Internet DRAFT - draft-ohta-qec-inapplicable

draft-ohta-qec-inapplicable









INTERNET DRAFT                                                   M. Ohta
draft-ohta-qec-inapplicable-00.txt         Tokyo Institute of Technology
Intended status: Informational                          October 30, 2020
Expires: May 3, 2021

    Quantum Error Correction Inapplicable to Really Entangled States

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working
   documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is
   at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

Abstract

   Though quantum error correction assumes localized error model of Shor
   that errors on a qubit are caused by interaction with its local
   environment, enabling essentially classical error correction for
   unentangled states, the model is applied to entangled states
   improperly without involving local environment states in the
   entanglement.

   That is, when an entangled state (Q) is represented as superposition
   of unentangled terms (Qi) as Q=Q1+Q2+...+Qn, local environment states
   around qubits are, in general, different term by term. Q will be,
   with term-specific error operators (Ei), E1*Q1+E2*Q2+...+En*Qn, not,
   with a common error operator (E) assumed by Shor, E*(Q1+Q2+...+Qn).



M. Ohta                  Expires on May 3, 2021                 [Page 1]

INTERNET DRAFT QEC Inapplicable to Really Entangled States  October 2020


   A complication is that Shor's error model is a little quantum,
   allowing for two different local environment states around a qubit.
   As such, quantum error correction is applicable to some trivially
   entangled states including states used by Shor code but not to really
   entangled states.

1. Introduction

   An assumption of noise model for quantum error correction by Shor [1]
   is "The critical assumption here is that decoherence only affects one
   qubit of our superposition, while the other qubits remain unchanged.
   It is not clear how reasonable this assumption is physically, but it
   corresponds to the assumption in classical information theory of the
   independence of noise.", which means a qubit suffers from error as a
   result of interaction with local environment around the qubit but no
   interaction occurs with other qubits or local environment of other
   qubits.  Though some extension to consider certain interaction
   between a qubit and other qubits or environment of other qubits is
   possible, some locality is still assumed.

   The error model is directly applicable to unentangled, that is,
   essentially classical, states, resulting in localized errors,
   corrections of which are essentially classical error correction.

   However, it is unreasonable to expect such localized errors for
   entangled states, because the states themselves do not have locality.
   Actually, with a 2 qubit entangled state: |00>+|11>, if the first
   qubit coherently interacts with its environment to be |0>, the entire
   state becomes |00>, which means the second qubit is also affected,
   Though the case is trivial enough to be explained by Shor's error
   model as superposition of identity (no error) and sign flip (|0> and
   |1> become |0> and -|1>, correspondingly) error:
   |00>=((|00>+|11>)+(|00>-|11>))/2, such an explanation dose not deny
   lack of locality of errors on entangled states.

   As Shor overlooked the fact that when qubit states are entangled,
   their environment states are, in general, also entangled, errors on
   really entangled states are highly non-local to which quantum error
   correction is not applicable.

   That is, when an entangled state (Q) is represented as superposition
   of (minimum number of) unentangled terms (Qi) as Q=Q1+Q2+...+Qn,
   local environment states around a qubit are, in general, involved in
   the entanglement and different term by term, resulting in different
   error operators (Ei). As a result, Q will be disturbed by noise to be
   E1*Q1+E2*Q2+...+En*Qn, whereas, Shor thought a common error operator
   (E) is applicable to all the terms as E*(Q1+Q2+...+Qn).




M. Ohta                  Expires on May 3, 2021                 [Page 2]

INTERNET DRAFT QEC Inapplicable to Really Entangled States  October 2020


   It is obvious that, with some clever encoding using fixed number of
   extra qubits, effect of E may be compensated, which was quantum error
   correction, but the extra qubits are not enough to compensate all the
   Ei's (with quantum algorithms, 'n' will often be exponentially large
   w.r.t. problem size).

   A complication is that Shor's error model is a little quantum,
   allowing for, seemingly despite his intention, two different local
   environment states around a qubit, which is explained in the next
   section.

2. Why Shor's Error Model is a little Quantum?

   In [1], Shor explicitly described environment state of a qubit before
   interaction with the qubit |e0> (same state for |0> and |1>, which
   should be the intention of Shor) and described interaction
   (decoherence) process as:

      |e0>|0> -> |a0>|0>+|a1>|1>

      |e0>|1> -> |a2>|0>+|a3>|1>

   where |a0>, |a1>, |a2> and |a3> are environment states after the
   interaction. |a0>, |a1>, |a2> and |a3> are "not generally orthogonal
   or normalized" [1] and can be fully independent each other. Ignoring
   error terms,

      |e0>|0> -> |a0>|0>

      |e0>|1> -> |a3>|1>

   So, if qubit state is |0>, its environment state is |a0>, but, if
   qubit state is |1>, its environment state us |a3>, different from
   |a0>.

   It should also be noted that, as |a0>, |a1>, |a2> and |a3> are fully
   independent each other, the process may have two different initial
   environment states as:

      |e0>|0> -> |a0>|0>+|a1>|1>

      |e1>|1> -> |a2>|0>+|a3>|1>

   So, Shor's error model is slightly quantum allowing for different
   environment states depending on qubit values.

   As such, errors on trivially entangled states (e.g., superposition of
   just two unentangled states) such as |00>+|11> and



M. Ohta                  Expires on May 3, 2021                 [Page 3]

INTERNET DRAFT QEC Inapplicable to Really Entangled States  October 2020


   (|000>+|111>)(|000>+|111>)(|000>+|111>) should be correctable.  As
   the latter example is Shor code for |0>, experimental confirmation of
   Shor's quantum error correction should success, as long as the input
   qubit to an error correction circuit is unentangled with other qubits
   outside of the circuit, which is not the case when quantum algorithms
   are run on quantum computers relying on aggressive entanglement
   between qubits.

   It should be noted that, though it does not affect the points of this
   memo, Shor's representation of qubit and its environment states using
   tensor product is inappropriate, because, for the interaction,
   relative phase between them matters (e.g., resulting states of
   homodyne detection relies on the relative phase), which can be
   represented by not tensor but Cartesian product. Though |e0>|0> and
   -|e0>|0> represent a same state, (|e0>, |0>) and  (|e0>, -|0>) are
   different states.

   It should also be noted that Shor's error model is a little quantum
   not because sign flip error is quantum specific and classically
   impossible. It is merely that sign flip error does not occur on
   modern computers where phase is not used to encode information.  In
   an optical packet router using FDLs (Fiber Delay Lines) as optical
   buffers (memory), like ancient computers with Mercury delay lines as
   memory, where QAM (Quadrature Amplitude Modulated) PDM (Polarization
   Division Multiplexed) signal is sent over the FDLs [2], sign flip
   errors occur as relative phase errors between polarization modes.

3. Conclusions

   It is shown that not-really-quantum error correction works only for
   errors with mostly classical locality and is not applicable to non-
   local errors on really entangled states.

   As qubit states within quantum computers running quantum algorithms
   are really entangled, quantum error correction for them is
   impossible, which makes construction of quantum computers with
   practical size practically impossible.

   Entangled states, in general, are a lot noisier than Shor thought,
   which should be the reason why the states are so fragile easily
   collapsing to be less noisy less entangled or unentangled states.

4. Security Considerations

   That construction of quantum computers with practical size is
   practically impossible means quantum computers do not make public key
   cryptography unsafe, though there may still be some classical
   algorithm to make it unsafe.



M. Ohta                  Expires on May 3, 2021                 [Page 4]

INTERNET DRAFT QEC Inapplicable to Really Entangled States  October 2020


5. IANA Considerations

   This memo has no actions for IANA.

Informative References

   [1] P. W. Shor, "Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer
   memory", Phys. Rev. A, Oct. 1995,
   http://www.cs.miami.edu/~burt/learning/Csc670.052/pR2493_1.pdf.

   [2] M. Ohta, "Optical switching of many wavelength packets: A
   conservative approach for an energy efficient exascale
   interconnection network", 2016 IEEE 17th International Conference on
   High Performance Switching and Routing (HPSR),
   https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7525641, August 2016.

Author's Address

   Masataka Ohta
   Tokyo Institute of Technology
   2-12-1-W8-54, O-okayama, Meguro-ku
   Tokyo 152-8552
   JAPAN

   Phone: +81-3-5734-3299
   Fax: +81-3-5734-3299
   EMail: mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
























M. Ohta                  Expires on May 3, 2021                 [Page 5]