Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Entangling Disciplines: Causality, Entropy and Time-Travel Paradoxes on a Quantum Computer

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that three thought experiments from relativity, thermodynamics, and time-travel can be implemented as small quantum circuits and run on current devices, giving learners hands-on access to the underlying principles.

desk verdict A clear, honest education paper that repackages known results; the Szilard circuit is the one genuinely fresh classroom piece, but the CTC activity hardcodes its answer and the paper admits it. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15909 v1 pith:CJFMS26S submitted 2025-06-18 quant-ph

Maria Violaris This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumcomputingeducationcircuitsEPRparadoxlocalityMaxwell'sdemonLandauer'sprincipleclosedtimelikecurvesthermodynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Quantum computing is usually taught as a discipline of its own, but this paper argues that its circuits can also be laboratories for fundamental physics. The author presents three quantum-circuit activities that learners can run on current and near-term hardware: an EPR experiment that demonstrates locality and no-signalling, a quantum Szilard engine that exhibits the work cost of erasing information, and a simulated closed timelike curve that resolves the Grandfather Paradox and displays the extra computational power time-loops would provide. The aim is to teach both directions at once: learners see special relativity, general relativity, and thermodynamics from a quantum-information angle, and they learn about the scope and limits of quantum computers by seeing how entanglement, erasure, and non-linearity behave in circuits.

What carries the argument

The unifying device is a translation of thought experiments into quantum circuits in which measurements are replaced by CNOT gates that copy a system's state into a memory qubit, so the entire evolution stays unitary and information flow can be traced. The locality argument uses a 'descriptor'—the vector of Pauli observables $(\hat{\sigma}_x,\hat{\sigma}_y,\hat{\sigma}_z)$ of each qubit—and the proven fact that a gate changes only the descriptor of the qubit it acts on. The thermodynamics argument uses a non-unitary reset (or a depolarising noise channel) to model both the thermalization of the particle and the erasure of the demon's memory. The time-loop argument rests on the consistency condition $\rho_1 = \operatorname{tr}_1(U(|\psi_0\rangle\langle\psi_0| \otimes \rho_1)U^\dagger)$, which requires the time-loop qubit's state to be unchanged after its interaction with the system qubit.

What would settle it

The central claim would be falsified by a simple classroom test: show learners a new non-orthogonal input state, ask them to predict the circuit's output before running it, and check whether their prediction is better than the hardcoded input–output table would allow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the standard elements of these paradoxes—entangled particles, an observer's memory, a Szilard demon, and a time traveller—can be treated as quantum systems and assembled into small circuits, and that running those circuits reveals the mechanism behind each principle. For the EPR circuit, moving from classical measurement registers to CNOT gates makes the whole process unitary, and tracking the evolution of individual-qubit descriptors shows that Alice's basis choice only affects her own qubit and memory, never Bob's. For the Szilard engine, omitting the memory-reset step destroys the net work output on average, demonstrating Landauer's principle in quantum form. For the CTC circuit, the time-loop qubit is prepared in the state satisfying the consistency condition, so a single measurement can distinguish non-orthogonal states and thus replicate what a genuine time-loop computer could do.

Load-bearing premise

The time-travel activity stands on the premise that manually setting the time-loop qubit to the state that satisfies the consistency condition is a faithful stand-in for a real closed timelike curve; if that preparation is just hardcoding the expected answer, the claimed demonstration of extra computational power collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Running the EPR circuit lets learners see with their own results that entangled correlations can be explained by local information flow, without faster-than-light signalling or hidden variables.
  • The Szilard circuit shows that a blank pure-state memory is a resource: without resetting it, the engine extracts no net work over repeated cycles, making Landauer's principle tangible.
  • The CTC circuit distinguishes $|0\rangle$ and $|-\rangle$, and then all four BB84 states, with a single measurement, illustrating why time-loops would break quantum cryptography and outclass ordinary quantum computers.
  • These observations expose open questions, including the knowledge paradox and the tension between CTCs and locality, giving learners a view of live research problems.
  • Because the circuits run on current devices, the activities are usable today in classrooms and workshops, not only in thought.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: If the CTC simulation is accepted as a faithful educational proxy, it offers a rare hands-on route into computational complexity—learners can literally see the gap between ordinary quantum computers and time-loop computers—though the paper only gestures at this.
  • Editorial extension: The descriptor-based EPR activity suggests a testable pedagogical hypothesis: students who trace information flow with descriptors may develop fewer 'spooky action' misconceptions than those taught only Bell's theorem; the paper does not run that comparison.
  • Editorial extension: The Szilard circuit could be extended, as the paper notes, into a fully unitary engine with explicit environment qubits, which would turn it from a logic simulation into a resource-theoretic demonstration where energy conservation is visible.
  • Editorial extension: The same circuit idiom—CNOT-as-measurement plus consistency-condition preparation—could be adapted to simulate other exotic resources, such as indefinite causal order, although the paper only lists these as future extensions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents three quantum-circuit-based learning activities intended to help students engage with foundational physics: the EPR paradox and locality, a quantum Szilard engine and Landauer erasure, and simulations of closed timelike curves (CTCs) showing their purported computational power. The author provides the physics background, circuit constructions, and suggested extensions, with references to an accompanying video, blog, and code series. The paper's central claim is that these activities let learners test or demonstrate principles of special relativity, general relativity, and thermodynamics on current or near-term quantum computers.

Significance. If the activities work as claimed, they would be a valuable pedagogical resource, connecting quantum computing education to deep topics in physics. The descriptor-based local account of the EPR experiment in Section II-A is a clever and technically sound way to present locality without invoking Bell inequalities, and the Szilard engine activity in Section III correctly illustrates the role of a pure memory state and the necessity of erasure for cyclic work extraction. The CTC section accurately describes Deutsch's consistency condition and its computational consequences, but the central pedagogical claim about testing CTC power relies on a circuit that hardcodes the fixed point, which undermines the claimed 'test.' The paper is clearly written and provides accessible explanations with concrete Qiskit code snippets, which is a strength for an education-oriented audience.

major comments (2)
  1. [§IV-C1] The circuit implementation for distinguishing |0⟩ and |−⟩ determines the time-loop qubit's preparation from the user's input, as the author acknowledges. Because the user already knows which state is fed in, and the time-loop qubit is prepared in the state that makes the consistency condition trivially satisfied, the circuit does not simulate a CTC's nonlinear fixed-point search; it is a classical conditional that merely outputs the precomputed answer. The learner therefore does not 'test directly how CTCs would give us access to computational power beyond that allowed by standard quantum theory' as claimed in Section I. The activity would need either a genuine fixed-point search (for example, iteratively updating the time-loop qubit and checking consistency) or a clear reframing as an illustration of the fixed-point condition with an explicit statement that it provides no predictive test. This is load-bearing because the CTC activity is one of the three pillars of the paper's stated contribution.
  2. [§IV-C2] The BB84 extension inherits the same circularity: the outputs (00, 10, 01, 11) are hardwired to the four possible inputs, so the circuit does not demonstrate an eavesdropper's ability to distinguish non-orthogonal states; it merely encodes the known answer. The paper should state clearly that the circuit is a schematic for what a CTC would compute, not a simulation whose output can verify the claim. Suggest also discussing why a post-selection or iterative fixed-point simulation would be needed to make the activity a genuine test rather than a predetermined demonstration.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III-A] In the sentence 'it is impossible to soley turn heat', 'soley' should be 'solely'.
  2. [§III-D1] In the preparation of the particle, 'superpostion' should be 'superposition'.
  3. [§II-A] The word 'paramaterised' appears in the description of Figure 1; it should be 'parameterised' (or 'parameterized') for consistency with the rest of the text.
  4. [§IV-C2] In the sentence 'Figure 10 shows the quantum circuit when the user inputs 00', the input '00' does not match the listed states |0⟩, |1⟩, |+⟩, |−⟩; it should likely be '0' or '|0⟩'.
  5. [General] The abstract and conclusion claim the activities can be run on current and near-term quantum computers, but no sample measurement statistics or demonstration outputs are included. Adding an example of actual output distributions for the EPR or Szilard circuits, even from a simulator, would strengthen the pedagogical demonstration.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The CTC activity hardcodes the consistency condition via user input, so the claimed demonstration of CTC computational power reduces to a lookup table; the rest of the paper is independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV-C1, 'Distinguishing |0⟩ and |−⟩ with one measurement']
    "If the user inputs “0”, then my code leaves the system qubit as |−⟩ and the time-loop qubit as |0⟩, which is the state needed to make the time-loop qubit’s input and output states the same according to the consistency condition. ... I have artificially introduced the non-linearity into the quantum circuits by making the preparation of the time-loop qubit depend on the user’s input state."

    The claimed result—perfect single-measurement distinguishability of |0⟩ and |−⟩—is built into the preparation. The code branches on the user-declared input ('0' vs '-') to set the time-loop qubit to the already-computed fixed point satisfying Deutsch's consistency condition. The measurement outcome is then a deterministic function of that branch (0 for '0', 1 for '-'), so no CTC dynamics is simulated or tested; the output is the input label in disguise. The paper's own sentence that the nonlinearity was 'artificially introduced' concedes this reduction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section IV-C2, 'Distinguishing states for BB84 protocol']
    "By coding this in a similar way to the previous circuit, we get the following behaviour: when we input 0, 1, + and -, the outputs are 00, 10, 01 and 11 respectively."

    The four-state distinguisher is the same hardcoded construction scaled up. For each declared input (0,1,+,-), the time-loop qubit is prepared to a precomputed state satisfying the consistency condition, so the output bit pair is fixed at coding time. The 'behaviour' is therefore an input-output lookup table, not a prediction obtained from running the CTC model; it adds no independent evidence for the claimed BB84 break.

full rationale

Most of the paper is self-contained educational content. The EPR/locality activity implements actual unitary circuits and invokes Deutsch and Hayden's external, parameter-free proof that gates act locally on descriptors; the Szilard-engine circuit implements heat-engine logic and cites Landauer and Bennett for the erasure cost. Those parts are not circular. The only author self-citations are to the author's own content series and prior educational paper; they are not load-bearing for the physics. The circularity is confined to the CTC simulation. In Section IV-C1 the protocol asks the user to declare which non-orthogonal state was sent ('0' or '-') and then chooses the time-loop qubit's initial state to be the precomputed fixed point of Deutsch's consistency condition for that state. The output (always 0 for '0', always 1 for '-') is therefore determined by the input label plus classical conditionals before any CTC dynamics is simulated. The paper explicitly says the nonlinearity is 'artificially introduced.' The same hardcoding carries into the BB84 four-state circuit in IV-C2. Thus the claim that learners 'can test directly how CTCs would give us access to computational power beyond that allowed by standard quantum theory' is not supported by the simulation as written; it is an illustration with the answer encoded in the preparation. Because this affects one of the three central activities and not the EPR or thermodynamics derivations, a partial circularity score is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's activities depend on several imported theoretical commitments: universal quantum theory, the Deutsch consistency condition, deferred measurement, Landauer's principle, and the noise-model representation of a maximally mixed state. No numeric constants are fitted to data; the only hand-chosen parameters are the CTC time-loop initial state and the Szilard weight initial state, both selected to make the desired logic work.

free parameters (2)
  • CTC time-loop qubit initial state = |0> for input |0>, |1> for input |- >
    Chosen per user input so the consistency condition holds by construction; the perfect-distinguishing output is thereby preprogrammed. Section IV-C1.
  • Szilard weight initial state = |01>
    Set to the intermediate energy level so the weight can be lifted or lowered; not derived from physical energy conservation. Section III-D3.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Quantum theory is universal and applies to macroscopic observers.
    Needed to treat Alice-0 and Alice-1 as quantum systems in the CTC activity. Stated in section IV-B and deferred to prior paper [34].
  • domain assumption Deutsch's consistency condition resolves CTC paradoxes and is implementable in a circuit.
    Underlies the entire CTC simulation; cited to [3] but not independently justified.
  • standard math The principle of deferred measurement lets projective measurements be replaced by CNOT gates.
    Used in section II-A3 to convert the EPR measurement circuit into unitary form; standard quantum computing result.
  • domain assumption Landauer's principle gives an irreducible work cost for information erasure.
    The resolution of Maxwell's demon in section III-B relies on this; cited to [14] and [15].
  • ad hoc to paper A depolarizing noise channel can model a maximally mixed state for pedagogical purposes.
    Used to prepare the particle state in the Szilard engine simulation without a physical thermal bath. Section III-D1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entangling Disciplines: Causality, Entropy and Time-Travel Paradoxes on a Quantum Computer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CJFMS26S

@misc{pith2026250615909,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entangling Disciplines: Causality, Entropy and Time-Travel Paradoxes on a Quantum Computer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CJFMS26S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15909}
}
read the original abstract

Merging disciplines has led to incredible learnings and breakthroughs throughout history, including the discovery of quantum computing: a cross between computation and quantum physics. In this paper, I will discuss how we can cross quantum computing with topics in fundamental physics. This leads to fruitful, interactive learning opportunities that fuse deep open physics problems with key insights about quantum information science. By outlining quantum circuit experiments that can be run on current and near-term quantum computers, I demonstrate how to help learners engage with principles in special relativity, general relativity and thermodynamics. In turn, these connections can advance their understanding of quantum computing. Learners can further explore the quantum computing activities in this paper via the Quantum Paradoxes content series of videos, blogs and code tutorials that I created with IBM Quantum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15909 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Quantum circuit for measuring correlations of an entangled pair of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Alice and Bob are treated as quantum systems, so all measurement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of how demon can sort fast and slow particles into different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A visualisation of Landauer’s principle. Coins storing information [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The quantum circuit implementation of a Szilard’s engine. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Depiction of the Szilard’s engine cycle, which is a single-particle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A visualisation of a time-loop, where Alice goes back in time to have [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A visualisation of Alice’s time-loop, with the SWAP gate absorbed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The quantum circuit for distinguishing |0⟩ and |−⟩, when the user input is “0” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The quantum circuit for distinguishing |0⟩ and |−⟩, when the user input is “00”. from the “-” state with a single measurement. The quantum circuit for the “0” input is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum paradoxes,

    M. Violaris, “Quantum paradoxes,” 2023. [On- line]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list= PLOFEBzvs-VvoQP-EVyd5Di3UrPPc2YKIc

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing,

    Qiskit contributors, “Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing,” 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Quantum mechanics near closed timelike lines,

    D. Deutsch, “Quantum mechanics near closed timelike lines,” Physical Review D, vol. 44, no. 10, p. 3197, 1991

    work page 1991

  4. [4]

    Closed timelike curves make quantum and classical computing equivalent,

    S. Aaronson and J. Watrous, “Closed timelike curves make quantum and classical computing equivalent,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 465, no. 2102, pp. 631–647, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Localized closed time- like curves can perfectly distinguish quantum states,

    T. A. Brun, J. Harrington, and M. M. Wilde, “Localized closed time- like curves can perfectly distinguish quantum states,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 102, no. 21, p. 210402, 2009

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Profile of John Clauser, Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger: 2022 Nobel laureates in Physics,

    G. Brassard, “Profile of John Clauser, Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger: 2022 Nobel laureates in Physics,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 120, no. 23, p. e2304809120, 2023

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Albert Einstein: philosopher-scientist,

    P. A. Schilpp, “Albert Einstein: philosopher-scientist,” 1959

    work page 1959

  8. [8]

    Information flow in entangled quantum systems,

    D. Deutsch and P. Hayden, “Information flow in entangled quantum systems,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , vol. 456, no. 1999, pp. 1759–1774, 2000

    work page 1999

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum computations without definite causal structure,

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and B. Valiron, “Quantum computations without definite causal structure,” Physical Review A , vol. 88, no. 2, p. 022318, 2013

    2013

  2. [10]

    Indefinite causal order in a quantum switch,

    K. Goswami, C. Giarmatzi, M. Kewming, F. Costa, C. Branciard, J. Romero, and A. G. White, “Indefinite causal order in a quantum switch,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 121, no. 9, p. 090503, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Quantum superposition of thermodynamic evolutions with opposing time’s arrows,

    G. Rubino, G. Manzano, and ˇC. Brukner, “Quantum superposition of thermodynamic evolutions with opposing time’s arrows,” Communica- tions Physics, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 251, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Teleportation revealed,

    C. A. B ´edard, “Teleportation revealed,” Quantum Reports, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 510–525, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Contextuality supplies the ‘magic’for quantum computation,

    M. Howard, J. Wallman, V . Veitch, and J. Emerson, “Contextuality supplies the ‘magic’for quantum computation,” Nature, vol. 510, no. 7505, pp. 351–355, 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process,

    R. Landauer, “Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process,” IBM journal of research and development , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 183–191, 1961

    1961

  7. [15]

    The thermodynamics of computation—a review,

    C. H. Bennett, “The thermodynamics of computation—a review,” Inter- national Journal of Theoretical Physics , vol. 21, pp. 905–940, 1982

    1982

  8. [16]

    Quantum thermodynamics,

    S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, “Quantum thermodynamics,” Contem- porary Physics, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 545–579, 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    The thermodynamic meaning of negative entropy,

    L. d. Rio, J. ˚Aberg, R. Renner, O. Dahlsten, and V . Vedral, “The thermodynamic meaning of negative entropy,” Nature, vol. 474, no. 7349, pp. 61–63, 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    Description of quantum coherence in thermodynamic processes requires constraints beyond free energy,

    M. Lostaglio, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, “Description of quantum coherence in thermodynamic processes requires constraints beyond free energy,” Nature Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 6383, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Quantum refrigerator,

    M. Ben-Or, D. Gottesman, and A. Hassidim, “Quantum refrigerator,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.1995 , 2013

    1995 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Thermodynamic optimization of quantum algorithms: On-the-go erasure of qubit registers,

    F. Meier and L. del Rio, “Thermodynamic optimization of quantum algorithms: On-the-go erasure of qubit registers,” Physical Review A , vol. 106, no. 6, p. 062426, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    ¨Uber die entropieverminderung in einem thermodynamis- chen system bei eingriffen intelligenter wesen,

    L. Szilard, “ ¨Uber die entropieverminderung in einem thermodynamis- chen system bei eingriffen intelligenter wesen,” Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik , vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 840–856, 1929

    1929

  14. [22]

    The resource theory of quantum thermodynamics,

    M. Lostaglio, “The resource theory of quantum thermodynamics,” Ph.D. dissertation, Imperial College London, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    How small can thermal ma- chines be? the smallest possible refrigerator,

    N. Linden, S. Popescu, and P. Skrzypczyk, “How small can thermal ma- chines be? the smallest possible refrigerator,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 105, no. 13, p. 130401, 2010

    2010

  16. [24]

    Quantum thermodynamic cycles and quantum heat engines,

    H.-T. Quan, Y .-x. Liu, C.-P. Sun, and F. Nori, “Quantum thermodynamic cycles and quantum heat engines,” Physical Review E, vol. 76, no. 3, p. 031105, 2007

    2007

  17. [25]

    Analog of a quantum heat engine using a single-spin qubit,

    K. Ono, S. Shevchenko, T. Mori, S. Moriyama, and F. Nori, “Analog of a quantum heat engine using a single-spin qubit,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 125, no. 16, p. 166802, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Finite-time quantum Landauer principle and quantum coherence,

    T. Van Vu and K. Saito, “Finite-time quantum Landauer principle and quantum coherence,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 128, no. 1, p. 010602, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    An improved landauer principle with finite- size corrections,

    D. Reeb and M. M. Wolf, “An improved landauer principle with finite- size corrections,” New Journal of Physics , vol. 16, no. 10, p. 103011, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    Entropy pro- duction as correlation between system and reservoir,

    M. Esposito, K. Lindenberg, and C. Van den Broeck, “Entropy pro- duction as correlation between system and reservoir,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 013013, 2010

    2010

  21. [29]

    Physical limits of heat-bath algorithmic cooling,

    L. J. Schulman, T. Mor, and Y . Weinstein, “Physical limits of heat-bath algorithmic cooling,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 94, no. 12, p. 120501, 2005

    2005

  22. [30]

    Thermody- namic computing via autonomous quantum thermal machines,

    P. Lipka-Bartosik, M. Perarnau-Llobet, and N. Brunner, “Thermody- namic computing via autonomous quantum thermal machines,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.15905, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Divincenzo-like criteria for autonomous quantum machines,

    J. A. M. Guzm ´an, P. Erker, S. Gasparinetti, M. Huber, and N. Y . Halpern, “Divincenzo-like criteria for autonomous quantum machines,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08739 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Generation of thermofield double states and critical ground states with a quantum computer,

    D. Zhu, S. Johri, N. M. Linke, K. Landsman, C. Huerta Alderete, N. H. Nguyen, A. Matsuura, T. Hsieh, and C. Monroe, “Generation of thermofield double states and critical ground states with a quantum computer,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 117, no. 41,...

    2020

  25. [33]

    Traversable wormhole dynamics on a quantum processor,

    D. Jafferis, A. Zlokapa, J. D. Lykken, D. K. Kolchmeyer, S. I. Davis, N. Lauk, H. Neven, and M. Spiropulu, “Traversable wormhole dynamics on a quantum processor,” Nature, vol. 612, no. 7938, pp. 51–55, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    A physics lab inside your head: Quantum thought exper- iments as an educational tool,

    M. Violaris, “A physics lab inside your head: Quantum thought exper- iments as an educational tool,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , vol. 3. IEEE, 2023, pp. 58–67

    2023

  27. [35]

    Quantum-state cloning in the presence of a closed timelike curve,

    D. Ahn, C. R. Myers, T. C. Ralph, and R. B. Mann, “Quantum-state cloning in the presence of a closed timelike curve,” Physical Review A , vol. 88, no. 2, p. 022332, 2013

    2013

  28. [36]

    On unorthodox qubits, with an application to the closed timelike curve problem,

    S. Kuypers, “On unorthodox qubits, with an application to the closed timelike curve problem,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.02797 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Nonclassical advantage in metrology established via quantum simula- tions of hypothetical closed timelike curves,

    D. R. Arvidsson-Shukur, A. G. McConnell, and N. Yunger Halpern, “Nonclassical advantage in metrology established via quantum simula- tions of hypothetical closed timelike curves,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 131, no. 15, p. 150202, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.