The usual representation of quantum algorithms is limited to the process of solving the problem. We extend it to the process of setting the problem. Bob, the problem setter, selects a problem-setting by the initial measurement. Alice, the problem solver, unitarily computes the corresponding solution and reads it by the final measurement. This simple extension creates a new perspective from which to see the quantum algorithm. First, it highlights the relevance of time-symmetric quantum mechanics to quantum computation: the problem-setting and problem solution, in their quantum version, constitute pre- and post-selection, hence the process as a whole is bound to be affected by both boundary conditions. Second, it forces us to enter into relational quantum mechanics. There must be a representation of the quantum algorithm with respect to Bob, and another one with respect to Alice, from whom the outcome of the initial measurement, specifying the setting and thus the solution of the problem, must be concealed. Time-symmetrizing the quantum algorithm to take into account both boundary conditions leaves the representation to Bob unaltered. It shows that the representation to Alice is a sum over histories in each of which she remains shielded from the information coming to her from the initial measurement, not from that coming to her backwards in time from the final measurement. In retrospect, all is as if she knew in advance, before performing her problem-solving action, half of the information that specifies the solution of the problem she will read in the future and could use this information to reach the solution with fewer computation steps (oracle queries). This elucidates the quantum computational speedup in all the quantum algorithms examined.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We wish to thank Yakir Aharonov and David Ritz Finkelstein for many helpful discussions.
Grover, L.K.: A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pp. 212–219. ACM Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
Mosca, M., Ekert, A.K.: The hidden subgroup problem and Eigen value estimation on a Quantum Computer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1509 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambainis, A.: Understanding quantum algorithms via query complexity. arXiv:1712.06349 (2017)
Jozsa, R.: Entanglement and quantum computation. Geometric issues in the foundations of science, Oxford University Press. arXiv:quant-ph/9707034 (1997)
Ekert, A.K., Jozsa, R.: Quantum algorithms: Entanglement enhanced information processing. arXiv:quant-ph/9803072 (1998)
Aaronson, S., Ambainis, A.: Forrelation: a problem that optimally separates quantum from classical computing. arXiv:1411.5729 (2014)
Castagnoli, G., Finkelstein, D.R.: Theory of the quantum speedup. Proc. R. Soc. A 1799(457), 1799–1807 (2001)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castagnoli, G.: The quantum correlation between the selection of the problem and that of the solution sheds light on the mechanism of the quantum speed up. Phys. Rev. A 82, 052334 (2010)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castagnoli, G.: Completing the physical representation of quantum algorithms provides a quantitative explanation of their computational speedup. Found. Phys. 48, 333–354 (2018)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Neumann, J.: Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1955)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
Aharonov, Y., Vaidman, L.: The two-state vector formalism: an updated review. Lect. Notes Phys. 734, 399–447 (2008)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aharonov, Y., Colombo, F., Popescu, S., Sabadini, I., Struppa, D.C., Tollaksen, J.: Quantum violation of the pigeonhole principle and the nature of quantum correlations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 532–535 (2016)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aharonov, Y., Cohen, E., Landsberger, T.: The two-time interpretation and macroscopic time-reversibility. Entropy 19, 111 (2017)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aharonov, Y., Cohen, E., Tollaksen, J.: Completely top-down hierarchical structure in quantum mechanics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11730–11735 (2018)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aharonov, Y., Cohen, E., Carmi, A., Elitzur, A.C.: Extraordinary interactions between light and matter determined by anomalous weak values. Proc. R. Soc. A 474, 20180030 (2018)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, C.H., Bernstein, E., Brassard, G., Vazirani, U.: Strengths and weaknesses of quantum computing. SIAM J. Comput. 26, 1510–1523 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, G.L.: Grover algorithm with zero theoretical failure rate. Phys. Rev. A 64, 022307–022314 (2001)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toyama, F.M., van Dijk, W., Nogami, Y.: Quantum search with certainty based on modified Grover algorithms: optimum choice of parameters. Quant. Inf. Proc. 12, 1897–1914 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aharonov, Y., Albert, D.Z., Vaidman, L.: How the result of a measurement of a component of the spin of a spin-1/2 particle can turn out to be 100. Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1351 (1988)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elitzur, A.C., Cohen, E., Okamoto, R., Takeuchi, S.: Nonlocal position changes of a photon revealed by quantum routers. Sci. Rep. 8, 7730 (2018)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, C.H., Brassard, G.: Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on computers, systems and signal processing, vol. 175, p. 8. New York (1984)Google Scholar