arxiv: v2 [quant-ph] 27 Apr 2016

Transcription

1 Optimal state iscrimination an unstructure search in nonlinear quantum mechanics Anrew M. Chils 1,,3 an Joshua Young 3,4 arxiv: v [quant-ph] 7 Apr Department of Computer Science, Institute for Avance Computer Stuies, an Joint Center for Quantum Information an Computer Science, University of Marylan Department of Combinatorics & Optimization, University of Waterloo 3 Institute for Quantum Computing, University of Waterloo 4 Cheriton School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo Abstract Nonlinear variants of quantum mechanics can solve tasks that are impossible in stanar quantum theory, such as perfectly istinguishing nonorthogonal states. Here we erive the optimal protocol for istinguishing two states of a qubit using the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, a moel of nonlinear quantum mechanics that arises as an effective escription of Bose-Einstein conensates. Using this protocol, we present an algorithm for unstructure search in the Gross- Pitaevskii moel, obtaining an exponential improvement over a previous algorithm of Meyer an Wong. This result establishes a limitation on the effectiveness of the Gross-Pitaevskii approximation. More generally, we emonstrate similar behavior uner a family of relate nonlinearities, giving evience that the ability to quickly iscriminate nonorthogonal states an thereby solve unstructure search is a generic feature of nonlinear quantum mechanics. 1 Introuction Linearity is an essential feature of quantum mechanics whose violation can have ramatic operational consequences. In particular, Abrams an Lloy [3] showe that in a moel of nonlinear quantum mechanics ue to Weinberg [11], one can exponentially increase the angle between quantum states, istinguishing states separate by an angle ɛ in time O(log 1 ɛ ). This ability has strong computational implications, incluing a fast algorithm for unstructure search (an thus a fast algorithm for any problem in NP). In the unstructure search problem, one aims to fin a marke item using a black box that etermines whether any given item (out of N possible items) is marke. Using the ability to istinguish nonorthogonal states in the Weinberg theory, Abrams an Lloy gave an algorithm for unstructure search that uses time O(log N) an only a single query. More recent work of Meyer an Wong [9] consiere the computational power of the Gross- Pitaevskii equation, a nonlinear Schröinger equation that provies an effective escription of Bose-Einstein conensates. Specifically, they consiere a iscrete version of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, i t x ψ = g x ψ x ψ (1) 1

2 for a unit vector ψ span{ x }, where the coefficient g quantifies the strength of the nonlinearity. They presente an algorithm for unstructure search that simultaneously applies an oracle Hamiltonian, an input-inepenent riving Hamiltonian, an the Gross-Pitaevskii nonlinearity. Their algorithm uses time O(min{ N/g, N}), so it can (unsurprisingly) solve the search problem arbitrarily fast using an arbitrarily strong nonlinearity. However, by consiering the resources neee to measure the system at a precisely chosen time, they argue that a reasonable implementation woul have complexity O(N 1/4 ), giving only a moest improvement over the O( N) complexity of Grover s algorithm [7]. In this paper, we apply the original approach of Abrams an Lloy to the Gross-Pitaevskii nonlinearity. In Section, we fin the optimal protocol for istinguishing two states of a qubit by aing a carefully-chosen riving term. The optimal proceure istinguishes states with overlap 1 ɛ in time O( 1 g log 1 ɛ ), recovering essentially the same behavior as the Weinberg moel. In Section 3, we apply this result to the unstructure search problem. We present an algorithm with complexity O(min{ 1 g log(gn), N}), exponentially improving the upper boun of Meyer an Wong. Furthermore, we give a lower boun of Ω(min{ 1 g, N}), showing that our algorithm is optimal up to a logarithmic factor. It woul be interesting to fin a variant of quantum theory that allows a polynomial speeup over quantum computation, but no more (see [] for some recent progress in this irection). However, our results suggest that the Gross-Pitaevskii moel oes not provie such an example. We also consier a broa class of nonlinearities that generalize the Gross-Pitaevskii moel an show that all such moels lea to essentially the same behavior. This supports the view that the ability to exponentially increase the angle between states is a generic feature of nonlinear quantum mechanics, as previously suggeste by Abrams an Lloy [3] an Aaronson [1]. In light of the ramatic consequences for information processing, it seems unlikely that quantum mechanics is funamentally nonlinear. However, information-processing protocols using the Gross- Pitaevskii moel can be use to place limitations on the valiity of the unerlying approximation [9]. We iscuss this point further in Section 4, where we use our state iscrimination protocol to show that for an N -atom Bose-Einstein conensate, the Gross-Pitaevskii approximation can only hol up to time O( 1 g log N ). Finally, we conclue with an open problem regaring higher-imensional nonlinear state iscrimination in Section 5. State iscrimination In nonlinear quantum mechanics, states that are initially nonorthogonal can evolve to become perfectly istinguishable. In this section, we analyze the optimal protocol for istinguishing two states of a qubit uner the Gross-Pitaevskii an relate nonlinearities. Specifically, we consier nonlinear ynamics governe by an equation i ψ = H(t) ψ + K ψ () t where H(t) is a (time-epenent) Hermitian operator an K is a nonlinearity of the form x (K ψ ) = κ( x ψ ) x ψ (3) where κ: [0, 1] R is a function characterizing the nonlinearity. For example, the Gross-Pitaevskii nonlinearity correspons to κ(x) = gx, where the coefficient g quantifies the strength of the nonlinearity.

3 Suppose we are given one of two possible states of a qubit an our goal is to istinguish them as quickly as possible. Using the ability to choose the Hermitian riving term H(t), we can orient the states however we like, provie we preserve their inner prouct. Thus, to optimally istinguish the given states, we shoul etermine how to orient them on the Bloch sphere so their inner prouct ecreases as quickly as possible. Consier the pure state with Bloch sphere coorinates (x, y, z), i.e., with ensity matrix ρ = 1 ( ) 1 + z x iy. (4) x + iy 1 z Since 0 ψ = 1+z an 1 ψ = 1 z, the nonlinear term alone is equivalent to the stateepenent Hamiltonian ( ( κ ( 1+z )1/) ) 0 0 κ ( ( 1 z )1/). (5) In other wors, the state evolves accoring to the equation ρ t = i [( ) ( ( 1 + z x iy κ ( 1+z, )1/) 0 x + iy 1 z 0 κ ( ( 1 z = κ(z) ( ) 0 ix y ix y 0 where the o function κ(z): [ 1, 1] R is efine by Thus we fin )1/) κ(z) := κ ( ( 1+z )1/) κ ( ( 1 z )1/). (8) (x, y, z) = κ(z) ( y, x, 0). (9) t Uner these ynamics, states rotate aroun lines of latitue on the Bloch sphere at a rate epening on their latitue. Now consier how to optimally orient two states on the Bloch sphere. The rate of change of the inner prouct of Bloch vectors (x +, y +, z + ) an (x, y, z ) is t (x +x + y + y + z + z ) = (x + y y + x ) ( κ(z + ) κ(z ) ). (10) Suppose the states are separate by a fixe angle α on the Bloch sphere (i.e., angle α/ in Hilbert space) an we aim to rotate them to maximize the rate of ecrease of their inner prouct. Rotations about the z axis o not affect this rate. Thus, without loss of generality, we can choose the mipoint between the two states to lie in the xz plane. We orient the states as shown in Figure 1(a), where φ is the polar angle from the positive z axis to the mipoint an θ is the angle of rotation about the mipoint, with θ = 0 corresponing to the states lying along the line of longitue that passes through the x axis. In terms of these parameters, the states have the form x ± = cos α sin φ ± sin α cos φ cos θ (11) y ± = ± sin α sin θ (1) z ± = cos α cos φ sin α sin φ cos θ. (13) )] (6) (7) 3

4 z z { α θ φ y x x y (a) (b) Figure 1: (a) Orientation of states on the Bloch sphere with overlap cos α. (b) The flow on the Bloch sphere inuce by the Gross-Pitaevskii nonlinearity. Thus the rate of change of the inner prouct on the Bloch sphere is t cos α = (x +y y + x ) ( κ(z + ) κ(z ) ) (14) = sin α sin φ sin θ ( κ(z ) κ(z + ) ). (15) Given a specific nonlinearity κ, our goal is to choose φ an θ to minimize (15). Next we perform this calculation for several examples..1 Gross-Pitaevskii nonlinearity For the Gross-Pitaevskii nonlinearity, we have κ(x) = gx, so κ(z) = gz an the states evolve as (x, y, z) = gz( y, x, 0). (16) t As epicte in Figure 1(b), we can view this as a flow on the Bloch sphere that pushes states along lines of latitue. The rate of rotation varies as a function of latitue, with no rotation at the equator or poles an opposite irections of rotation in the northern an southern hemispheres. Given a fixe angle between states, we aim to place those states somewhere on the Bloch sphere to maximize the rate at which they separate. Equation (15) shows that the rate of change of the inner prouct on the Bloch sphere is t cos α = g sin α sin α sin φ sin θ. (17) Clearly the rate of ecrease of cos α is maximize by choosing φ = π/ an θ = 3π/4, giving t cos α = g sin α sin α. (18) 4

5 Equivalently, the rate of change of the overlap cos α (i.e., the magnitue of the inner prouct in Hilbert space) is which has the solution where α 0 is the value of α at t = 0. tanh gt = cos α 0, i.e., t cos α = 1 4 cos α cos α (19) t = g sin α (0) = g (1 cos α ), (1) cos α = cos α 0 cosh gt gt sinh cosh gt cos α 0 sinh gt () The states become orthogonal in a time t such that t = g tanh 1 (cos α 0 ) = g ln(cot α 0 4 ). (3) In particular, if the initial overlap is cos α 0 = 1 ɛ, the time to istinguish the states is Θ(log 1 ɛ ). In their optimal orientation, the states have Bloch vectors x ± = cos α (4) y ± = ± 1 sin α (5) z ± = ± 1 sin α. (6) To keep the states in this orientation, we must apply a rotation about the x axis that keeps the y an z components equal. An x rotation (generate by the Hamiltonian ω σ x) gives t (x, y, z) = ω(0, z, y). Combining this with the effect of the nonlinearity in (16), we have The states remain optimally oriente when (x, y, z) = ( gyz, gxz ωz, ωy). (7) t 0 = (y z) t (8) = gxz ω(y + z), (9) so we must choose ω g = xz y + z (30) = 1 cos α (31) (which is given as an explicit function of t by ()). One can easily verify that, with this choice of ω, equation (7) is satisfie. The performance of the optimal proceure using the Gross-Pitaevskii nonlinearity is illustrate in Figure. As shown in Figure (a), if the states are initially close, they separate graually at first, with an accelerating rate of separation, until they become orthogonal. The time for the states to become orthogonal (as a function of their initial separation) is plotte in Figure (b). 5

6 cos α gt gt 0 π 4 π 3π 4 π α 0 (a) (b) Figure : Optimally istinguishing two states of a qubit using the Gross-Pitaevskii nonlinearity κ(x) = gx. (a) Inner prouct between states as a function of time, as given by equation (), for initial states with α 0 = 0.1. (b) Time to istinguish states separate by an angle α 0 on the Bloch sphere, as given by equation (3).. Logarithmic nonlinearity Motivate by a connection to Bose liquis, reference [10] consiers the nonlinearity κ(x) = g ln(x ). With this nonlinearity, we have κ(z) = g ln 1+z 1 z, so by (15), the inner prouct on the Bloch sphere evolves as t cos α = g sin α sin φ sin θ ln (1 + z )(1 z + ) (1 z )(1 + z + ). (3) Consier the initial states that are optimal for the Gross-Pitaevskii nonlinearity, with φ = π/ an θ = 3π/4. While this choice is suboptimal for the logarithmic nonlinearity, it serves to place an upper boun on the time require to istinguish the states. (In fact, numerical calculation shows that the optimal states have φ = π/ an θ 3π/4.) Using these states, we have t cos α = g 1 ln ( sin α + sin α ) sin α. (33) As shown in Figure 3, this is at most a constant times the corresponing quantity uner the Gross- Pitaevskii nonlinearity, so the performance of the logarithmic nonlinearity is qualitatively similar. In particular, for cos α 0 = 1 ɛ we again fin that the time to istinguish the states is Θ(log 1 ɛ )..3 General nonlinearities So far, we have consiere the performance of two specific nonlinearities. However, similar consierations apply for a wie class of nonlinearities of the form (3). Since the evolution of states uner a nonlinearity κ epens only on the function κ efine in (8), let us evaluate state iscrimination in terms of the latter function. Note that we can achieve any o function κ for some κ. In particular, if we let κ(x) = { µ(x) x [0, 1 ] ν( 1 x ) x ( 1, 1] (34) 6

7 cos α t cos α Figure 3: Rate of change of the overlap for the Gross-Pitaevskii an logarithmic nonlinearities. The soli curve is (33) with g = 1; the ashe curve is (1) with g =. for some µ, ν : [0, 1 ] R, then we fin ν ( ) ( ) 1 z µ 1 z z (0, 1] κ(z) = 0 z = 0 κ( z) z [ 1, 0). (35) Now suppose κ(z) is approximately linear for small z. Specifically, suppose there are constants g, δ > 0 such that κ(z) gz for all z [0, δ]. For such a nonlinearity, the complexity of istinguishing states with overlap 1 ɛ is O( 1 g log 1 ɛ ), just as with the Gross-Pitaevskii an logarithmic nonlinearities. To see this, a straightforwar calculation shows that the states separate by an angle α with φ = π/ an θ = 3π/4 have Uner the given conitions on κ(z), we fin t cos α = 1 κ ( 1 sin α ) sin α. (36) t cos α g sin α (37) provie sin α δ. Comparing with (1), we see that the states separate at least as quickly as with the Gross-Pitaevskii nonlinearity provie the overlap is at least 1 δ. Similarly to (3), a straightforwar calculation shows that the time to achieve overlap cos α 1 δ uner the Gross-Pitaevskii nonlinearity is at most ( cot α 0 ) g ln 4 cot α, (38) 4 so the states become istinguishable with constant avantage in time O( 1 g log 1 ɛ ). In fact, it is not essential for κ(z) to be linear about z = 0; similar performance can be achieve provie the function grows linearly about any fixe z 0 [0, 1) (which hols for any function that is ifferentiable an non-constant over some interval). Specifically, suppose there are constants 7

8 g, > 0 such that κ(z 0 ) κ(z 0 + δ) g δ for all δ <. Then, taking cos φ = z 0 an either θ = 3π/4 or θ = π/4 (making the choice so that κ(z + ) > κ(z )), we fin z + z = (1 z0 ) sin α (39) Thus by (15), we have 1 z 0 α. (40) 1 z cos α g 0 α sin α (41) t provie α is at most some constant (epening on z 0 an ). Integrating this inequality, we have α(t) e ct α 0 where c := g (1 z0 )/. Since the angle between the states increases exponentially until it reaches at least some constant, states with overlap 1 ɛ become istinguishable with constant avantage in time O( 1 g log 1 ɛ ). Conversely, provie only that κ(z) is Lipschitz continuous, this behavior is asymptotically optimal. To see this, suppose that κ(z) has Lipschitz constant g, i.e., κ(z) κ(z + δ) gδ. Since we have κ(z ) κ(z + ) gα in (15). Therefore z + z (x +, y +, z + ) (x, y, x ) (4) = (1 cos α) (43) α, (44) cos α gα sin α. (45) t Integrating this inequality gives α(t) e gt α 0. Since the angle increases at most exponentially with gt, we require time Ω( 1 g log 1 ɛ ) to istinguish states with overlap 1 ɛ. Note that it is possible to violate this lower boun if the Lipschitz conition oes not hol. For example, suppose κ(z) = sgn(z) z (which is achieve, for example, with κ(x) = 0 for x [0, 1/ ] an κ(x) = x 1 for x (1/, 1]). Then, taking states with φ = π/ an θ = 3π/4, equation (36) gives ( ) 1 3/ t cos α = sin α. (46) While this ifferential equation oes not have a simple close-form solution, we have the boun t cos α r α sin α (47) for all α [0, π], where r := ( 3/4 π) 1. Integrating this inequality, we fin α(t) ( α 0 + rt). Therefore any two istinct states become istinguishable in constant time, inepenent of how close they are initially. 8

9 3 Unstructure search We now turn our attention to algorithms for unstructure search in nonlinear quantum mechanics. In the unstructure search problem, our goal is to search the set [N] := {1,,..., N} for a member of the marke set M [N], given the ability to etermine whether a given element is marke. Equivalently, we can consier the problem of eciing whether there is no marke item (i.e., M is empty) or a unique marke item (M = {m} for some unknown m [N]). Using stanar techniques, an algorithm for this ecision problem can be use to fin a marke item with only logarithmic overhea. In the conventional quantum query moel, access to the input is provie by a black box that etermines whether a given element of [N] is marke (an that can be querie on a superposition of elements). Here we work in a continuous-time moel [5] where access to the input is provie by an oracle Hamiltonian. This Hamiltonian is m m if M = {m} an is zero if there is no marke item. We consier algorithms that use such an oracle Hamiltonian together with an arbitrary M-inepenent riving Hamiltonian H(t) an a given nonlinearity K. The ynamics of such an algorithm are governe by the equation if M = {m}, or i t ψ = ( m m + H(t) ) ψ + K ψ (48) i ψ = H(t) ψ + K ψ (49) t if there is no marke item. We quantify the complexity of such an algorithm by the time require to fin the solution. As in the stanar continuous-time query moel, we place no constraints on the norm of H(t). However, we consier a fixe-strength nonlinearity K, since an arbitrarily strong nonlinearity coul solve the search problem arbitrarily fast. Thus our complexities will be expresse as a function of both N, the number of items, an g, a parameter characterizing the strength of the nonlinearity. In contrast, in the absence of a nonlinearity, the search problem requires Ω( N) queries even when H(t) can be arbitrarily large [5]. 3.1 Algorithm To give an algorithm for unstructure search, we reuce the problem of eciing whether there are zero or one marke items to the task of iscriminating two possible states of a qubit. We o this using the Haamar test shown in Figure 4. (This approach is similar to that of Abrams an Lloy [3], although we work with the continuous-time query moel so we can consier algorithms that query the oracle for only a short time.) A straightforwar calculation shows that the output of the Haamar test circuit is 1 [ 0 ( s + U s ) + 1 ( s U s )]. (50) To prouce a single-qubit state, we postselect the secon register on the state s. This postselection succees with probability 1[ 1 + s U s + 1 s U s ] = 1 + s U s 4 (51) 9

10 0 H H s U Figure 4: The Haamar test. The first register stores a qubit. The Haamar gate H acts as H 0 = 1 ( ) an H 1 = 1 ( 0 1 )). an results in a state (1 + s U s ) 0 + (1 s U s ) 1. (5) (1 + s U s ) We apply this proceure to the evolution uner the oracle Hamiltonian for time t 1, namely U = e it 1 s s if element m is marke, or U = I if no item is marke. We choose the uniform superposition s := 1 N x [N] x as the initial state. If no item is marke, then clearly s U s = 1 for any evolution time t 1. Thus the postselection on s always succees, an the postselecte state of the first qubit is 0. On the other han, if some item m is marke, then we have U s = 1 N (e it 1 m + x m x ). (53) Therefore s U s = 1 1 N (1 e it 1 ), so the success probability (51) is 1 + s U s = 1 N 1 N (1 cos t 1 ) = 1 O(t 1/N) (54) (i.e., for t 1 N, the postselection almost always succees). The overlap of the postselecte state (5) with 0 is 1 + s U s (1 + s U s ) = N 1 + e it 1 N (N 1)(1 cos t 1 ) (55) = 1 t 1 8N + O(t4 1/N ). (56) It remains to istinguish the two possible states. Using the protocol escribe in Section, states with overlap 1 ɛ can be istinguishe in time t = O( 1 g log 1 ɛ ), where g is the strength of the nonlinearity. (We saw in Section.3 that such a boun hols not only for the Gross-Pitaevskii an logarithmic nonlinearities, but for any nonlinearity of the form (3) where κ changes at least linearly over some constant-size interval.) From (56), we have ɛ = Θ(t 1 /N ). Thus we fin an algorithm that solves the search problem in total time Taking t 1 = Θ( 1 g log(ng)), the total time is O( 1 g log(ng)). t 1 + t = O(t g log N t 1 ). (57) Of course, if g is very small (in particular, if g log N N ) then it may be preferable to eschew the nonlinearity an instea use Grover s algorithm alone. Taking that possibility into account, we fin an algorithm with complexity ( ) N O(min{ 1 g log(gn), N}) = O g N log(gn) + 1. (58) 10

11 This improves the previous upper boun of O ( N g+1) = O(min{ N/g, N}) [9]. For example, with g = Θ(1), we improve the complexity from O( N) to O(log N). 3. Lower boun We now show that the algorithm escribe above is nearly optimal. We follow the same strategy as in the lower boun for the linear case [5]. Let ψ be the state of the algorithm when there is no marke item an let ψ m be the state when the marke item is m. Consier how the inner prouct ψ ψ m evolves uner the ynamics (48) an (49) for an arbitrary riving Hamiltonian H(t). We fin t ψ ψ m = i ψ m m ψ m + i(k ψ ) ψ m i ψ (K ψ m ) (59) = i ψ m m ψ m + i ( κ( x ψ ) κ( x ψm ) ) ψ x x ψ m. (60) x (In particular, observe that the riving Hamiltonian H(t) oes not appear, just as in the linear case.) Provie κ(x) g, we have ( κ( x ψ ) κ( x ψm ) ) ψ x x ψ m g ψ x x ψ m g (61) x x by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, so t ψ ψ m m ψ + g. (6) Summing over the N possible marke items, we fin ( ψ ψ m t m [N] m [N] m ψ ) + gn (63) N + gn (64) where we again use the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Integrating for time t using the initial conition m [N] ψ ψ m = N, we fin that ψ ψ m N t N(1 + g N). (65) m [N] For the algorithm to succee with constant probability, the unmarke state must be istinguishable from each marke state with constant probability, so the final states must satisfy ψ ψ m 1 δ for some constant δ > 0. Therefore ψ ψ m N(1 δ). (66) Comparing with (65), we fin m [N] t δ N 1 + g N. (67) Thus a boune-error algorithm must have complexity Ω ( ) N g N+1 = Ω(min{ 1 g, N}). This shows that the algorithm escribe in Section 3.1 is optimal up to a logarithmic factor. 11

12 4 Valiity of the Gross-Pitaevskii approximation Since the Gross-Pitaevskii moel is an approximate escription of a funamentally quantum system, upper bouns on the search problem in this moel can be interprete as establishing limitations on the effectiveness of the approximation. Using limits on the parallelizability of unstructure search, Meyer an Wong argue that this perspective gives a lower boun on how large a Bose-Einstein conensate shoul be for the Gross-Pitaeveskii approximation to hol [9]. They suggeste that the N -particle Bose-Einstein conensate makes N queries in parallel per unit time, so the boun N T = Ω(N) for a parallel quantum search algorithm with query epth T [1], together with their search upper boun T = O( N/g), implies N = Ω(g). While the search algorithm presente in Section 3 has lower complexity, the above argument oes not apply to that case. In our approach, we query the black box for a short time using only linear quantum mechanics an then istinguish the resulting states using the nonlinearity. Since the nonlinear portion of the computation makes no access to the oracle, the harness of parallelizing quantum search oes not restrict the valiity of the Gross-Pitaevskii approximation. However, we can use state iscrimination to obtain a limitation on the time for which the Gross- Pitaevskii approximation remains vali. In this approximation, ψ is not literally the quantum state of the system; rather, it parameterizes the mean-fiel bosonic state MF(ψ) := 1 N! ( x x ψ a x) N 0 (68) where 0 is the vacuum state, a x is a creation operator for moe x, an N is the number of particles in the system. It is straightforwar to unerstan the istinguishability of these mean-fiel states in terms of their parameterizing vectors: a simple calculation shows that MF(ψ) MF(φ) = ( ψ φ ) N, so the istinguishability of states of the form MF(ψ) is the same as that of ψ N. In our protocol, ψ is a qubit, so we can represent it using a two-moe conensate an implement the riving term H(t) by riving transitions between these two moes. By the Helstrom boun [8], N = Θ(1/ɛ) copies are necessary an sufficient to istinguish states with overlap 1 ɛ with constant avantage (in fact, this boun can be achieve even with unentangle measurements [4]). Since the Gross- Pitaevskii nonlinearity of strength g can istinguish states with overlap 1 ɛ in time t = O( 1 g log 1 ɛ ), we fin that the Gross-Pitaevskii approximation can only hol up to time O( 1 g log N ). For a homogeneous conensate, g = U N for some constant interaction strength U, so the approximation only hols up to time O( log N N ). While it is appealing to obtain such a limitation from information-theoretic consierations, it appears that one can erive a stronger boun by irect analysis of the conensate ynamics [6]. This analysis suggests that in fact the approximation is only vali for Ut 1/N, so that for a homogeneous conensate, it only hols up to time O(1/N ). 5 Conclusion We have stuie the power of nonlinear quantum ynamics to istinguish nonorthogonal states an to perform unstructure search. We showe that the Gross-Pitaevskii nonlinearity of strength g can be use to istinguish states with overlap 1 ɛ in time O( 1 g log 1 ɛ ). We applie this result to give an algorithm for unstructure search in this moel with complexity O(min{ 1 g log(gn), N}), an exponential improvement over previous work. We also showe that many other nonlinearities of a relate form have similar behavior. Finally, we use our state iscrimination protocol to argue 1

13 that for an N -atom Bose-Einstein conensate, the Gross-Pitaevskii approximation can only hol up to time O( 1 g log N ). We conclue with an open problem regaring nonlinear state iscrimination. Our state iscrimination analysis was restricte to the case of a single qubit. It is unclear whether states coul be iscriminate more quickly using higher-imensional systems. Numerical evience suggests that our optimal protocol for istinguishing two states of a qubit with the Gross-Pitaevskii nonlinearity remains optimal if the states are allowe to lie in a higher-imensional space. Furthermore, numerical evience also suggests that for many other nonlinearities of the form (3), the optimal protocol for qubit states cannot be improve by embeing those states in a higher-imensional space. However, we o not have a proof that optimality can be achieve using only two imensions. A notable example where higher imensions o offer an avantage is provie by the nonlinearity with κ(x) = x x 4 (as consiere in [10]). This nonlinearity has κ(z) = 0, so it cannot make two states of a qubit more istinguishable. However, by embeing the states in three or more imensions, it becomes possible to ecrease their inner prouct. In this case, numerical evience suggests that there is no avantage to using more than four imensions. Acknowlegments AMC thanks Michael Foss-Feig, Alexey Gorshkov, an Eite Tiesinga for helpful iscussions about the breakown of the Gross-Pitaevskii approximation. We also thank Davi Meyer an Thomas Wong for comments on a preliminary version of this paper. This work was supporte by the Canaian Institute for Avance Research, the National Sciences an Engineering Research Council of Canaa, the Ontario Ministry of Research an Innovation, an the US Army Research Office. References [1] Scott Aaronson, NP-complete problems an physical reality, ACM SIGACT News 36 (005), no. 1, 30 5, arxiv:quant-ph/ [] Scott Aaronson, Aam Boulan, Joseph Fitzsimons, an Mitchell Lee, The space just above BQP, arxiv: [3] Daniel S. Abrams an Seth Lloy, Nonlinear quantum mechanics implies polynomial-time solution for NP-complete an #P problems, Physical Review Letters 81 (1998), no. 18, 399, arxiv:quant-ph/ [4] Antonio Acín, Emilio Bagan, Marià Baig, Lluis Masanes, an Ramon Muñoz-Tapia, Multiplecopy two-state iscrimination with iniviual measurements, Physical Review A 71 (005), no. 3, 03338, arxiv:quant-ph/ [5] Ewar Farhi an Sam Gutmann, Analog analogue of a igital quantum computation, Physical Review A 57 (1998), no. 4, , arxiv:quant-ph/ [6] Alexey Gorshkov, personal communication. [7] Lov K. Grover, Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a neele in a haystack, Physical Review Letters 79 (1997), no., 35 38, arxiv:quant-ph/ [8] Carl W. Helstrom, Quantum etection an estimation theory, Acaemic Press,

14 [9] Davi A. Meyer an Thomas G. Wong, Nonlinear quantum search using the Gross Pitaevskii equation, New Journal of Physics 15 (013), no. 6, , arxiv: [10] Davi A. Meyer an Thomas G. Wong, Quantum search with general nonlinearities, Physical Review A 89 (014), no. 1, 0131, arxiv: [11] Steven Weinberg, Testing quantum mechanics, Annals of Physics 194 (1989), no., [1] Christof Zalka, Grover s quantum searching algorithm is optimal, Physical Review A 60 (1999), no. 4, , arxiv:quant-ph/