Abstract
Recently, from the deduction of the result MIP* = RE in quantum computation, it was obtained that Quantum Field Theory (QFT) allows for different forms of computation in quantum computers that Quantum Mechanics (QM) does not allow. Thus, there must exist forms of computation in the QFT representation of the Universe that the QM representation does not allow. We explain in a simple manner how the QFT representation allows for different forms of computation by describing the differences between QFT and QM, and obtain why the future of quantum computation will require the use of QFT.
Highlights
There have been indications that a Quantum Computer (QC) will not avoid the difficulties existing in a present-day Classical Computer (CC) to preserve the validity of Moore’s law [1]; recent work has indicated that the quantum computations represented by Quantum Field Theory (QFT) can make computations that are not representable using Quantum Mechanics (QM) [2]
The comparison between Classical Mechanics (CM) and QM approaches to the Hammersley-Clifford Theorem (HCT) allowed for the comparison between CCs and QCs expressed in ref. [1], which indicated that QCs are likely to out-perform CCs for the physical systems with a small number of physically-allowed alternative future states, but not when that number of possible future states is large
The key question in this work is whether the computations allowed by QFT that do not occur in QM can improve the computation capacity of QFs: (1) QFT perspective affects the capacity of pure states to exist in both the QC and the Universe, which reduces rather than increases the stability of spin states
Summary
There have been indications that a Quantum Computer (QC) will not avoid the difficulties existing in a present-day Classical Computer (CC) to preserve the validity of Moore’s law [1]; recent work has indicated that the quantum computations represented by Quantum Field Theory (QFT) can make computations that are not representable using Quantum Mechanics (QM) [2]. A major difference between QM and QFT is that, for the former, the combined system of two measurement devices is based in the tensor product of the Hilbert space of each of the measurement devices, whereas for the latter, it is assumed that there is a unique Hilbert space for the two measurement devices [2,3,4]. This difference in the system representation between QM and QFT implies that the method of defining the non-communication of the measurement devices will be different for QM versus for QFT [5]. It is possible to differentiate, for a nonlocal game G, between the supremum of success probabilities when using a tensor product approach, represented as ωTP(G); and the supremum of success probabilities when using a commuting operator approach, represented as ωCO(G)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
