MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Coherence and Asymmetry Cannot be Broadcast

2019· article· en· W2904555790 on OpenAlexafffund
Matteo Lostaglio, Markus P. Müller

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadGeneralitat de CatalunyaGovernment of CanadaCentres de Recerca de CatalunyaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
KeywordsCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)AsymmetryQuantumPhysicsQuantum mechanicsQuantum thermodynamicsOpen quantum systemQuantum metrologyQuantum information scienceTheoretical physicsStatistical physicsComputer scienceQuantum technologyQuantum entanglement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the presence of conservation laws, superpositions of eigenstates of the corresponding conserved quantities cannot be generated by quantum dynamics. Thus, any such coherence represents a potentially valuable resource of asymmetry, which can be used, for example, to enhance the precision of quantum metrology or to enable state transitions in quantum thermodynamics. Here we ask if such superpositions, already present in a reference system, can be broadcast to other systems, thereby distributing asymmetry indefinitely at the expense of creating correlations. We prove a no-go theorem showing that this is forbidden by quantum mechanics in every finite-dimensional system. In doing so, we also answer some open questions in the quantum information literature concerning the sharing of timing information of a clock and the possibility of catalysis in quantum thermodynamics. We also prove that even weaker forms of broadcasting, of which Åberg's "catalytic coherence" is a particular example, can only occur in the presence of infinite-dimensional reference systems. Our results set fundamental limits on the creation and manipulation of quantum coherence and shed light on the possibilities and limitations of quantum reference frames to act catalytically without being degraded.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207