# Perfect State Distinguishability and Computational Speedups with Postselected Closed Timelike Curves

- 206 Downloads
- 12 Citations

## Abstract

Bennett and Schumacher’s postselected quantum teleportation is a model of closed timelike curves (CTCs) that leads to results physically different from Deutsch’s model. We show that even a single qubit passing through a postselected CTC (P-CTC) is sufficient to do any postselected quantum measurement with certainty, and we discuss an important difference between “Deutschian” CTCs (D-CTCs) and P-CTCs in which the future existence of a P-CTC might affect the present outcome of an experiment. Then, based on a suggestion of Bennett and Smith, we explicitly show how a party assisted by P-CTCs can distinguish a set of linearly independent quantum states, and we prove that it is not possible for such a party to distinguish a set of linearly dependent states. The power of P-CTCs is thus weaker than that of D-CTCs because the Holevo bound still applies to circuits using them, regardless of their ability to conspire in violating the uncertainty principle. We then discuss how different notions of a quantum mixture that are indistinguishable in linear quantum mechanics lead to dramatically differing conclusions in a nonlinear quantum mechanics involving P-CTCs. Finally, we give explicit circuit constructions that can efficiently factor integers, efficiently solve any decision problem in the intersection of NP and coNP, and probabilistically solve any decision problem in NP. These circuits accomplish these tasks with just one qubit traveling back in time, and they exploit the ability of postselected closed timelike curves to create grandfather paradoxes for invalid answers.

## Keywords

Postselected closed time-like curves State distinguishability Paradoxical computation## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.Gödel, K.: An example of a new type of cosmological solutions of Einstein’s field equations of gravitation. Rev. Mod. Phys.
**21**(3), 447–450 (1949) ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 2.Bonnor, W.B.: The rigidly rotating relativistic dust cylinder. J. Phys. A, Math. Gen.
**13**(6), 2121 (1980) MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 3.Gott, J.R.: Closed timelike curves produced by pairs of moving cosmic strings: Exact solutions. Phys. Rev. Lett.
**66**(9), 1126–1129 (1991) MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 4.Hartle, J.B.: Unitarity and causality in generalized quantum mechanics for nonchronal spacetimes. Phys. Rev. D, Part. Fields
**49**(12), 6543–6555 (1994) MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 5.Morris, M.S., Thorne, K.S., Yurtsever, U.: Wormholes, time machines, and the weak energy condition. Phys. Rev. Lett.
**61**(13), 1446–1449 (1988) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 6.Deutsch, D.: Quantum mechanics near closed timelike lines. Phys. Rev. D, Part. Fields
**44**(10), 3197–3217 (1991) MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 7.Bacon, D.: Quantum computational complexity in the presence of closed timelike curves. Phys. Rev. A
**70**(3), 032309 (2004) MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 8.Aaronson, S., Watrous, J.: Closed timelike curves make quantum and classical computing equivalent. Proc. R. Soc. A
**465**(2102), 631–647 (2009) MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 9.Brun, T.A., Harrington, J., Wilde, M.M.: Localized closed timelike curves can perfectly distinguish quantum states. Phys. Rev. Lett.
**102**(21), 210402 (2009) MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 10.DeJonghe, R., Frey, K., Imbo, T.: Discontinuous quantum evolutions in the presence of closed timelike curves. Phys. Rev. D, Part. Fields
**81**, 087501 (2010). arXiv:0908.2655 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 11.Pati, A.K., Chakrabarty, I., Agrawal, P.: Purification of mixed state with closed timelike curve is not possible. May 2010. arXiv:1003.4221
- 12.Holevo, A.S.: Bounds for the quantity of information transmitted by a quantum channel. Probl. Inf. Transm.
**9**, 177–183 (1973) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 13.Bennett, C.H., Leung, D., Smith, G., Smolin, J.A.: Can closed timelike curves or nonlinear quantum mechanics improve quantum state discrimination or help solve hard problems? Phys. Rev. Lett.
**103**(17), 170502 (2009) MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 14.Bennett, C.H., Leung, D., Smith, G., Smolin, J.: The impotence of nonlinearity: Why closed timelike curves and nonlinear quantum mechanics don’t improve quantum state discrimination, and haven’t been shown to dramatically speed up computation, if computation is defined in a natural, adversarial way. In: Rump Session Presentation at the 13th Workshop on Quantum Information Processing, Zurich, Switzerland, January 2010 (2010) Google Scholar
- 15.Ralph, T.C., Myers, C.R.: Information flow of quantum states interacting with closed timelike curves. March 2010. arXiv:1003.1987
- 16.Cavalcanti, E.G., Menicucci, N.C.: Verifiable nonlinear quantum evolution implies failure of density matrices to represent proper mixtures. April 2010. arXiv:1004.1219
- 17.Wallman, J.J., Bartlett, S.D.: Revisiting consistency conditions for quantum states of systems on closed timelike curves: an epistemic perspective. May 2010. arXiv:1005.2438
- 18.Lloyd, S., Maccone, L., Garcia-Patron, R., Giovannetti, V., Shikano, Y., Pirandola, S., Rozema, L.A., Darabi, A., Soudagar, Y., Shalm, L.K., Steinberg, A.M.: Closed timelike curves via post-selection: theory and experimental demonstration. May 2010. arXiv:1005.2219
- 19.Lloyd, S., Maccone, L., Garcia-Patron, R., Giovannetti, V., Shikano, Y.: The quantum mechanics of time travel through post-selected teleportation. July 2010. arXiv:1007.2615
- 20.Svetlichny, G.: Effective quantum time travel. February 2009. arXiv:0902.4898
- 21.Bennett, C.H.: Talk at QUPON, Wien. http://www.research.ibm.com/people/b/bennetc/, May 2005
- 22.Bennett, C.H., Brassard, G., Crépeau, C., Jozsa, R., Peres, A., Wootters, W.K.: Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen channels. Phys. Rev. Lett.
**70**, 1895–1899 (1993) MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 23.Aaronson, S.: Quantum computing, postselection, and probabilistic polynomial-time. Proc. R. Soc. A
**461**(2063), 3473–3482 (2005) MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 24.Brun, T.A.: Computers with closed timelike curves can solve hard problems. Found. Phys. Lett.
**16**, 245–253 (2003) MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 25.Chefles, A.: Unambiguous discrimination between linearly independent quantum states. Phys. Lett. A
**239**, 339–347 (1998) MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 26.Bennett, C.H.: Private communication. In: 12th Workshop on Quantum Information Processing, Albuquerque, New Mexico, January 2009 (2009) Google Scholar
- 27.Smith, G.: Private communication. In: International Symposium on Information Theory, Austin, Texas, June 2010 (2010) Google Scholar
- 28.Horowitz, G.T., Maldacena, J.: The black hole final state. J. High Energy Phys.
**2004**(02), 008 (2004) MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 29.Lloyd, S.: Almost certain escape from black holes in final state projection models. Phys. Rev. Lett.
**96**(6), 061302 (2006) MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 30.Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000) MATHGoogle Scholar
- 31.Bennett, C.: Quantum cryptography using any two nonorthogonal states. Phys. Rev. Lett.
**68**, 3121–3124 (1992) MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 32.Bennett, C., Brassard, G.: Quantum cryptography: Public-key distribution and coin tossing. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing, December 1984, pp. 175–179 (1984) Google Scholar
- 33.Scarani, V., Acin, A., Ribordy, G., Gisin, N.: Quantum cryptography protocols robust against photon number splitting attacks for weak laser pulse implementations. Phys. Rev. Lett.
**92**, 057901 (2004) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 34.d’Espagnat, B.: On Physics and Philosophy. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2006). ISBN:978-0-691-11964-9 Google Scholar
- 35.Cook, S.A.: The complexity of theorem proving procedures. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pp. 151–158 (1971) Google Scholar