation :IA :AI :II

 graphical notation :IA :AI :II

 adjoint

f :AB

B f A

 adjoint

f: B A

A f B

 asserting (pure) entanglement

quantum = classical

= =

 quantum-like

 quantum-like

=
A

 quantum-like

=
A

 quantum-like

=
A

 quantum-like

=
A

 quantum-like

=
A

 quantum-like

 sliding

 sliding

In QM: cups = Bell-states, caps =Bell-effects, -rotations = transpose

classical data ow?

f f

classical data ow?

classical data ow?

classical data ow?

ALICE ALICE

BOB

quantum teleportation

=
BOB

Applying decorated normalization 3

f f f f

Entanglement swapping

classical data ow?

f g

gate teleportation computation

 dagger compact categories

Thm. [Kelly-Laplaza 80; Selinger 05] An equational statement between expressions in dagger compact categorical language holds if and only if it is derivable in the graphical notation via homotopy.

 dagger compact categories

Thm. [Kelly-Laplaza 80; Selinger 05] An equational statement between expressions in dagger compact categorical language holds if and only if it is derivable in the graphical notation via homotopy. Thm. [Selinger 08] An equational statement between expressions in dagger compact categorical language holds if and only if it is derivable in the category of nite dimensional Hilbert spaces, linear maps, tensor product, and adjoints.

 dagger compact categories In words: Any equation involving: states, operations, effects unitarity, adjoints (e.g. self-adjoint), projections Bell-states/effects, transpose, conjugation positivity, completely positive maps, ... inner-product, trace, Hilbert-Schmidt norm holds in quantum theory if and only if it can be derived in the graphical language via homotopy.

A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT LANGUAGE FOR NATURAL LANGUAGE MEANING

Coecke, Sadrzadeh & Clark (2010) Mathematical Foundations for a Compositional Distributional Model of Meaning. arXiv:1003.4394

 the from-words-to-a-sentence process Consider meanings of words (e.g. vectors as in Google):

?
word 1 word 2

How do we/machines compute meaning of sentences?

...

word n

 the from-words-to-a-sentence process Consider meanings of words (e.g. vectors as in Google):

grammar
word 1 word 2

How do we/machines compute meaning of sentences?

...

word n

 the from-words-to-a-sentence process Information ow within a verb:

object

subject

verb

 the from-words-to-a-sentence process Information ow within a verb:

object

subject

verb
Again we have:

 going non-symmetric
IAA
l l

A AI

Al

IA A

AA I

Ar

Al

Al

Al

Ar

A Al

A Al

A Ar

Ar A

A A Ar Ar

 Alice does not like Bob

 Alice does not like Bob

grammar ton

Alice does
meaning vectors of words

like

Bob

not

 Alice does not like Bob

grammar

Alice

not

like

Bob

meaning vectors of words

 Alice does not like Bob

grammar

Alice

not

like

Bob

meaning vectors of words

 Alice does not like Bob

grammar

Alice

not

like

Bob

meaning vectors of words

Alice

not

Bob

like

grammar

Alice

hates
measurements

Bob

meaning vectors of words

f
states

 analogy: non-local info-ows

English (& French):

Hindi:

Persian:

Arabic (and Hebrew):

Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh (2008) Pregroup analysis of Persian sentences.

THE EXTENDED LANGUAGE: COMPLEMENTARITY & CLASSICALITY

 observables

 observables m .... spiders = ....

n

such that, for k > 0:

.... ....

m+m k

.... =

.... ....

.... ....
n+n k

Coecke, Pavlovic & Vicary (2006, 2008) quant-ph/0608035, 0810.0812

 observables Theorem 1. In any dagger symmetric monoidal category families of spiders and dagger special commutative Frobenius algebra are in bijective correspondence.

 observables m .... spiders = ....

n

such that, for k > 0:

.... ....

m+m k

.... =

.... ....

.... ....
n+n k

 observables Theorem 1. In any dagger symmetric monoidal category families of spiders and dagger special commutative Frobenius algebra are in bijective correspondence. Theorem 2. (Coecke-Pavlovic-Vicary) In FdHilb dagger special commutative Frobenius algebra are exactly orthonormal bases, namely those of copyable elts.
Coecke & Pavlovic (2007) Quantum measurement without sums. In: Mathematics of Quantum Computing and Technology. quant-ph/0608035 Coecke, Pavlovic & Vicary (2008) A new description of orthogonal bases. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science. 0810.0812

 observables m .... spiders = ....

n

such that, for k > 0:

.... ....

m+m k

.... =

.... ....

.... ....
n+n k

Coecke, Pavlovic & Vicary (2006, 2008) quant-ph/0608035, 0810.0812

 complementarity

 complementarity

Coecke & Duncan (2008) Interacting quantum observables. arXiv:0906.4725

 environment

ground =

Thm. mixed states, CP maps, class. probabilities.

Coecke & Perdrix (2010) Environment and class. chan. ... arXiv:1004.1598

g g

 environment

ground =

Thm. mixed states, CP maps, class. probs in Hilb.

Coecke & Perdrix (2010) Environment and class. chan. ... arXiv:1004.1598

g g

 environment

ground =

Thm. mixed states, CP maps, class. probabilities.

Coecke & Perdrix (2010) Environment and class. chan. ... arXiv:1004.1598

Prop 1:

=
Prop 2:

Destructive measurement:

Non-destructive measurement:

Indeed measurement:

=
Indeed controlled unitary:

 key distribution

= =

 key distribution

qubit 1 the leftmost, and qubit 4 is the rightmost. By virtue of the soundness of R and Proposition 10, if DP can be rewritten to a circuit-like diagram without any conditional operations, then the rewrite sequence constitutes a proof that the pattern computes the same operation as phase groups and universality for QC the derived circuit. Example 19. Returning to the CNOT of Example Translation to circuits andpatternbelow, which18, there is a rewrite determinism for so-called sequence, the key steps of which are shown reduces the DP to the unconditional circuit-like pattern for CNOT introduced in Example measurement based quantum computations: 7. This proves two things: rstly that P indeed computes the CNOT unitary, and that the pattern P is deterministic.
H H

, {2}

, {2}
H

, {2} , {3}

H H

, {3} , {2} , {3}

, {2}

H H

, {2} , {3} , {3}

, {2}

, {3}

, {2}

, {2}

, {2}

, {2} , {2}

, {2} , {2} , {2} , {2}

One can clearly see in this example how the non-determinism introduced by measurements is corrected by conditional operations later in the pattern. The possibility of performing such (2010) Rewriting measurement-based quantum Ross Duncan & Simon Perdrixcorrections depends on the geometry of the pattern, the entanglement graph implicitly dened computations with generalised ow. ICALP10.by the pattern. Denition 20. Let P be a pattern; the geometry of P is an open graph (P) = (G, I, O) whose vertices are the qubits of P and where i j i Eij occurs in the command sequence of P. Denition 21. Given a geometry = ((V, E), I, O) we can dene a diagram

 phase groups and quantum non-locality Toy qubits vs. true quantum theory in one language:

local Spekkens qubit QM Z2 Z2 = = stabilizer qubit QM Z4 non-local

Bob Coecke, Bill Edwards & Rob Spekkens (2010) Phase groups and the origin of non-locality for qubits. arXiv:1003.5005

 entanglement classication Tripartite SLOCC-classes as comm. Frobenius algs: GHZ = |000 + |111 special CFAs = W = |001 + |010 + |100 anti-special CFAs

Coecke & Aleks Kissinger (2010) The compositional structure of multipartite quantum entanglement. ICALP10. arXiv:1002.2540

= =

PUNCHLINE ON LOGIC

Taking (de)composition as primitive (vs. an individual entities properties) we get very far with very little!

Taking (de)composition as primitive (vs. an individual entities properties) we get very far with very little! An interaction logic is also present in natural language (= also the source of static orthodox logic).

Taking (de)composition as primitive (vs. an individual entities properties) we get very far with very little! An interaction logic is also present in natural language (= also the source of static orthodox logic). Overall stance: Quantum richness is not going to be understood by weakening standard logical tools, but by considering radically different (classical?) ones.

Taking (de)composition as primitive (vs. an individual entities properties) we get very far with very little! An interaction logic is also present in natural language (= also the source of static orthodox logic). Overall stance: Quantum richness is not going to be understood by weakening standard logical tools, but by considering radically different (classical?) ones. Logic indeed (vs. quantum (non-)logic): Automation is demonstrated via the quantomatic software.
Dixon, Duncan & Kissinger. http://dream.inf.ed.ac.uk/projects/quantomatic/