arxiv: v1 [gr-qc] 29 Jul 2011

Transcription

1 Causal categories: relativistically interacting processes arxiv: v1 [gr-qc] 29 Jul 2011 Bob Coecke and Raymond Lal University o Oxord, Computer Science, Quantum Group, Wolson Building, Parks Road, Oxord OX1 3QD, UK. coecke/rayl@cs.ox.ac.uk Abstract A symmetric monoidal category naturally arises as the mathematical structure that organizes physical systems, processes, and composition thereo, both sequentially and in parallel. This structure admits a purely graphical calculus. This paper is concerned with the encoding o a ixed causal structure within a symmetric monoidal category: causal dependencies will correspond to topological connectedness in the graphical language. We show that correlations, either classical or quantum, orce terminality o the tensor unit. We also show that well-deinedness o the concept o a global state orces the monoidal product to be only partially deined, which in turn results in a relativistic covariance theorem. Except or these assumptions, at no stage do we assume anything more than purely compositional symmetric-monoidal categorical structure. We cast these two structural results in terms o a mathematical entity, which we call a causal category. We provide methods o constructing causal categories, and we study the consequences o these methods or the general ramework o categorical quantum mechanics. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Processes as pictures Symmetric monoidal categories Elements o Categorical Quantum Mechanics A pitall Terminality o the tensor unit rom correlations Causality as inormation low, ormalised by connectedness Terminality o I as no correlation-induced signaling Partiality o the tensor rom global state 19

2 2 COECKE AND LAL 5 Deinition and analysis o causal categories Deinition o a causal category Relation to dagger compact categories Constructing caucats Normalizing Causal structure and carving A caucat rom a causet and an SMC Recovering CQM Conclusion and outlook 38 A Appendix 38 1 Introduction This paper is concerned with the causal structure o undamental theories o physics. We cast causal aspects o both relativity and quantum theory in a uniied setting, that is, a single mathematical entity that will be derived rom certain phenomenological considerations rom each theory. Our starting point is categorical quantum mechanics (CQM) [2], a general ramework or physical theories in which type, process, and composition thereo, are the primary concepts [18, 19]. The two modes o composing processes, in parallel and sequentially, already provide an imprint o causal structure, admitting the interpretation o temporal and spatial composition respectively. We seek to make this correspondence more precise, such that one can encode a ixed causal structure within the category. From a dual perspective, we thicken a causal structure [35, 43, 50] to a proper category, so that we obtain a category that encodes more than just causal relationships, but which also encodes the processes that may take place along these causal connections. We draw on earlier work by Markopoulou [42], Blute-Ivanov-Panangaden [10], Hardy [27, 28] and Chiribella-D Ariano-Perinotti [15, 16]. 1 In these papers, with increasing levels o abstraction, one considers a diagram representing causal connections, and decorates it with speciic quantum events or processes. We trim the assumptions in this work down to their bare categorical bones, while retaining the key results: a covariance theorem or global states as in [10, 28]; uniqueness o eects o a certain type as in [15]. In particular, unlike the previous work mentioned above, our derivation does not make any reerence to measurement or probabilities, just to a very general concept o process, and hence is more primitive. We then observe that at the most basic level o the causal structure, the quantum-mechanical structure itsel does not play a crucial role; or example, 1 In turn, the work by Hardy in [27, 28] and Chiribella-D Ariano-Perinotti in [15, 16] is strongly inluenced by CQM; in particular, by taking a diagrammatic language or processes as their starting point.

3 CAUSAL CATEGORIES 3 our structure also captures classical probabilistic processes that take place in relativistic space-time. The resulting structure is one which organizes processes which can potentially take place within a causal setting, together with their compositional interaction. This allows, or example, the collection o possible physical processes to vary according to the causal structure, or example, taking into account the dierent capabilities o distinct agents, or dierences o a purely physical origin. Conceptually speaking, the stance o elevating processes to a privileged role in theories o physics was already present in the work o Whitehead in the 1950s [53] and the work o Bohr in the early 1960s [14]. It became more prominent in the work o Bohm in the 1980s and also later in Hiley s [11 13], who is still pursuing this line o research [29]. It is an honor to dedicate this paper to Basil Hiley, on the occasion o his 75th birthday. Plan o the paper. In Section 2 we give an overview o symmetric monoidal categories and CQM, and we describe the problem that partly motivates this paper, namely how compact structure, interpreted as post-selected quantum teleportation [2, 18], leads to signaling. In Sections 3 and 4 we show how consideration o this problem and other phenomenological issues leads to the causal category structure. In Section 5 we ormally deine causal categories and describe some o their basic properties, in particular the way in which causal categories are incompatible with some structures o CQM. In Section 6 we deine methods o constructing causal categories, and how key eatures o CQM are retained. 2 Processes as pictures In this Section we describe the existing ramework or doing categorical quantum mechanics (CQM) using symmetric monoidal categories, and we state the problem addressed in this paper. 2.1 Symmetric monoidal categories Symmetric monoidal categories are mathematical entities with a direct physical interpretation; introductions to the subject are [3, 8, 22]. Their role in CQM is that they provide two modes or composing systems and processes, sequential and concurrent. More precisely put: 1. Entities. We shall consider a collection o named objects or systems A, B, C,..., and morphisms or processes : A B which may take a system o one kind A into a system o another kind B. We call A B the type 2 o the process, or which A is the domain and B is the codomain. The set o all processes taking A into B is denoted C(A, B). States correspond to processes rom a special object I into A, where one may interpret I as the unspeciied environment. From an operational perspective one can think o such a process as a preparation procedure, while rom an ontic perspective one can think o it as the unknown process that caused A to be in this state. Moreover, eects correspond to 2 The term type relects the application o category theory to theoretical computer science [5].

4 4 COECKE AND LAL processes rom an object B to I, and scalars or weights correspond to processes rom I to I. 2. Graphical language. We now introduce a graphical language to represent our entities [18]: systems are represented by wires, and processes : A B are represented by boxes with an input wire representing system A and an output wire representing system B: In act, as we shall discuss below, there may be more than one input and output wire which could result rom composing systems or indeed no input and/or no output wires, representing no system denoted above by I. 3. Composition. The mathematical content o the ormalism is given by the composition o processes. There are two connectives which allow the composition o processes both in parallel and sequentially : The sequential, or dependent, or causal, or connected composition o processes : A B and g : B C is g : A C, and is depicted as: g : g o (1) The parallel, or independent, or acausal, or disconnected composition o processes : A B and g : C D is g : A C B D, and is depicted as: g : g (2) Importantly, compoundness o physical systems is now directly apparent in the graphical notation, in that there can be several wires side-by-side: one system two systems n systems... operation on n systems......

5 CAUSAL CATEGORIES 5 Note that there is an imprint o causal structure in this ormalism (as indicated in the terminology), since one can think o the acausal composition as spatially separating, while one thinks o the causal composition as temporally connecting uture past g alice g bob We now give the symbolic deinition o a symmetric monoidal category. Here we restrict to the case o strict symmetric monoidal categories, since that is what the diagrammatic calculus embodies. More importantly, as argued in [22], physical processes always orm strict symmetric monoidal categories. 3 Deinition 1. A strict monoidal category is a category C equipped with a biunctor : C C C and a unit object I such that ( C,, I) is a monoid, and or all, g, h in C we have associativity o acausal composition: (g h) ( g) h. (3) The content o being a biunctor is that there is an interchange law between and : or all morphisms, g, h, k (o appropriate type) in a strict monoidal category, we have: (g ) (k h) (g k) ( h). (4) Now, recall that an isomorphism between two objects A and B in a category is a morphism : A B or which there exists an inverse 1 : B A, that is, a morphism which is such that 1 1 A and 1 1 B, where 1 A : A A denotes the identity morphism on A. Deinition 2. A symmetric strict monoidal category (SMC) is a monoidal category C equipped with a amily o symmetry isomorphisms σ A,B : A B B A which is such that or all A, B C we have σ 1 A,B σ B,A, and or all A, B, C, D C and : A C, g : B D in C, we have: σ C,D ( g) (g ) σ A,B. (5) Example 1 (Programming languages and proo theory). Symmetric monoidal categories play a signiicant role in the theory o programming languages and proo theory, a modern branch o logic. In programming, objects represent data types and a morphism : A B stands or running a program that requires input data o type A and produces output data o type B. Sequential composition would then mean irst running one program and then using its output as the input or the second program. Parallel composition means running two programs in parallel. In proo theory, objects represent propositions and a morphism : A B stands or a derivation o proposition B given proposition A. 3 On the other hand, their mathematical representations typically orm non-strict symmetric monoidal categories; see again [22] or a discussion o this point.

6 6 COECKE AND LAL Example 2 (Dirac notation). Morphisms or which the domain and/or the co-domain is the tensor unit I have a special orm in the graphical notation. A generic element or state ψ : I A (c. a Dirac ket ψ in quantum mechanical Dirac notation) is depicted as, and a generic co-element or eect ψ : I A (c. a Dirac bra ψ ) as [18]. This shows how the graphical language is a two-dimensional extension o Dirac notation; consider the graphical notation or states and eects compare to Dirac bras and kets: ψ ψ We notice that a clockwise rotation o the Dirac ket by 90 yields the same triangle shape as the graphical notation on the right hand-side; and similarly or bras. Moreover, given a state ψ : I A and an eect φ : A I, we obtain a morphism with the trivial type ψ φ : I I. As mentioned above, this is a scalar, and is denoted graphically as having no input nor output wires, which is again a rotated denotation o φ ψ. The symmetry natural isomorphism is denoted graphically by a crossing, so Eq. (5) is depicted as: g This gives an indication o how the graphical calculus will subsume symbolic equations: Eq. (6) captures Eq. (5) by the intuitive notion o sliding boxes along a wire. It will thereore be useul to ormally distinguish graphical and symbolic representations. Deinition 3 (symbolic language). By an object ormula in the (symbolic) language o an SMC we mean any expression involving objects and the tensor thereo. By a (wellormed) morphism ormula in the (symbolic) language o an SMC we mean any expression involving morphisms, sequential composition, and parallel composition thereo, or which sequential composition only occurs or morphisms with matching types. Consider an object ormula A 1 A 2 in a category C, with A A 1 A 2. We shall be careul to distinguish between A and A 1 A 2, since there may be other objects, say B 1 and B 2, such that A B 1 B 2, and hence, the object ormula A 1 A 2 contains more inormation than its corresponding object in the category A does, namely, it shows how it was ormed. The same applies to morphism ormulae, e.g. (1 A k) h ( g), which again contains more inormation than the corresponding morphism in the category. We shall notationally distinguish the object language and objects as ollows: Object ormulae will be denoted by calligraphic capital letters A, B, C,... Objects will be denoted by Roman-ont capital letters A, B, C,... and morphism language and morphisms as ollows: Morphism ormulae will be denoted by calligraphic capital letters F, G, H,... Morphisms will be denoted by Roman ont, g, h,... g (6)

7 CAUSAL CATEGORIES 7 Each morphism ormula F has an object ormula as its input and output, which we speciy by writing F : A B. We can associate to F a corresponding morphism : A B, simply by perorming the compositions expressed within the object ormulae and morphism ormula. We deine corresponding objects or object ormulae similarly. We write A : A, B : B and : F, a notational convention which we already use in Eqs. (1) and (2) above, where the right-hand side represents the diagram expressing the composition, while the let-hand side represents the morphism that one obtains when perorming the composition. We use the notation F : A B to mean that in F : A B we have A : A and, B : B. An equation F G means that the corresponding morphisms are equal, i.e. g. The physical intuition behind this is that several physical scenarios or experimental protocols, while distinct in their implementation details, may have exactly the same overall eect. The graphical elements we have introduced correspond ormally to the entities deined by an SMC: we can deine a graphical language and calculus [33, 48] in correspondence to the axioms o an SMC; this procedure traces back to Penrose s work in the 1970s [44]. For each morphism ormula F there is a corresponding diagram in the graphical language, e.g. or F (1 A k) h ( g) the corresponding diagram is h k g Surprisingly, a morphism ormula still has more inormation than its corresponding diagram in the graphical language. But rom a physical perspective this extra inormation is in act redundant. For example, when expressing both sides o Eq. (4) in the graphical language, we obtain the same diagram twice: g k h since each side represents the same physical scenario. Hence, the graphical language is, in a sense, superior to the symbolic language, since it renders an equational constraint superluous. The true power o the graphical calculus as opposed to the symbolic ormalism is made clear by the ollowing theorem due to Joyal and Street [33, 48], which implicitly deines what we actually mean by graphical calculus. Theorem 4. An equation between morphism ormulae in the symbolic language o symmetric monoidal categories ollows rom the axioms o symmetric monoidal categories i and only i we can obtain one picture rom the other by displacing the boxes, whilst retaining how wires connect the inputs and outputs o boxes, as well as keeping the overall number o inputs and outputs o the diagram ixed.

8 8 COECKE AND LAL So a graphical calculation is nothing but a deormation, or example: (7) From now on we shall make use o the eiciency o the graphical language in making certain equations superluous: we will treat morphism ormula up to equivalence in the diagrammatic representation. For example, consider the ollowing mathematical ambiguity about our use o connected vs. disconnected composition as deined symbolically: while parallel composition always leads to topological disconnectedness, sequential composition may lead to either a connected or a disconnected diagram. In particular, when we compose over the tensor unit I the two modes o composition coincide: g g g g. Our use o diagrammatic equivalence classes resolves this ambiguity, since we can always represent a composition over the tensor unit by a ormula that uses instead o. We shall also assume that all our morphism ormulae contain only atomic expressions those which do not contain, in the correspondong graphical representation, topologically disconnnected components. To deine this symbolically, we irst deine a generalized symmetry morphism to be a morphism that is either the identity morphism or is the vertical or parallel composition o symmetry morphisms σ A,B : A B B A or identity morphisms. Deinition 5 (Non-trivial parallel composition; atomic morphism). The non-trivial parallel composition o morphisms g 1 : A 1 B 1 and g 2 : A 2 B 2 is a morphism g 1 g 2, where neither g 1 nor g 2 is a scalar (i.e. o type I I). A morphism : A B is atomic i, or all post or pre compositions o generalized symmetry morphisms, it cannot be written as a non-trivial parallel composition o other morphisms. Examples o non-atomic morphisms are: g : A 1 A 2 B 1 B 2 g : A I I B which in the diagrammatic language always consist o two non-trivially typed (i.e. nonscalar) subcomponents. In Appendix A we consider how these assumptions aect the relationship between the structure o symbolic ormulae and topological connectedness in the corresponding diagrammatic language.

9 CAUSAL CATEGORIES 9 Why ormulate physical theories using categories? A category provides not only a description o objects and morphisms, but it also provides an equational theory. Indeed, in the case o an SMC, a category provides both the description o a physical theory, in terms o a language involving systems, processes (c. evolution) and their (de)composition, as well as the equational laws it is subject to, e.g. when two scenarios or protocols result in the same overall a process. A particular case o this which is the one that one encounters in more traditional ormulations o the dynamics o a theory is when the inal states coincide given they take the same input state. Leaving inputs open then means allowing or variable inputs. From a logical perspective this means that it provides both the language, i.e. wellormed ormulae (w), and the axioms, i.e. equations between w. By a model one means a concrete realization (e.g. processes described in concrete Hilbert-space quantum theory) which typically will obey some extra axioms and have a more reined language; these can be seen as additional laws and data, which may or may not be redundant. For example, when passing to a theory o quantum gravity one may expect that certain ingredients o the Hilbert-space structure may have to be relinquished (e.g. the continuum [30]). 2.2 Elements o Categorical Quantum Mechanics There have been many attempts to identiy the key underlying structures in quantum theory. For example, the irst such attempt, by Birkho and von Neumann, used non-distributive lattices to recast quantum theory as quantum logic [9, 52]. Other axiomatic rameworks have variously taken as a starting point algebras o observables using C*-algebras [26, 45] or probabilistic structure using probability spaces [39] or convex structures [37, 38]. But the ocus o these approaches has not usually been on causality. Relatedly, a weakness o these approaches is that they lack an elegant conceptual account o the behavior o compound quantum systems. Indeed, or most o these approaches the Hilbert space tensor product does not lit to the level o the languages in which the axiomatic ramework was stated. The rise o quantum inormation and computation, where the tensor product plays a key role, and or which non-local phenomena are exploited or practical applications, might be seen as the atal blow or many o these approaches. In contrast, CQM treats composing systems (and processes) as a primitive. This leads to a paradigmatic shit rom treating measurement as the basic concept o a theory, as advocated by Birkho andvon Neumann, to compoundedness, as advocated by Schrödinger [46]. This has led to immediate results, and CQM has established itsel as a promising ramework or studying the oundations o quantum mechanics, as well as a high-level ramework or quantum inormation and computation. Some milestones and key results o CQM are [1, 20, 21, 23 25, 47, 51]. In CQM we add expressive power to the ormalism described in Subsection 2.1 by using dagger compact categories, which we deine diagrammatically as ollows: dagger : For each graphical element, including an entire diagram, the one obtained by lipping it upside-down is also a valid graphical element:

10 10 COECKE AND LAL compactness : or any object A there is an object A and a Bell state Bell : I A A, which is such that, any two diagrams with matching inputs and outputs are equal i they are equal up to homotopy, that is, only the topology o the diagrams matters. In combination with the dagger structure, this implies: Bell Bell (8) Bell These equations are the deining equations o dagger compactness. Bell (9) Deinition 6 ( -SMC). A dagger category is a category equipped with an involutive identityon-objects contravariant unctor : C op C, called a dagger unctor. A dagger (strict) symmetric monoidal category ( -SMC) is a (strict) SMC equipped with a dagger unctor such that or all A, B C we have σ A,B σ 1 A,B, and and or all : A C, g : B D in C: (A B) A B, ( g) g. Deinition 7 (Compact structure). A compact structure on an object A o a SMC C is a quadruple (A, A, ɛ : A A I, η : I A A) consisting o A, its dual object A, the unit η A and the counit ɛ A, such that the ollowing diagrams commute: η A A 1 A A η A A A A ɛ 1 A 1 A A A A 1 A ɛ A A A compact category is one or which there is a compact structure on each object. Deinition 8. In a -SMC a Bell state (A, A, η) is a compact structure (A, A, η σ A,A, η), and a dagger compact category is a -SMC or which each object has a chosen Bell state; these choices are moreover coherent with dagger symmetric monoidal structure.

11 CAUSAL CATEGORIES 11 Example 3. The category o inite-dimensional Hilbert spaces and linear maps, denoted FdHilb, is a -SMC or which the dagger unctor is given by the linear-algebraic adjoint, and the monoidal product is given by the tensor product o Hilbert spaces. By linearity, states I H are in bijective correspondence with pure states ψ H by the mapping ψ :: 1 ψ, and the scalars are endomorphisms C C, i.e. in bijective correspondence with the complex numbers. The terminology o Deinition 8 is justiied by the act that the morphism η :: 1 η is given by the quantum state η We now introduce some operational terminology or the object and morphism languages, with a view to their physical interpretation. Deinition 9 (Operational terminology). A slice is an object ormula in the symbolic language o SMCs, and a scenario or protocol is a morphism ormula in the symbolic language o SMCs, or equivalently, a diagram in the graphical language o SMCs. Dagger-compact categorical structure was used in [2] to provide suicient structure to do a large amount o quantum theory, which justiies the terminology o Deinition 9. They appeared earlier in the work o Baez and Dolan [7], as a particular case o k-tuply monoidal n-categories; the importance o the particular case o n 1 and k 3 was later acknowledged by Baez in [6]. There also exists an analogous theorem to Theorem 4 or dagger compact categories, which identiies symbolic axioms with a graphical language or which only topology matters [34, 47]. Perhaps even more importantly, the completeness theorem by Selinger [49] states that an equational statement in the language o dagger compact categories is provable in the corresponding language i and only i it is provable in the SMC o Hilbert spaces, linear maps, the tensor product and the linear-algebraic adjoint. Put inormally, or an important class o equational statements, derivability in the graphical language is equivalent to validity within Hilbert-space quantum theory. Hence a less dichotomic view on axioms versus models can be obtained by means o the concept o abstraction. 2.3 A pitall As discussed in [18], Eq. (8) can be interpreted as post-selected quantum teleportation, that is, quantum teleportation conditioned upon the measurement outcomes, such that no unitary correction is needed. However, naive causal interpretation yields: uture bob uture bob alice past alice past (10) The origin o this apparent ability or alice to signal to bob is post-selection, which is easily seen to be a (virtual) resource that enables signaling. We obtain this even or classical probability theory: i alice and bob each have an unknown bit with the promise that they are the same, then i alice post-selects x then consequently bob will also have x. Hence

12 12 COECKE AND LAL alice has signaled the bit x to bob. To avoid this, one must consider all possible measurement outcomes together. In the quantum teleportation protocol this requires classical communication: classical communication bob bob alice alice But to do so in the existing ormalism o CQM requires speciying admissible operations, e.g. projective measurements, classical communication, classical control structure etc., and to do this various internal structures must be deined. However, in the structure we develop in this paper, causal categories, postselection will be automatically excluded, as we see below in Section Terminality o the tensor unit rom correlations In this section we irst show how causal structure can be thought o in terms o inormation low, and how connectedness captures this. 3.1 Causality as inormation low, ormalised by connectedness Causal structure is oten conceived as a partially ordered set (A, ) where A B stands or A being in the causal past o B. The passage to SMCs will involve more than just expressing that there is a causal connection: it will involve speciying the processes that establish this causal connection rom A to B, e.g. by means o sending a non-void signal. Now, consider a physical scenario o the kind we discussed in the previous section: g bob alice g alice bob where A (alice) is not causally preceded by B (bob). Now, whilst by causality no inormation can low rom A to B (c. Eq. (10) and the discussion in the previous section), there does physically exist a composite process, e.g. or the picture on the let: h (g 1) (1 ) : A B, So in particular, C(A, B). Hence we make a key distinction is between:

13 CAUSAL CATEGORIES 13 the existence o a physical process, that is C(A, B) ; and, the low o inormation enabled by such a process: it is whether inormation low can occur which in this paper will witnesses a causality assertion A B. Example 4 (Proo theory). The passage rom an ordered structure to a categorical structure, or one rom assertion to witnessing, is exactly what has occurred in logic, speciically in proo theory. While in algebraic logic one asserts that there is a proo which derives predicate B rom predicate A, in categorical logic one also articulates how this can be established by explicitly giving the proos, a proo then being a morphism in some category o type A B (see e.g. [3, 36]). So rather than ocussing on provability one also takes the structure o the space o proos into account: partial order category asserting providing witnesses algebraic logic categorical logic causal structure content o this paper But in proo theory the paradigm connecting the ordered structure and the categorical structure is: A B C(A, B). or in words, B is derivable rom A i there exists a proo that does so. The above discussion shows that this proo-theory paradigm cannot be retained on-the-nose, and rather than having existence o a morphism as witnessing partial ordering, we will require the existence o an inormation-low-enabling morphism. We shall now ormalize what we mean by inormation low. Remark 1. In what ollows we have categories o deterministic processes in mind, i.e. nonpostselected. In CQM terms, this means that the category only contains one scalar, namely 1 I, representing certainty. Deinition 10. We say that a process : A B is: constant on states i or all ψ, φ : I A we have ψ φ; is determined by its action on states i or all g : A B, ψ g ψ or all ψ : I A implies g. In this paper inormation low means a non-constant process : A B. Since in this case there exists ψ, φ : I A with ψ φ, in a scenario bob can choose to eed either ψ or φ into, so that alice receives ψ or φ respectively: alice { }} { ψφ φ o φψ o φφ }{{} bob

14 14 COECKE AND LAL Remark 2 (Well-pointedness). Conditions o well-pointedness, as used in Deinition 10, are sometimes thought to be undesirable, both or mathematical and physical reasons [30, 32]. However, our level o generality will also capture pointless objects: we will show that, in a well-pointed situation, the notion o inormation low that reers to points can be equivalently stated purely in terms o connectedness, without reerence to states. It is then this pointless characterization that we will use throughout the paper. We shall now establish that inormation low rom A to B is captured by topological connectedness in the graphical language: inormation low no inormation low Deinition 11. In an SMC, a morphism : A B is disconnected i it decomposes as p e or some e : A I and p : I A. A morphism is connected i it is not disconnected. Proposition 12 (Equivalence o constancy and disconnectedness). I all scalars are equal to 1 I and i processes are determined by their action on states, then the ollowing are equivalent: : A B is constant on states; : A B is disconnected. Proo. Let be constant on states and φ ψ be that constant. Then we indeed have φ π or any π : A I, since: (φ π) ψ φ (π ψ) }{{} 1 I φ ψ or all ψ : I A. Conversely: (φ π) φ φ (π φ) φ (π φ ) (φ π) φ where we again used uniqueness o scalars. Hence we have characterized inormation low using the structure o an SMC: A and B are causally related i a process : A B can take place which is not disconnected, and dually, A and B are not causally related i all processes : A B are disconnected (i.e. actor through the tensor unit), that is: { } C(A, B) {ψ A ψ : I B} : I B where : A I is the unique eect, which is stated in anticipation o the main result o the ollowing section.

15 CAUSAL CATEGORIES Terminality o I as no correlation-induced signaling Our notion o causality has been based so ar on inormation low between distinct locations. In the previous Subsection this was enabled by a process : A B. We shall call this inormation low o the 1 st kind. However, given a bipartite state : I A B, there may also be another type o inormation low, which we call inormation low o the 2 nd kind. Diagrammatically, they appear as ollows: 1 st kind ino-low 2 nd kind ino-low φ }{{} alice bob { }} { φ }{{} alice φ φ }{{} Example 5 (Quantum entanglement). In quantum theory a bipartite state may be entangled. In that case, inormation low o the 2 nd kind corresponds to correlations between measurement outcomes o the two parties that are signaling, which can only happen i we allow post-selection [41]. The ollowing postulate imposes compatibility between inormation lows o the 2 nd kind with those o the 1 st kind; in other words, it orbids correlation-induced signaling when systems are not causally related: otherwise 2 nd kind inormation-low could be used to produce 1st kind inormation-low, thus violating causal structure. Postulate 13 (Causal consistency). For a bipartite state : I A B, inormation lows o the 2 nd kind cannot occur when A and B are not causally related. Remark 3. Note that we could have made the stronger requirement that entanglementinduced signaling does not occur even or causally related systems, but since these inormation lows o the 2 nd kind across time do not cause any inconsistency with causal structure we ignore them. I all bipartite states are disconnected: bob then, by analogy with the disconnected processes that characterize causal independence, there will be no inormation low o the 2 nd kind, hence Postulate 13 is trivially satisied. However, the kind o universes that interest us o course do have connected bipartite states, both in quantum theory and or classical probabilistic states, or example, a perectly correlated bipartite state. The ollowing deinition asserts the existence o states o this kind:

16 16 COECKE AND LAL it states that all processes can be aithully represented by bipartite states. In the context o quantum theory this corresponds to the Choi-Jamiołkowski isomorphism [17, 31], as described in Example 7 below. Technically, it weakens the deinition o compactness (see above) which, as we shall in Subsection 5.2, cannot be retained. Deinition 14. In a CJ-universe or all systems A there exists another system A, not causally related to A, as well as a bipartite state η A : I A A, called the CJ-state, such that or all B, is an injective mapping. C(A, B) C(I, A B) :: (1 A ) η A Note that this deinition implies in particular that or the case B I, there is an injection rom eects π : B I to states (1 A π) η A : I A. Deinition 15. By an environment structure we mean a amily o eects A : A I, one or each system A. We call a CJ-universe with an environment structure a CJ -universe. We can interpret these processes as removing that system rom our scope. In quantum theory this role is played by the partial trace operation. Deinition 16. A terminal object in a category C is an object A or which, or each object B C, there is a unique morphism rom B to A. Note that the uniqueness o 1 I as a scalar is implied by terminality o the tensor unit. Theorem 17. A CJ -universe obeying Postulate 13 has a terminal tensor unit. Proo. I π π : A I, then by Deinition 14 (with B : I) we have (1 A π) η A (1 A π ) η A, which contradicts Postulate 13. Hence there can at most be one eect and its existence is guaranteed by the environment structure. Example 6 (Classical probability theory). We deine classical probability theory as a subcategory Stoch o the category o real matrices Mat(R): morphisms are stochastic maps, i.e. inite-dimensional real matrices with entries p ij > 0, and whose columns are normalised, i.e. j Σ i p ij 1. The monoidal product is the Kronecker product o matrices. States are given by normalised positive-real row vectors, and the environment structure is given by marginalisation o the probability distribution. A CJ-state is then given by a perectly correlated bipartite probability distribution v ij { 1 n i i j; 0 otherwise. which can easily be seen to provide an injective mapping rom operations to states.

17 CAUSAL CATEGORIES 17 Example 7 (Mixed quantum theory). FdHilb is the motivating example o a -SMC in CQM, and one might attempt to deine it as a CJ -universe, using the Bell state as the CJ state. However this is problematic or the ollowing reason. The environment structure provides a unique morphism A : A I or each object A, and the interpretation o this amily o morphisms { A } A is the partial trace operation (i.e. the operation which sends the system A to the environment). But since tracing out a system in quantum theory typically leads to a mixed state when starting with a global pure state (e.g. a maximally entangled state), we should consider the category o mixed operations rather than FdHilb, whose states are always pure (see also Remark 7 o [24]). Hence we deine a category Mix whose objects are inite-dimensional Hilbert spaces (i.e. the same objects as FdHilb), and whose morphisms are completely positive maps or the appropriate domain and codomain: denoting the set o linear operators on H as L(H)we deine Mix(H 1, H 2 ) : { : L(H 1 ) L(H 2 ) is completely positive}. Monoidal structure is again given by the tensor product o Hilbert spaces, and the environment structure or Mix is given by the partial trace. Now, we deine B : Σ i i i or a ixed orthonormal basis o H 1 H 2 (i.e. the maximally entangled state or H 1 H 2 ). Then the CJ state or Mix is the operator B B, since it supports the Choi-Jamiołkowski isomorphism φ rom completely positive maps : L(H 1 ) L(H 2 ) to positive operators M on L(H 1 H 2 ), given by and whose inverse is φ :: ( 1 L(H2)) B B φ 1 :: M Tr H1 [(1 H2 ( ) T )M]. I we restrict to the subcategory Mix o Mix whose morphisms are completelypositive trace-preserving maps then we obtain a CJ -universe, i.e. the tensor unit C is terminal. Note that the construction o a category o mixed states and operations has been axiomatised in [47], where the CPM construction was deined or any -compact SMC. This has the ollowing trivial consequences. Corollary 18. Under the assumptions o Theorem 17 we have: All scalars are equal to 1 I ; States are normalized i.e. A ψ 1 I or all ψ : I A ; For all A, B we have A B A B ; All bipartite eects are disconnected. Within this ramework we can now show that teleportation without classical communication cannot generate any inormation low.

18 18 COECKE AND LAL Corollary 19. Under the assumptions o Theorem 17, the composite o the protocol g B A must be disconnected, that is, it is o the orm: : A I B The diagrammatic proo is as ollows: g Similarly we have: g Corollary 20. Under the assumptions o Theorem 17, in a compact category all identities must be disconnected and hence trivial, and in a dagger category all bipartite states must be disconnected, and each object has at most one state. Proo. The irst part is a direct mathematical analogue to Corollary 19 and the second part is straightorward. A ormal account o this is in Section 5.2; in Section 6 we show how we can retain the ull power o CQM. Remark 4 (Time-symmetric quantum mechanics). The passage rom dagger compact categories to causal categories can also be seen as an abstract counterpart to the passage rom time-symmetric quantum mechanics (TSQM) [4] to the usual ormalism o quantum mechanics. In the ormalism o TSQM, not only do we assume the existence o a pre-selected state (i.e. one which has been prepared by measurement), but we also assume that measurement outcomes have been post-selected. This corresponds to how a dagger symmetric monoidal category is used in CQM, because in this setting the dagger imposes a ormal symmetry between states and eects. In TSQM, the violation o Postulate 13 has been partially addressed by restricting the ormalism to those classes o intial and inal (postselected) states which do not lead to signaling [41]; this is ad hoc, and these classes lack an elegant ormal characterisation.

19 CAUSAL CATEGORIES 19 Remark 5. In act, when exploiting the input-output duality at both at alice s and bob s sites we can identiy two more kinds o inormation low: 3 rd kind ino-low 4 th kind ino-low }{{} alice φ bob {}}{ φ alice { }} { φ bob {}}{ Each o these is however excluded by terminality; in the irst case since there cannot be two non-equal eects and in the second case since the bipartite eect must itsel be A B. Earlier work: Chiribella, D Ariano and Perimotti. In [15], Chiribella, D Ariano and Perimotti use the existence o a unique deterministic eect, which they call the causality axiom [15, Deinition 25 & Lemma 3], to derive inormation-theoretic eatures o quantum theory. In that work, much use is made o the probabilistic structure o measurements and classical outcomes. However, in our ramework, we can already derive such eatures without assuming probabilistic structure, e.g. Corollary 19. By using compositionality, we expose the structural as opposed to probabilistic aspects o inormation low that ollow rom requiring causality. 4 Partiality o the tensor rom global state In a monoidal category the tensor product exists or every pair o objects, in particular, a system A can be tensored with itsel to produce A A. In that case, C(I, A A) consists o all ψ φ or ψ, φ C(I, A). The independence o ψ and φ lacks physical meaning, since i the two As in A A reer to one and the same system (spatiotemporally) then obviously we have ψ φ. More generally, the reedom o composing arbitrary states o a system A and a system B implies that they should be independent in A B. The contrapositive to this is that or systems that are not independent, we have to restrict composition o the states o subsystems, which can also be achieved simply by constraining the composition o the objects themselves. We will derive this eature in this Subsection, where we irst investigate to which slices (i.e. object ormulae) we can meaningully assign states within the context o arbitrary scenarios or protocols. In this manner we will develop a partial tensor product, which will be the analogue o spacelike hypersuraces in relativity: we call these objects spatial slices. Now, we will assume that in a scenario or protocol each object occurs only once as an input type and once as an output type. This can be achieved without loss o generality simply by annotating an object with its location within the scenario or protocol. The φ

20 20 COECKE AND LAL reason or this assumption is merely to guarantee that in the ollowing deinition an object is considered only once. Recall that we assume that morphism ormulae contain only atomic morphisms. Deinition 21. Let F be a morphism ormula. A slice B is included in F i the objects occurring in B is a subset o the input and output types o the atomic morphisms that are in F. In terms o the graphical language, a slice is included in a diagram just when it is a subset o the wires in it, which we can denote by putting ticks on the wires: (11) Deinition 22. A spatial slice is a slice B 1... B n or which every pair o objects (B i, B j i ) that occur in it are disconnected objects, that is, i C(B i, B j ) and C(B j, B i ) are disconnected. While the slice in picture (11) cannot be spatial, since it involves objects that are explicitly connected within the diagram, the ollowing slice may be spatial: (12) provided there are no scenarios or which the ticked objects are connected. Deinition 23. Let F be a morphism ormula made up o atomic morphisms. Another morphism ormula G is a sub-ormula o F, i F can be ormed rom G (necessarily included!),, and other morphism ormula. Similarly we deine sub-scenario and sub-protocol. In the graphical language a sub-ormula is simply part o a diagram: The ollowing deinition states the conditions under which we can assign a state to a slice included within a protocol or scenario, when an initial state is speciied (c. initial condition ). We denote by σ the appropriate composite o symmetry isomorphisms that realizes the stated type.

21 CAUSAL CATEGORIES 21 Deinition 24. Let F : A C be a scenario (or protocol), let B be a slice included in it with B : B, and let ψ : I A be a state. The local state at B relative to G, where σ G : I B B with g : G is a sub-scenario o F ψ, is the state (1 B B ) σ g. With F and B as in picture (12), or subscenario G the annotated part o F ψ : ψ, the local state is: (1 B B ) g where we relied on eq. (6) to eliminate the symmetry isomorphisms. Theorem 25 (Existence and uniqueness o local states). For an SMC with terminal unit object, a slice admits a local state or any scenario in which it is included i and only i it is a spatial slice. Moreover, local states, whenever they exist, do not depend on the choice o the subscenario G o Deinition 24. Proo. First we show that i a slice is non-spatial, then there exists a scenario F or which B does not admit any local states. I B is non-spatial then there exists B i and B j i such that some morphism : B i B j is connected. Setting: F 1 k i,j B k... ψ one easily sees that F ψ admits no subormula G o the type required to yield a local state. I B is spatial, then or any scenario F which includes B we can construct the causal past o B as ollows. First, consider all morphisms in F or which an object in the outcome type is in B; i such an object happens to be part o the input type o F then we can consider the identity morphism. Then denote by D the slice consisting o all the input types o these morphisms, and now repeat this procedure, with D playing the role o B, until we obtain a slice Z consisting o objects in the input type o F. The causal past then consists o all the morphisms that we encountered in this procedure, together with σ 1 (1 Z Z ) σ ψ

22 22 COECKE AND LAL or Z : Z and Z Z up to symmetry equal to the input type o F; e.g.: ψ in the case o the example in picture (12). One then obtains the local state by postcomposing any object E in the output type which is not in B with E. We now show independence o the local state on the choice o the subscenario G. Any such G will include all the morphisms accounted or in the causal past, precisely by the construction o the causal past. We now proceed by induction on the number o morphisms contained in G. We can enlarge G in two manners, either by means o sequential or parallel composition with some morphism h : D E, respectively yielding h G or (h 1 D ) G, where we omitted symmetry isomorphisms. But since post-composition with E 1 B B and E 1 D respectively yields ( E 1 B B ) (h G) E G and ( E 1 D ) ((h 1 D ) G) ( E 1 D ) G the resulting local state will be the same as or G. Theorem 25 can be understood as arising rom the way in which the object and morphism languages interact. Roughly speaking, the morphism-language deines how processes can be composed; the interaction o the morphism-language with the object-language deines how processes or scenarios can be decomposed using a slice; and or this latter structure to allow local states to be deined or each slice, we require a partial monoidal structure. Remark 6. I we were to allow : B i B j to be a disconnected morphism in Theorem 25 then the proo would break down, i.e. we can indeed deine a local state. This is possible because, as per our assumption that morphism ormulae are equivalent i they correspond to equivalent diagrams in the graphical language, a disconnected morphism p Bj can be written as Bj p, since this is in the same diagrammatic equivalence class. But this would then provide a subormula G : I B i B j B, which ensures a local state can be given at the spatial slice B i B j. In constrast, in the connected case we were not able to push B 1 next to B 2 to orm B i B j as can be done or the disconnected case to be part o the codomain o G. Remark 7. Note that rom the proo o Theorem 25 it also ollows that in Deinition 24 we do not always need to speciy an initial state or the entire slice A, but only or the slice Z which is included in the causal past o B. Deinition 26. A spatial slice B with B : B is total or a scenario F : A C in which it is included i F decomposes into two subscenarios F 1 : A B and F 2 : B C. Total slices allow one to model evolution o a state through a scenario, when consider-

23 CAUSAL CATEGORIES 23 ing local states or propagating amily total slices e.g.: In this context, a general covariance theorem is one which states that the state o a system does not depend on the particular choice o oliation, i.e. the slice it belongs to. Corollary 27 (general covariance). Local states do not depend on the choice o oliation. We provide a simple example: or the scenario and total spatial slices: B 1 B 1 B Ψ g B 3 B 3 we have: Ψ g Ψ since by terminality: g Earlier work: BIP; Markopoulou; and Hardy. are directly relevant to this Section. There are three strands o work which 1. Markopoulou [42] deined a quantum causal history (QCH) as a mapping that assigns a Hilbert space H(x) to each element x o a causal set C [50]; it assigns tensor products H(ξ) : H(x) H(y) or an antichain ξ {x, z}; and it assigns unitary mappings between antichains. This structure is clearly very similar to the spatial slices we have deined in monoidal categories. However, the assignment o unitaries between antichains ξ and ς does not take into account the causal structure between elements x ξ and w ς. Hence a unitary U : H(ξ) H(ς) or which the state at w is not a constant unction o the state at x is allowed even i x and w are not causally related. Thereore a QCH cannot enorce the act that teleportation without classical communication cannot provide inormation low.

24 24 COECKE AND LAL 2. Blute, Ivanov and Panangaden (BIP) developed a mathematical ramework or describing the evolution o open quantum systems in [10], that is related to Markopoulou s work and the causal sets programme. A similar notion o spatial slice exists or that ramework, and it is shown there that the states are covariant. However, whereas in a causal category covariance ollows immediately rom the deinition o the category, demonstrating covariance in [10] is much more involved, relying on properties o the concrete model o density matrices on Hilbert spaces. 3. Hardy has developed an operational ramework or describing general probabilistic theories [27]. His ramework also uses diagrammatic methods, although its ormalization is not explicit. His work uses the way in which inputs and outputs o boxes are connected to deine the causal structure o a scenario. This is similar to our work, because we deine causal structure (see Subsection 3.1) using the processes available between two slices, i.e. whether or not they are disconnected. However in a causal category the causal structure can be deined globally, whereas in Hardy s approach the causal structure is deined only or the boxes or which connections are made. Above we showed that terminality o the tensor unit implies covariance; however, in a CJ-universe the converse is also true, as we now show. Theorem 28. In a CJ -universe, general covariance implies terminality o the tensor unit. Proo. When considering Ψ covariance means which by injectivity in the deinition o CJ-universe requires A B. Hence, slices which are not spatial will not allow us to meaningully describe the local state on some part o the slice. Thereore, to ensure that this is always possible: we will restrict the tensor to causally unrelated (i.e. disconnected) systems. Our rigorous ormal deinition is in the next Section. One key consequence o this is that: all systems (i.e. objects) in a causal category correspond to spatial slices, without any urther do, simply by the compositional structure. Remark 8 (Crossing slices). Although we shall restrict tensor composition o objects we will not restrict tensor composition o processes. In contrast to other work in the same vein [10, 42], this will allow or processes to be deined between crossing slices. For example, or slices A B and C D, with A causally preceding C while D causaly preceeds B, it still makes perect sense to speak o processes o type A B C D, which will all be o the orm ( C ψ) C ψ Ψ Ψ