arxiv: v3 [quant-ph] 27 May 2016

Transcription

1 arxiv: v3 [quant-ph] 27 May 2016 Cateorical Quantum Mechanics I: Causal Quantum Processes ob Coecke 1 and leks Kissiner 2 1 Department o Computer Science, Oxord. coecke@cs.ox.ac.uk 2 icis, Radboud University, Nijmeen. aleks@cs.ru.nl bstract We derive the cateory-theoretic backbone o quantum theory rom a process ontoloy. More speciically, we treat quantum theory as a theory o systems, processes and their interactions. In this irst part o a three-part overview, we irst present a eneral theory o diarams, and in particular, o strin diarams. We discuss why diarams are a very natural startin point or developin scientiic theories. Then we deine process theories, and deine a very eneral notion o quantum type. We show how our process ontoloy enables us to assert causality, that is, compatibility o quantum theory and relativity theory, and we prove the no-sinallin theorem. Other notable contributions include new, eleant derivations o the no-broadcastin theorem, unitarity o evolution, and Stinesprin dilation, all or any quantum type in a eneral class o process theories. 1 Introduction This chapter is the irst o a three-part overview on cateorical quantum mechanics (CQM), an area o applied cateory-theory that over the past twelve years or so has become increasinly prominent within physics, mathematics and computer science, and even has spin-os in other areas such as computational linuistics. Probably the most appealin eature o CQM is the use o diarams, which are related to the usual Hilbert space model via symmetric monoidal cateories and structures therein. However, we have written this overview in such a way that no prior knowlede on cateory theory is required. In act, it can be seen as a irst encounter with the relevant parts o cateory theory. We start with boxes and wires, which toether make up diarams. The wires stand or systems, and the boxes stand or processes. Symmetric monoidal cateories then arise when endowin diarams with operations o sequential and parallel composition. There are very ood reasons to start with diarams, rather than with traditional cateory-theoretic axioms, one bein that the set-theoretic 1

2 underpinnin o cateory theory invokes an additional level o bureaucracy, namely dealin with such details as the bracketin o expressions, which has no counterpart in the reality that one aims to describe. In other words, the traditional symbolic presentation o monoidal cateories suers rom a substantial overhead as compared to its diarammatic counterpart, to the extent that monoidal cateory theory itsel becomes much simpler i one takes diarams as a startin point. From this perspective, the role o the traditional presentation o monoidal cateories is reduced to providin a bride to standard mathematical models, or example, the presentation o quantum theory usin Hilbert space. Next we deine very eneral quantum types. Despite this enerality, we are able to derive important results that characterise the behaviour o quantum systems, most notably, the no-broadcastin theorem [4]. The diarammatic ormalism also makes it remarkably easy to assert compliance with the theory o relativity, namely, in terms o a causality postulate [7], which, in cateorytheoretic terms, simply boils down to the tensor unit bein terminal [15]. ain, important results ollow straihtorwardly, such as unitarity o evolution and Stinespin dilation. Other overviews, surveys and tutorials on CQM. This three-part overview has a bi brother, namely, a orthcomin textbook [18] by the same authors. This three-part overview, which amounts to some 70 paes, strives to be selcontained, but the book (which is about 12 times that size) will provide a more comprehensive introduction suitable or students and researchers in a wide variety o disciplines and levels o experience. There is another orthcomin book [25], but rather than providin a complete presentation o quantum theory rom irst principles, it puts many o the core aspects o CQM studied in earlier papers in one place, and also emphasises how the structures used in CQM appear in other areas o mathematics. tutorial that provides a pedestrian introduction to the relevant cateory theory or CQM, and is complementary to this three-part one, is [19]. There have been shorter overviews on CQM beore in the spirit o this one, e.. [10, 13], but the material simply wasn t ripe enouh at that time or a ully-comprehensive presentation o quantum theory. Comparison to previous versions o CQM. The most prominent dierence between this overview and the way CQM has been presented in the past is the act that we take diarams as our startin point, rather than standard cateory-theoretic structures and consistently introduce all new inredients o the ormalism in those terms. While process ontoloy has played a motivational role throuhout the entire CQM endeavour, see e.. [14], only now does every sinle inredient emere rom this ontoloy. This idea to start with diarams as a primitive notion, even when a symbolic alternative is available, has also been advocated by Hardy [24]. s compared to the paper by bramsky and Coecke that initiated CQM [1], a now well-established dierence is that we no loner rely on biproducts 2

3 (a non-diarammatic concept) or the description o classical types. They have been superseded by special processes called spiders, which allow one to express the characteristic processes associated with classical data (most importantly: copy and delete ) and reason about them diarammatically [21, 20]. more recent innovation is the central role now played by Chiribella, D riano and Perinotti s causality postulate [7]. In the past, issues o normalisation were mostly inored in CQM. Only recently it became apparent that the type o normalisation captured in the causality postulate is somethin structurally very undamental to processes which are physically realisable. Notably, all the results in Section 5 o this chapter rely on it. 2 Process theories The art o proress is to preserve order amid chane, and to preserve chane amid order. lred North Whitehead, Process and Reality, ter his attempt to complete the set-theoretic oundations o mathematics in collaboration with Russell, Whitehead s venture into the natural sciences made him realise that the traditional timeless ontoloy o substances, and not in the least their static set-theoretic underpinnin, does not suit natural phenomena. Instead, he claims, it is processes and their relationships which should underpin our understandin o those phenomena. Can one turn this stance into a ormal underpinnin or natural sciences? Cateory theory is a bi step in that direction, but alls short o shakin o its set-theoretic shackles. 2.1 Processes as diarams We shall use the term process to reer to anythin that has zero or more inputs and zero or more outputs. For instance, the unction: : R ˆ R Ñ R :: px, yq ÞÑ x 2 ` y (1) is a process which takes two real numbers as input and produces one real number as output. We represent such a process as a box with some wires comin in the bottom to represent input systems and some wires comin out the top to represent output systems. For example, we could write the unction (1) like this: R R The labels on wires are called system-types or simply types. Similarly, a computer proram is a process which takes some data (e.. rom memory) as input and produces some new data as output. For example, a proram that sorts lists miht look like this: R (2) 3

4 sorted lists quicksort lists The ollowin are also perectly ood processes: liht liht breakast noise poo binoculars cookin baby liht liht es bacon ood love Clearly the world around us is packed with processes! We can wire toether simple processes to make more complicated processes, which are described by diarams: C D h We orm diarams by pluin the outputs o some processes into the inputs o others. This is allowed only i the types o the output and the input match. For example, the ollowin two processes: C D and D can be connected in some ways, but not in others, dependin on the types o their wires: h D h C h C D D h C D D This restriction on which wirins are allowed is an essential part o the lanuae o diarams, in that it tells us when it makes sense to apply a process to a certain 4

5 system and prevents occurrences like this: noise? quicksort baby poo ood love which probably wouldn t be very ood or your computer! One thin to note is we haven t yet been too careul to say what a diaram actually is. complete description o a diaram consists o: 1. what boxes it contains, and 2. how those boxes are connected. So the diaram reers to the drawin o boxes and wires without the interpretation o the diaram as a process. However, it makes no reerence to where boxes are written on the pae. Hence, i two diarams can be deormed into each other (without chanin connections o course) then they are equal: k k (3) h h When we think about interpretin the boxes in a diaram as processes, we are usually not interested in all possible processes, but rather in a certain class o related processes. For example, practicioners o a particular scientiic discipline will typically only study a particular class o processes: physical processes, chemical processes, bioloical processes, computational processes, etc. For that reason, we oranise processes into process theories. Deinition 2.1. process theory consists o: (i) a collection T o system-types represented by wires, (ii) a collection P o processes represented by boxes, where or each process in P the input types and output types are taken rom T, and (iii) a means o wirin processes toether. That is, an operation that interprets a diaram o processes in P as a process in P. 5

6 In particular, (iii) uarantees that: process theories are closed under wirin processes toether, since it is this operation that tells us what wirin processes toether means. In some cases this operation consists o literally pluin thins toether with physical wires, like in the theory o electrical devices: uk-plu uk-plu power drill eu-plu adaptor : uk-plu plustrip uk-plu In other cases this will require some more work, and sometimes there is more than one obvious choice available. We shall see below that in traditional mathematical practice one typically breaks down wirin processes toether in two sub-operations: parallel composition and sequential composition o processes. ccordin to Deinition 2.1 a process theory tells us how to interpret the boxes and wires in a diaram. ut, crucially, by doin so it also tells us which diarams consistin o those processes should be considered equal. For example, suppose we deine a simple process theory or computer prorams, where the types are data-types (e.. inteers, booleans, lists, etc.) and the processes are computer prorams. Then, consider a short proram, which takes a list as input and sorts it. It miht be deined this way (don t worry i you can t read the code, neither can hal o the authors): quicksort : $ qs [] = [] & qs (x :: xs) = qs [y y <- xs; y < x] ++ [x] ++ % qs [y y <- xs; y >= x] Wirin toether prorams means sendin the output o one proram to the input o another proram. Takin two prorams to be equal i they behave the same (disreardin some details like execution time, etc.), our process theory yields equations like this one: 6

7 quicksort quicksort quicksort i.e. sortin a list twice has the same eect as sortin it once. Unlike equation (3), this is not just a matter o deormin one diaram into another, but actually represents a non-trivial equation between processes. The reason we call a process theory a theory is that it comes with lots o such equations, and these equations are precisely what allows us to draw conclusions about the processes we are studyin. nother thin one expects rom a theory is that it makes predictions. In particular, one usually expects a theory to produce some numbers (e.. probabilities) that can veriied by experiments. Toward that end, we irst identiy two special kinds o processes: States are processes without any inputs. In operational terms they are preparation procedures. We represent them as ollows: Eects are processes without any outputs. We have borrowed this terminoloy rom quantum theory, where eects play a key role. From now on we represent them as ollows: π When composin a state and an eect a third special kind o process arises which neither has inputs nor outputs, called a number. Every process theory has at least one number, iven by the empty diaram : 1 : We label this number 1 because combinin the empty diaram with any other process yields the same process aain. It is natural to interpret the number arisin rom the composition o a state and an eect as the probability that, iven the system is in that state, the eect happens: test state π probability We reer to this procedure as the eneralised orn rule. 7

8 In the introduction we announced that we would introduce cateory-theoretic deinitions ater we introduced the relevant diarammatic notion. However, the simple notion o a diaram introduced above, has a not so simple cateorytheoretic description. We will now irst introduce a more sophisticated notion o a diaram, which actually has a simpler cateory-theoretic counterpart, and this will serve as a steppin stone to deinin the cateory-theoretic counterpart to the diarams considered above. 2.2 Circuit diarams Given that boxes represent processes, we can deine two basic composition operations on processes with the ollowin interpretations: b : process takes place while process takes place : process takes place ater process takes place The parallel composition operation, written b, consists o placin a pair o diarams side-by-side: F D E F D E c c b b : b a a C C ny two diarams can be composed in this manner, since placin diarams sideby-side does not involve connectin anythin. This relects the act that both processes are happenin independently o each other. This composition operation is associative: b b h h b b h (4) and it has a unit, the empty diaram: b b (5) Parallel composition is deined or system-types as well. That is, or types and, we can orm a new type b, called the joint system-type: b : 8

9 There is also a special empty system-type, symbolically denoted I, which is used to represent no inputs, no ouputs or both. The sequential composition operation, written, consists o connectin the outputs o one diaram to the inputs o another diaram: E C E F F C D a b a b D In other words, the process on the riht happens irst, ollowed by the process on the let, takin the output o the irst process as its input. Clearly not any pair o diarams can be composed in this manner: the number and type o the inputs o the let process must match the number and type o the outputs o the riht process. The sequential composition operation is also associative: h h h (6) and it also has a unit. This time, it s a plain wire o appropriate type: These two composition operations, due to their diarammatic oriin, also obey an interchane law. Since we have: (7) b 2 1 b b b

10 it ollows that: 1 b 2 1 b b 2 2 (8) Note that assumes there is some orderin on the input/output wires, and plus them toether in order. We can then express dierent orders by means o two wires crossin over each other: which as called a swap. Deinition 2.2. diaram is a circuit i it can be constructed by composin boxes, includin identities and swaps, by means o b and. Every diaram that we have seen so ar in this chapter is in act a circuit. Here is an example o the assembly o such a circuit: b i i b i h b b h h ut not all diarams are circuits. To understand which ones are, we provide an equivalent characterisation that doesn t reer to the manner that one can build these diarams, but in terms o a property that has to be satisied. 10

11 Deinition 2.3. directed path o wires is a list o wires pw 1, w 2,..., w n q in a diaram such or all i ă n, the wire w i is an input to some box or which the wire w i`1 is an output. directed cycle is a directed path that starts and ends at the same box. n example o a directed path is shown in bold here: w 3 w 2 h w 1 and an an example o a directed cycle is: w 2 w 1 w 3 h While diarams only allow inputs to be connected to outputs, we indeed have done nothin (so ar) to rule out the existence o directed cycles. This is precisely what the restrictin to circuit diarams does or us: Theorem 2.4. The ollowin are equivalent: a diaram is a circuit, and, it contains no directed cycles. 2.3 Cateory-theoretic counterpart We are now ready to provide a cateory-theoretic counterpart to diarams. symmetric monoidal cateory is essentially a process theory where all diarams are circuit diarams. Systems and processes are renamed, respectively as objects and morphisms, and rather than diarams bein the main actor, the composition operations and b are taken as primitive. In order to uarantee that these operations behave as they did with diarams, we have to require extra equations, namely equations (4) (8) above. Deinition 2.5. (strict) monoidal cateory C consists o: a collection obpcq o objects, or every pair o objects,, a set Cp, q o morphisms, 11

12 or every object, a special identity morphism 1 P Cp, q, a sequential composition operation or morphisms: p q : Cp, Cq ˆ Cp, q Ñ Cp, Cq a parallel composition operation or objects: p b q : obpcq ˆ obpcq Ñ obpcq a unit object I P obpcq, and a parallel composition operation or morphisms: p b q : Cp, q ˆ CpC, Dq Ñ Cp b C, b Dq such that: b is associative and unital on objects: p b q b C b p b Cq b I I b b is associative and unital on morphisms: p b q b h b p b hq b 1 I 1 I b is associative and unital on morphisms: ph q h p q 1 1 b and satisy the interchane law: p 1 b 2 q p 1 b 2 q p 1 1 q b p 2 2 q Note we oten write : Ñ as shorthand or P Cp, q, which indicates that we are thinkin o morphisms as maps o some kind. Deinition 2.6. symmetric monoidal cateory (SMC) is a monoidal cateory with a swap morphism: σ, : b Ñ b deined or all objects,, satisyin: σ, σ, 1 b p b q σ, σ 1,1 p b q σ,i 1 p1 b σ,c q pσ, b 1 C q σ,bc 12

13 The diarammatic counterparts to the irst two o these equations are: which are simply diaram deormations. The remainin two equations are aain tautoloies in terms o diarams: It oes without sayin that the cateory-theoretic deinition is much more involved than its diarammatic counterpart. nd in act, it ets worse when we drop the strict rom it, as explained in [19] Simply stated, droppin strictness allows or some o the deinin equations not to hold on-the-nose, but are allowed some wile room. However, makin this precise requires a number o natural isomorphisms, which express how one wiles rom the LHS to the RHS, toether with a bunch o coherence conditions which orce all the natural isomorphisms to it toether well. The reason why it does make sense (and is in act necessary) to consider this very involved deinition is that pretty much all set-theoretic structures which oranise themselves into monoidal cateories are in act o the non-strict variety. However, there is a standard procedure or turnin every non-strict monoidal cateory into an equivalent strict one, so considerin only strict monoidal cateories (as we shall do throuhout these papers) yields no real loss o enerality. Example 2.7. The cateory FHilb whose objects are inite-dimensional Hilbert spaces and whose morphisms are linear maps orms a (non-strict) SMC. Sequential composition is just the usual composition o linear maps, parallel composition is tensor product, and the unit object is the 1-dimensional Hilbert space C. The cateory Hilb o all Hilbert spaces and bounded linear maps also orms an SMC. However, it does not orm a compact closed cateory, which we ll deine in the next section, so in cateorical quantum mechanics, we typically ocus on FHilb. The precise connection between SMCs and circuit diarams is the ollowin: Theorem 2.8. ny circuit diaram can be interpreted as a morphism in an SMC, and two morphisms are equal accordin to the axioms o an SMC i and only i their circuit diarams are equal. We won t say that much about the cateories that correspond to arbitrary diarams, since they will be superseded by the notions introduced in the next 13

14 section. The main point is that one has to adjoin an additional operation, called trace, or every triple,, C o objects: tr,c : Cp b, b Cq Ñ Cp, Cq This trace obeys a bunch o axioms that uarantee the ollowin counterpart diarammatic behaviour: tr,c :: C ÞÑ C While such a trace does play a role in quantum theory, we will soon see that it arises as a derived concept in a simpler type o cateory. 2.4 Reerence and urther readin The use o diarams started with Penrose s diarammatic calculus or abstract tensor systems [32]. The proo that abstract tensor systems characterise the ree traced symmetric monoidal cateory was iven in [30]. Monoidal cateories are due to enabou [5], with their modern ormulation and the act that any monoidal cateory is equivalent to a strict monoidal cateory bein worked out by Mac Lane [31]. The connection between circuit diarams and symmetric monoidal cateories was established by Joyal and Street in [27], where they are reerred to as proressive diarams. 3 Strin diarams When two systems, o which we know the states by their respective representatives, enter into temporary physical interaction due to known orces between them, and when ater a time o mutual inluence the systems separate aain, then they can no loner be described in the same way as beore, viz. by endowin each o them with a representative o its own. I would not call that one but rather the characteristic trait o quantum mechanics, the one that enorces its entire departure rom classical lines o thouht. Erwin Schrödiner, y 1935, Schrödiner had already realised that the biest ul between quantum theory and our classical ways o thinkin was really that, when it comes to quantum systems, the whole is more than the sum o its parts. In the classical world, or instance, it is possible to totally describe the state o two systems say...two objects sittin on a table by irst totally describin the state o the irst object then totally describin the state o the second object. This is a undamental property one expects o a classical, or separable (or, in cateorytheory lino: Cartesian) universe. However, as Schrödiner points out, there 14

15 exist states predicted by quantum theory (and observed in the lab!) which do not obey this obvious law about the physical world. Schrödiner called this new, totally non-classical phenomenon verschränkun, which later became translated to the dominant scientiic lanuae as entanlement. In contrast to this reat insiht, it took physicists many years to actually exploit this property and reveal the eatures o the quantum world that are direct consequences o it. Most strikinly, it took physicists some 60 years to discover what is probably the most direct consequence: quantum teleportation. 3.1 Non-separability Deinition 3.1. Strin diarams can be deined equivalently as: diarams consistin o boxes and wires, where we additionally allow inputs to be connected to inputs and outputs to be connected to outputs, or example: C h D circuit diarams that contain a special state and a special eect: Y and X or each type or which we have: X Y X X (9) Y Y We can relate these two equivalent deinitions by writin the cup state and cap eect rom the second deinition as cup- and cap-shaped pieces o wire: : Y : X 15

16 so that the equations in (9) become: (10) Hence they are reduced to simple wire deormations: Strin diarams capture what Schrödiner described as the characteristic trait o quantum mechanics: the existence o non-separable states. Visualisin cups and caps as wires captures this intuition that the two systems involved cannot be separated rom each other (since, o course, we are not allowed to cut wires). We can state this more ormally as ollows: Proposition 3.2. I a theory is described by strin diarams, and all twosystem states are b-separable, i.e. there exist states 1 and 2 such that: 1 2 then every process is -separable, i.e. it can be written as: π or some eect π and some state. Proo. y assumption, the cup-state is b-separable: 1 2 So, or any process we have: 16

17 φ π What is this tellin us? First, we should note that all processes bein - separable is a bad thin. It is the same as sayin all processes in the theory simply throw away the input and produce a constant output (possibly multiplied by some number dependin on the input). In other words, nothin ever happens! s this is an absurd condition or any reasonable process theory, all bipartite (i.e. two-system) states cannot be b-separable. In such reasonable theories, strin diarams uarantee that the collection o two-system states is just as rich as the processes involvin the same types: Proposition 3.3. ny theory described by strin diarams has process-state duality. That is, or any two types and we have a 1-to-1 correspondence between processes and states o the ollowin orm: ÐÑ which is realised by: ÞÑ ÞÑ 3.2 Traces and transposes For a process with one o its inputs havin the same type as one o its outputs, the partial trace with respect to that input/output pair is: C C tr,c : The total trace, or simply the trace, is the special case where C I. typical property o the trace is cyclicity, which now comes just rom the observation that since only connectivity matters the ollowin two diarams are the same: 17

18 The transpose o a process is the process: or equivalently, by (10): Then, clearly i we transpose twice, we et back where we started: In other words, transposition is an involution. nd now comes the really cool bit. First, we deorm our boxes a bit: Now, i we express the transpose o as a box labelled, but rotated 180 : : the deinition o a transpose ets built-in to this 180 rotation -notation: 18

19 From this, it also ollows that: So we can slide boxes across cups and caps just like beads on a wire: Now, let s play a ame. Here is the challene: leks and ob are ar apart, leks possesses a system in a state, and ob needs this state. Suppose they also share another state, namely the cup-state. So, we have this situation: leks ob Startin rom this arranement, is there somethin leks and ob can do in the? -marked reions indicated below, that results in ob obtainin? leks ob leks ob?? Here is a simple solution: 19

20 leks ob leks ob I you the reader came up with this solution yoursel, then you on your own did in a ew seconds what all the physicists in the world ailed to do between 1930 and 1990: discover quantum teleportation! 3.3 djoints and unitarity There is a sliht caveat in the above discussion o teleportation. While the cap is a process that leks can attempt to do, he ll need a bit o luck to succeed. This is because the cap process is not causal (a concept we ll soon meet), so it can only be realised with some probability strictly less than 1. s a consequence, leks miht not et the eect he wants (the cap), but some other eect φ 1, φ 2,... which, by process-state duality, we can represent as a cap with some unwanted box: U i : φ i which we ll called the error. This box obstructs ob s direct access to the state he so much desires: leks ob leks ob error U i (11) U i ob s problem now! So, all is lost? O course not! ob just needs to iure out how to undo this error by means o some process. eore oin there, we need to enrich our lanuae o strin diarams a bit. 20

21 In addition to rotatin boxes 180, we will now also relect them vertically: ÞÑ and reer to this relected box as the adjoint. Like transposition, this is an involution, and it can be applied to entire diarams in the obvious way: h ÞÑ h Rotatin by 180 derees then relectin vertically is the same as just relectin horizontally: ÞÑ ÞÑ This horizontal relection, obtained by composin the transpose and the adjoint, is called the conjuate. So all toether, boxes now come in quartets: conjuate adjoint transpose adjoint (12) conjuate Havin adjoints around enables us to make the ollowin deinition: 21

22 Deinition 3.4. process U an isometry i we have: and it is unitary i its adjoint is also an isometry. U U (13) Each o these names may sound amiliar to some readers, which is o course no coincidence: Example 3.5. The conjuate, transpose, and adjoint o a linear map is a new linear map obtained by takin the conjuate, transpose, or adjoint (a.k.a. conjuatetranpose) o the matrix o, respectively. Hence isometries and unitaries o linear maps are just the standard notions. We now return to (11), where ob seeks to undo the error introduced by leks process. In the case where U is an isometry (or better yet, a unitary), ob simply needs to apply its adjoint to undo it: leks ob leks ob U i U i 3.4 djoints and connectedness We haven t said much about adjoints, just that they have to preserve diarams. In act, the ontoloy o the adjoint and correspondin postulates are still the subject o onoin research. elow we will make use o one particular additional condition that one may want adjoints to satisy. This extra condition comes rom takin the notion that an adjoint really is a relection seriously. Suppose we have a -non-separable process. One could then imaine that it has some internal structure, say a collection o tubes or machines connectin some inputs to outputs: 22

23 I we now compose this process with its adjoint, i.e. its vertical relection, then these internal connections match up: so one expects the resultin process also to be -non-separable, that is: φ φ 1 D, φ : ðñ D 1, φ 1 : 1 (14) Indeed this assumption holds or our main example: Example 3.6. For linear maps, -separable means rank-1. It is a well-known act rom linear alebra that the rank o: is the same as the rank o. Hence (14) is satisied. While this assumption makes sense visually, it can ail in surprisin places: Example 3.7. Consider a process theory whose processes are relations R Ď ˆ where is the usual composition o relations, b is the Cartesian product, and I is the 1-element set t u. The adjoint R : o a relation R is its converse. 23

24 That is, pb, aq P R : i and only i pa, bq P R. Then the ollowin relation rom the two element set t0, 1u to itsel ails to satisy (14): tp0, 0q, p0, 1q, p1, 1qu Ď t0, 1u ˆ t0, 1u 3.5 Cateory-theoretic counterpart In Deinition 3.1 we ave two equivalent deinitions o strin diaram, the latter o which consistin o circuit diarams with special processes called cups and caps. The cateory-theoretic counterpart or strin diarams proceeds in pretty much the same way: Deinition 3.8. compact closed cateory (with symmetric sel-duality) is a symmetric monoidal cateory C such that or every object P obpcq, there exists morphisms ɛ P Cp b, Iq and η P CpI, b q such that: pɛ b 1 q p1 b η q 1 ɛ σ, ɛ σ, η η Compact closed cateories satisy an analoue to Theorem 2.8, but or strin diarams: Theorem 3.9. ny strin diaram can be interpreted as a morphism in a compact closed cateory, and two morphisms are equal accordin to the axioms o a compact closed cateory i and only i their strin diarams are equal. Example The cateory FHilb is compact closed. For a Hilbert space, ix a basis te i u i in then let: η : C Ñ b and ɛ : b Ñ C be linear maps deined as ollows: η p1q ř i e i b e i ɛ pe i b e j q # 1 i i j 0 otherwise Usin Dirac s bra-ket notation, which is popular in the quantum computin literature, these maps can be written as: η ř i iy b iy ɛ ř i xi b xi In cateory theory, closure reers to the act that one can represent sets o morphisms Cp, q as the states o another object, which we could denote as ñ. Compact closed cateories have the very convenient eature that we can take: ñ : b We saw this eature in Proposition 3.3, under the name process-state duality. 24

25 Just as we simpliied beore by restrictin to strict monoidal cateories, here we simpliy rom a more eneral notion o compact closed cateories to symmetrically sel-dual compact closed cateories. The ormer only require that ɛ P Cp b, Iq and η P CpI, b q exists or some object (called the dual o ). Then, sel-duality means we can choose to just be aain, and symmetric means this choice ets alon well with symmetries. This o course makes sense rom a diarammatic point o view (c. the riht-most equations in (10)), and as pointed out in [34], is necessary or interpretin strin diarams as morphisms without ambiuity. Remark The deinition o η and ɛ rom Example 3.10 depend on the choice o basis. We can avoid this by droppin sel-duality, in which case we take to be the dual space and let: ɛ pξ b aq ξpaq This uniquely ixes ɛ (and thereore η ) without makin reerence to a basis. So to summarise, we have the ollowin correspondences between diarams and cateories: circuit diaram diaram strin diaram h h h i.e. admits causal structure i.e. outputs to inputs i.e. all to all ñ plain SMC ñ traced SMC ñ compact closed C Notably, the more sophisticated (i.e. restrictive) kinds o diarams correspond to the simplest kinds o SMCs, and vice versa. Unsurprisinly, the cateory-theoretic deinition o adjoints is aain more involved than its diarammatic counterpart, simply or the reason that we now have to say careully what preservin diarams under relection means in terms o the lanuae o SMCs. Deinition For a strict SMC C, a daer unctor assins to each morphism : Ñ a new morphism : : Ñ such that: p : q : p q : : : p b q : : b : σ : σ In cateory-theoretic parlance, this is thereore a strict symmetric monoidal unctor that is identity-on-objects and involutive. Deinition strict daer-symmetric monoidal cateory (:-SMC) is a strict SMC with a chosen daer unctor. For a daer-compact closed cateory (with symmetric sel-duality), we additionally assume η : ɛ. 25

26 Example For FHilb, the daer unctor sends each linear map : Ñ to its linear-alebraic adjoint : : Ñ, i.e. the unique linear map such that: or all a P, b P. xb paqy x : pbq ay There is a tiht connection between equations between linear maps and equations between strin diarams. Namely, any equation between strin diarams involvin linear maps,, h,... (and their adjoints) holds enerically i.e. or all linear maps,, h,... precisely when the diarams themselves are equal. This is ormally stated as a completeness theorem: Theorem FHilb is complete or strin diarams. In other words, i we don t know anythin about the linear maps in a diaram (i.e. we treat them as black boxes ), diarammatic reasonin is already the best we can do. 3.6 Reerence and urther readin The quantum teleportation protocol irst appeared in [6]. diarammatic derivation o teleportation irst appeared in [9], and independently, also in [28]. The our variations o boxes as in (12) irst appeared in [33]. The use o caps and cups also already appeared in [32]. Proposition 3.3 is known in quantum theory as the Choi-Jamio lkowski isomorphism [26, 8]. The correspondin cateory-theoretic axiomatisation is due to bramsky and Coecke [1], which was the irst paper on cateorical quantum mechanics, buildin urther on Kelly s compact closed cateories [29] by adjoinin a daer unctor. Daer compact cateories had already appeared in [2] as a special case o a more eneral construct in n-cateories. Theorem 3.15 is due to Seliner [35]. comprehensive (at the time) survey o monoidal cateories and their various raphical lanuaes is iven in [36]. 4 Quantum processes I would like to make a conession which may seem immoral: I do not believe absolutely in Hilbert space any more. John von Neumann, letter to Garrett irkho, Let us summarise what we have seen thus ar. In the irst section we introduced a eneral ormalism to reason about interactin processes based on diarams. In the ollowin section we saw how the simple assumption that the diarams are strin diarams allows a kinderartner to derive quantum teleportation. nd then we bumped into a caveat, which we claimed came rom somethin called causality. 26

27 We claimed beore that, rather than simply doin a cap eect, leks must perorm a non-deterministic processes which miht instead yield a cap-eect with some error. ut that s just a bunch o words. None o the inredients comin rom strin diarams can actually help us derive this act. There s also a second issue here. eore ob can correct the error, he must know which error U i happened. The only way this is possible is i leks picks up the phone and tells him. This requires distinuishin a phone call rom a quantum system in our diarams, i.e. diarams will need to involve two kinds o types: classical types and quantum types, and their distinct behaviour should also be evident in diarammatic terms. In act, it is the diarammatic ormulation o quantum types that will allow us to deine this (in)amous causality postulate which brouht us here in the irst place. Moreover, we will then be able to diarammatically derive the act that the cap-state cannot be invoked with certainty. This section concerns speciication o a very eneral kind o quantum type. Despite its enerality, we will already be able to prove some hihly non-trivial eatures o quantum systems, most notably, the no-broadcastin theorem. This sets the stae or explorin alternative models o quantum theory, which o beyond Hilbert spaces. 4.1 Quantum types ack in Section 2.1, we interpreted a state meetin an eect as a probability, i.e. a positive number: test state π probability (15) t that time, we didn t have a lanuae rich enouh to ive a notion like positivity, but thanks to relection (i.e. adjoints and conjuates) we now do. complex number is positive precisely when it is the product o some number λ and its conjuate λ. ein the composition o a number and its conjuate thus ives us a eneralisation o the condition o a number bein positive: φ vs. φ φ (16) number eneralised positive number So, we could use expressions like the one on the riht to compute probabilities, and indeed this is how it is typically done in quantum theory. However, there is a way to have our cake and eat it too. Namely, we can retain the simplicity o (15) while secretly ensurin the result is always a positive number. The trick is to double everythin. y pairin two wires, we make a new thicker kind o wire: 27

28 : which ives us a quantum system type. We can then keep un-doubled types around or representin classical systems somethin we ll use extensively in part II o this overview obtainin this simple distinction: classical quantum sinle wire double wires On these doubled wires, we can then build doubled boxes, which consist o the box itsel, alon with its conjuate: p When we apply this recipe to states and eects, we et a eneralised positive number whenever the two meet: test state pφ p : : φ φ probability Thus, the thin we called the eneralised orn rule, applied to these new doubled processes, becomes what some will reconise as the usual orn rule rom quantum theory. Doublin preserves strin diarams: ÞÑ p h p p h as lon as we are a bit careul about where the wires o or boxes with many inputs/outputs: p... :

29 In particular, this ives us the ollowin expression or the doubled cap: : and similarly or the cup. It also preserves all equations between strin diarams, so, or example, our derivation o teleportation carries over to the doubled world. What about the converse? Do equations in doubled diarams carry over to their un-doubled counterparts? The answer turns out to be no, but luckily this is a eature, not a bu. Proposition 4.1. In a theory described by strin diarams, i: p p (17) then there exist numbers λ and µ, with p λ pµ, such that: λ µ (18) The converse also holds provided p λ pµ is cancellable. Proo. Let λ and µ be: λ : µ : Unoldin (17) yields: (19) So: pλ (19) pµ 29

30 and: λ (19) µ Typically, cancellable means non-zero, and the condition that λ p pµ means the absolute values o λ and µ coincide. In that case, the condition (18) is more commonly reerred to as equal up to a (lobal) complex phase µ λ. One o the ulier aspects o the standard quantum ormalism is indeed that it contains redundant numbers o the orm µ λ, which have no physical siniicance. Thus a nice side-eect o doublin is precisely removin this redundancy. 4.2 Pure processes and discardin state is called normalised i composin with its adjoint yields 1, i.e. the empty diaram: When we pass to the doubled world, we thereore have a way to throw away states p arisin rom normalised states. Simply connect the two halves toether: This new eect, which has no counterpart in the un-doubled underlyin theory, is called discardin, and we denote it as ollows: This then immediately ives rise to new boxes as well: : p : (20) 30

31 which we call impure, or mixed, processes or reasons that shall become clear in the ollow-up paper to this one. These impure processes naturally occur, as the diaram indicates, when we are only considerin part o a composite system, and inorin (i.e. discardin) another part. In other words, we are considerin systems that are in interaction with their environment. pure process is then one that doesn t involve discardin, i.e. that doesn t have a wire connectin its two halves. Impure processes will typically be denoted by Φ, and and impure states by ρ, in contrast to the pure ones which carry a hat. Discardin multiple systems is the same as discardin one, bier system. Hence we can put any process consistin o pure processes and discardin in the orm o (20) by roupin all o the discardin processes toether into a sinle eect: p ÞÑ p p p h p p h s a consequence: Proposition 4.2. ny strin diaram consistin o processes o the orm (20) is aain o that orm. Hence they orm a process theory. nother consequence is that any diaram o pure processes and discardin can be put into a standard orm involvin a pure process and a sinle discard. In other words, any (possibly impure) process Φ has a puriication p : Φ p (21) Condition (14) on adjoints now allows us establish an important connection between b-separability, and purity o the reduced state o a composite system, i.e. what remans i we discard part o it: ρ 31

32 Proposition 4.3. Consider a theory that admits strin diarams and in which adjoints obey (14). I the reduced state o a bipartite state ρ is pure: ρ p φ (22) then it b-separates as ollows: ρ ρ 1 p φ 1 Proo. Writin ρ in the orm (20): ρ (23) and substitutin this into (22) we obtain: φ φ and hence: φ φ Deormin this equation via process-state duality and transposition, we et: φ φ Then, by (14) there exist 1 and 2 such that:

33 hence: 1 2 Pluin in to (23) indeed yields a b-separable state o the required orm: y process-state duality this act straihtorwardly extend to processes: Proposition 4.4. Consider a theory that admits strin diarams and in which adjoints obey (14). I a reduced process o a process Φ is pure: Φ p (24) then it b-separates as ollows: Φ ρ p (25) Proo. end the wire in (24): Φ p Treatin the two rihtmost wires above as a sinle system, this is the reduced state o a bipartite state. Since the reduced state is pure, by Proposition 4.3 it separates as ollows: Φ ρ p Unbend the wire and we re done. 33

34 4.3 No-broadcastin clonin process is a process that takes any state as input and produces two copies o that state as output: ρ ρ (26) ρ It is oten said that a key dierence between quantum and classical processes is that the latter admits clonin. In act, this is not entirely true i one includes probabilistic classical states into the mix, in which case there is no way to clone a probability distribution either. However, what is possible classically is broadcastin. That is, there exists a process such that, when a state ρ is ed in and either output is discarded, we are let we ρ: ρ (27) ρ ρ It is easily seen diarammatically that broadcastin is indeed a weaker notion than clonin: ρ (26) ρ ρ ρ and similarly or discardin the other output. Rather than makin explicit reerence to the state ρ, we can also ive the broadcastin equations (27) in a state-less (or, i you want, point-less) orm: (l) (r) (28) Theorem 4.5. I in a theory described by strin diarams adjoints obey (14), then the theory obtained by doublin and adjoinin discardin cannot have a broadcastin process. 34

35 Proo. y equation (28l) the reduced state o is pure, namely a plain wire, so by Proposition 4.4 we have: ρ (29) or some state ρ. Hence it ollows that: (28r) (29) ρ Since the identity is -separable, so is every other process involvin that type, and hence the system must be trivial or to exist. 4.4 Cateory-theoretic counterpart Doublin and addin discardin has a cateorical counterpart as well. Rather than buildin it up piecewise rom doubled processes and discardin, the cateorical construction just declares that all morphisms should be o the orm (20): Deinition 4.6. For a compact closed cateory C, we can orm a new compact closed cateory CPMrCs with objects p or every P obpcq. The morphisms : p Ñ p are those morphisms P Cp b, b q which are o the orm: C or some object C and morphism : Ñ C b. One needs to do a bit o work to show that this is indeed a compact closed cateory. For instance, the parallel composition o : p Ñ p and 1 : p 1 Ñ p 1 should ive somethin o the orm: b 1 P Cpp b 1 q b p b 1 q, p b 1 q b p b 1 qq which involves some reshulin o wires. We reer to reerences in the next section or details. The acronym CPM reers to completely positive map, and indeed when you apply this construction to FHilb, you et the cateory whose morphisms are completely positive maps. 35

36 4.5 Reerence and urther readin The doublin construction was introduced in [11], includin the proo o Proposition 4.1. round the same time, the eneralisation to impure was introduced by Seliner [33]. The idea that this can be done by addin the discardin process was put orward in [12]. The no-broadcastin theorem irst appeared in [4], and our derivation rom doublin and (14) is novel. nother eneralised no-broadcastin theorem is [3], which rather than process theories, concerns eneralised probabilistic theories. 5 Causality new scientiic truth does not triumph by convincin its opponents and makin them see the liht, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new eneration rows up that is amiliar with it. Max Planck, The beinnin o the previous century saw two revolutions in physics: quantum theory and relativity. While the irst one is a theory which associates probabilities to non-deterministic processes (usually) involvin microscopic systems, the second concerns the eometry o spacetime. Evidently, since there is only one reality, those two theories should not contradict each other. mazinly, this compatibility can already be obtained within the enerality o diarams, provided there are discardin eects. I these discardin eects happen to arise rom doublin as described above, then many more results ollow. 5.1 Causal processes Suppose we apply a process to some inputs, but then discard all o its outputs. Then the perormance has one to waste, and we could as well have simply discarded its inputs. In act, this obvious assumption is quite vital or even bein able to perorm science. It allows one to discard (i.e. inore) everythin that does not directly aect an experiment, such as or example, stu happenin in some other alaxy. However innocent and/or obvious this principle sounds, it has many strikin consequences, warrantin an important-soundin name: Deinition 5.1. In a process theory where each system has a distinuished discardin eect, a process Φ is called causal i we have: Φ (30) We call a theory causal i all its processes are. 36

37 Note that (30) should be read as discardin all o the outputs on the LHS results in discardin all o the inputs on the RHS. s a special case, states have no inputs, so nothin has to be discarded in the RHS: ρ This is the usual condition or a (possibly impure) quantum state bein normalised. Similarly, eects have no outputs, so nothin has to be discarded in the LHS: ρ Clearly, this is bad news or those who like variety: Theorem 5.2. In a causal theory, each system-type admits only one eect: discardin. In the case o two systems this means that: is the only available eect. So now it should be clear that, i we restrict to causal eects, teleportation is no loner possible: leks ob leks ob ρ The way around this problem is to avoid Theorem 5.2 simply by havin a classical output, correspondin to leks outoin phone call to ob. s we will see in the ollow-up paper [16], such a classical output is what enables one to accommodate the non-determinism alluded to in Section Evolution and Stinesprin dilation We now consider theories arisin rom doublin. In our irst result, we will actually derive somethin that is typically assumed a priori in the standard ormulation o quantum theory [38]. Theorem 5.3. In a theory obtained by doublin and adjoinin discardin, the ollowin are equivalent or any pure process p U: 37

38 1. p U is causal: pu 2. U is an isometry: U U 3. and, p U is an isometry: pu pu Proo. Unoldin the causality equation, we have: U U and we recover (13) simply by un-bendin, so 1 ô 2. 2 ô 3 ollows by Proposition 4.1. Corollary 5.4. Under the assumptions o the previous theorem, the ollowin are equivalent or pure processes: 1. p U is causal and invertible, and 2. p U is unitary. Droppin purity yields a standard result o quantum inormation theory: Theorem 5.5 (Stinesprin dilation). Under the assumptions o the previous theorem, or every causal process Φ there exists an isometry p U such that: Φ p U (31) 38

39 Proo. We have (31) immediately i we let p U be the puriication o Φ, as in (21). So, it suices to prove that p U is an isometry in (31). y causality o Φ, it ollows that p U must also be causal: pu (31) (30) Φ which, by Theorem 5.3 implies that p U is an isometry. 5.3 No-sinallin In this section, we ll set doublin aside aain and look at the eneral case o theories with discardin, and how diarams in such a theory relate to causal structures. causal structure is simply a directed raph (without cycles) that indicates some collection o events in spacetime, where an ede rom e 1 to e 2 indicates that e 1 could have an inluence on e 2, i.e. e 2 is in the causal uture o e 1. For example, the ollowin causal structure: leks ob indicates that leks and ob may have some shared history, but now they have moved ar away rom each other, so that they can no loner directly communicate. More precisely, they are so ar away that the speed o liht prohibits leks sendin any kind o messae to ob and vice versa. process theory is said to be non-sinallin i each process Φ in a diaram with a ixed causal structure can only have an inluence on processes in the causal uture o Φ. We claim that any causal process theory is non-sinallin. First, we note that we can associate a causal structure to any circuit diaram by associatin boxes to events, and declarin a box Φ to be in the causal uture o another box Ψ i an output o Ψ is wired to an input o Φ: Note that we can reely add some extra input/output wires to account or the act that leks and ob can interact with their own processes locally: 39