Summoning information in spacetime, or where and when can a qubit be?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most important properties of quantum information, and the one ultimately responsible for its cryptographic applications, is that it can not be copied. That statement, however, is not completely accurate. While the no-cloning theorem of quantum mechanics prevents quantum information from being copied in space, the reversibility of microscopic physics actually requires that the information be copied in time. In spacetime as a whole, therefore, quantum information is widely replicated but in a restricted fashion. We fully characterize which regions of spacetime can all hold the same quantum information. Because quantum information can be delocalized through quantum error correction and teleportation, it need not follow well-defined trajectories. Instead, replication of the information in any configuration of spacetime regions not leading to violations of causality or the no-cloning principle is allowed. To demonstrate this, we answer the operational question of exactly when the information can be summoned to a set of spacetime points, showing how to do so efficiently using a combination of teleportation and codeword-stabilized quantum codes. This provides a simple and complete description of where and when a qubit can be located in spacetime, revealing a remarkable variety of possibilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".