Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1503.06978

Reply to Norsen's paper "Are there really two different Bell's theorems?"

Howard M. Wiseman·Eleanor G. Rieffel
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Yes. That is my polemical reply to the titular question in Travis Norsen's self-styled "polemical response to Howard Wiseman's recent paper." Less polemically, I am pleased to see that on two of my positions --- that Bell's 1964 theorem is different from Bell's 1976 theorem, and that the former does not include Bell's one-paragraph heuristic presentation of the EPR argument --- Norsen has made significant concessions. In his response, Norsen admits that "Bell's recapitulation of the EPR argument in [the relevant] paragraph leaves something to be desired," that it "disappoints" and is "problematic". Moreover, Norsen makes other statements that imply, on the face of it, that he should have no objections to the title of my recent paper ("The Two Bell's Theorems of John Bell"). My principle aim in writing that paper was to try to bridge the gap between two interpretational camps, whom I call 'operationalists' and 'realists', by pointing out that they use the phrase "Bell's theorem" to mean different things: his 1964 theorem (assuming locality and determinism) and his 1976 theorem (assuming local causality), respectively. Thus, it is heartening that at least one person from one side has taken one step on my bridge. That said, there are several issues of contention with Norsen, which we (the two authors) address after discussing the extent of our agreement with Norsen. The most significant issues are: the indefiniteness of the word 'locality' prior to 1964; and the assumptions Einstein made in the paper quoted by Bell in 1964 and their relation to Bell's theorem.

Explore related subjects

quant-phphysics.hist-ph

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Howard M. Wiseman, Eleanor G. Rieffel. 2015-03-24. Reply to Norsen's paper "Are there really two different Bell's theorems?". https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.06978

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Probing the Error-Mitigation Threshold with Matrix Product States

Quantum error mitigation relies on accurate noise characterization, but mismatches between the actual and characterized noise can be amplified and drive a sharp threshold between successful and failed mitigation. In random circuits, this threshold maps onto a random-field Ising transition, but previous exact numerics were limited to small one-dimensional and all-to-all systems, leaving explicit two-dimensional architectures unresolved. We develop a fixed-bond-dimension matrix-product-state method for the replicated transfer dynamics that extends threshold calculations beyond exact propagation while retaining the finite-size signatures of the transition. At system sizes beyond previous exact studies, we recover the predicted absence of a threshold for quenched disorder in 1D, obtain a sharper annealed all-to-all critical point, and resolve architecture-dependent finite-depth thresholds in 2D square and heavy-hex circuits. These results establish replicated tensor-network dynamics as a practical tool for probing error-mitigation thresholds in large and higher-dimensional noisy circuits.

quant-ph↗
arXiv2026

Low-cost algorithm-to-execution framework for surface-code quantum computing

The execution of useful quantum algorithms on fault-tolerant processors requires more than a mapping from logical gates to encoded operations: the spatial organization, non-Clifford resource supply, and execution schedule must also be determined while keeping physical overhead within practical limits. Although the theoretical hierarchy from logical circuits to fault-tolerant operations is well established, these implementation choices are often specified and optimized separately. Here we develop a low-cost algorithm-to-execution framework for surface-code quantum computing. From hierarchical algorithm descriptions, it constructs dependency-preserving logical schedules and an executable workload capturing logical interactions, operation parallelism, and time-resolved non-Clifford demand, thereby linking logical computation to surface-code organization, resource-state preparation, and fault-tolerant execution in a traceable workflow. We apply the framework to twenty benchmark circuits across seven algorithm families and a hierarchically composed application-scale elliptic-curve discrete-logarithm workload. Physical costs vary substantially even for circuits with similar logical resource counts. Under our direct-rotation calibration, non-Clifford implementation selection reduces space-time volume by up to 241.5 times versus an all-synthesis baseline for the QAOA amplitude-amplification workload. Circuit-specific surface-code layouts reduce routed-latency estimates for all twenty benchmarks; thirteen also reduce space-time volume because communication savings outweigh added spatial overhead. These results show that low-cost fault-tolerant execution depends on computation scheduling and organization, not aggregate logical resource counts alone.

quant-ph↗
arXiv2026

Sample-optimal learning of stabilizer states

It is well-known that learning a pure $n$-qubit stabilizer state $|\psi\rangle$ both requires, and can be accomplished with, access to a number of copies of $|\psi\rangle$ linear in $n$. However, the precise constant coefficient of this scaling does not appear to have been determined. Here we prove that $L_\delta(n)$, the smallest number of copies from which a quantum procedure can identify any stabilizer state with failure probability at most $0<\delta<1/8$, satisfies $n+\lceil\log_2(1/\delta)\rceil-3\leq L_\delta(n)\leq n+\left\lceil\log_2(1/\delta)\right\rceil+4$. We present a polynomial-time quantum learning algorithm that saturates this bound, achieving a constant factor improvement in sample-complexity over previously known approaches. As an immediate corollary, we obtain via the Choi-Jamiolkowski isomorphism an algorithm for learning an unknown $n$-qubit Clifford unitary from $2n+\left\lceil\log_2(1/\delta)\right\rceil+4$ queries, the $n$-dependence of which we show to be optimal. Our proof technique, which involves Fourier analysis on the abelian group $\mathbb{Z}_4^n \times \mathbb{F}_2^{n(n-1)/2}$, seems to be qualitatively different to previous approaches to stabilizer state learning, and may be of some independent interest; in particular, it admits natural generalisations to further problems in quantum learning theory.

quant-ph↗