Quantum mechanics contains certain novel mathematical concepts. Among these are complex numbers, Hilbert spaces with their unitary and self-adjoint operators, states represented by complex vectors, superpositions of states, collapse of wave functions, Born's rule for probabilities and others. If we accept that quantum mechanics is probabilistic, then these concepts can be derived and they become secondary. In this work, we begin with what we call a conditional stochastic process, which is based on real numbers and probabilities. As we shall see, such processes are defined by three simple axioms. We then use conditional stochastic processes to derive quantum mechanics by employing a correspondence called a dictionary. We also show that the converse holds. That is, beginning with a quantum system, we employ the dictionary to derive a conditional stochastic process. Quanta 2026; 15: 13–18.
An interesting approach to using noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices is hybrid classical-quantum machine learning (QML). In these methods, classical processors handle optimisation and large-scale computation, while quantum hardware is devoted to tasks like feature mapping, nonlinear transformations, or kernel evaluation. Practical near-term demonstrations are made possible by this division of labour, which also mitigates existing hardware restrictions. In specialised fields like molecular modelling, materials discovery, and small-sample learning issues, recent advancements in variational quantum circuits, hybrid neural networks, and quantum kernel techniques have produced promising outcomes. However, scalability and wider applicability are still hampered by enduring issues including noise, barren plateaus, and the expense of repeated measurements. Long-term developments will require fault tolerance, logical qubits, and established software infrastructures, whereas near-term success depends on noise-aware algorithm design, repeatable experimental benchmarks, and enhanced error-mitigation strategies. When taken as a whole, these advancements show a viable path to achieving quantum advantage in machine learning. Quanta 2026; 15: 1–12.
What does it mean for the physically motivated computational complexity class $\mathcal{BQP}$ and the logically motivated class $\mathcal{NP}$ to be incomparable, from a physical perspective? Although it is unlikely that quantum computers can solve $\mathcal{NP}$-complete problems in polynomial time, yet it may be instructive to see how a physical theory (denoted $\Theta^{(\mathcal{NP})}$ or $\Theta^{(\mathcal{PSPACE})}$) for which $\mathcal{NP}$ or even $\mathcal{PSPACE}$, respectively, constitutes an efficient model of computation, would compare with quantum theory. The present work explores this question, after briefly reviewing some complexity results indicative of the incomparability of $\mathcal{BQP}$ and $\mathcal{NP}$. We argue that theories $\Theta^{(\mathcal{NP})}$ or $\Theta^{(\mathcal{PSPACE})}$ effectively feature degrees of nonlinearity. Thus, the linearity of quantum theory prevents complete problems in these complexity classes to be efficiently solvable on a quantum computer. On the other hand, the exponentiality of quantum theory endows quantum computers with a certain strength going beyond $\mathcal{NP}$ or even $\mathcal{PH}$. Thus the contrasting roles of the empowerment provided by quantum mechanical exponentiality and the limitation imposed by quantum mechanical linearity seem to be at the heart of the incomparability of the classes $\mathcal{BQP}$ and $\mathcal{NP}$. Quanta 2025; 14: 38–47.
The delayed-choice quantum eraser represents an interesting experiment that exemplifies Bohr's principle of complementarity in a beautiful way. According to the complementarity principle, in a two-path interference experiment, the knowledge of which path was taken by the particle and the appearance of interference are mutually exclusive. Even when the which-path information is merely retained in specific quantum path-markers, without being actually read, it suffices to eliminate interference. Nevertheless, if this path information is erased in some manner, the interference re-emerges, a phenomenon referred to as the quantum eraser. An intriguing aspect of this experiment is that if the path information is erased after the particle has been detected on the screen, the interference still reappears, a phenomenon known as the delayed-choice quantum eraser. This observation has led to the interpretation that the particle can be influenced to exhibit characteristics of either a particle or a wave based on a decision made long after it has been registered on the screen. This idea has sparked considerable debate and discussions surrounding retrocausality. This controversy is reviewed here, and a detailed resolution provided. Quanta 2025; 14: 66–74.
Corresponding to a finite dimensional Hilbert space $H$ with $\dim H=n$, we define a geometric algebra $\mathcal{G}(H)$ with $\dim\left[\mathcal{G}(H)\right]=2^n$. The algebra $\mathcal{G}(H)$ is a Hilbert space that contains $H$ as a subspace. We interpret the unit vectors of $H$ as states of individual fermions of the same type and $\mathcal{G}(H)$ as a fermion quantum field whose unit vectors represent states of collections of interacting fermions. We discuss creation operators on $\mathcal{G}(H)$ and provide their matrix representations. Evolution operators provided by self-adjoint Hamiltonians on $H$ and $\mathcal{G}(H)$ are considered. Boson-Fermion quantum fields are constructed. Extensions of operators from $H$ to $\mathcal{G}(H)$ are studied. Finally, we present a generalization of our work to infinite dimensional separable Hilbert spaces. Quanta 2025; 14: 48–65.
The uncertainty of a quantum state is given by the composition of two components. The first is called the quantum component and is given by the probability distribution of an observable relative to the state. The second is the classical component which is an uncertainty function that is applied to the first component. We characterize uncertainty functions in terms of four axioms. We then study four examples called variance, entropy, geometric and sine uncertainty functions. The final section presents the general theory of state uncertainty. Quanta 2025; 14: 28–37.
We revisit the Fulling-Davies-Unruh effect in the context of two-level single and entangled atomic systems that are static in a thermal bath. We consider the interaction between the systems and a massless scalar field, covering the scenarios of free space as well as within a cavity. Through the calculation of atomic transition rates it is found that in free space there is an equivalence between the upward and downward transition rates of an uniformly accelerated atom with respect to an observer with that of a single atom which is static with respect to the observer and immersed in a thermal bath, as long as the temperature of the thermal bath matches the Unruh temperature. This equivalence between the upward and downward transition rates breaks down in the presence of a cavity. For two-atom systems, considering the initial state to be in a general pure entangled form, we find that in this case the equivalence between the upward and downward transition rates of the accelerated and static thermal bath scenarios holds only under specific limiting conditions in free space, but breaks down completely in a cavity setup. Quanta 2025; 14: 1–27.
A model with two entangled spin-3/2 particles based on geometry of dodecahedron was suggested by Roger Penrose for formulation of analogue of Bell theorem without probabilities. The model was later reformulated using so-called Witting configuration with 40 rays in 4D Hilbert space. However, such reformulation needs for some subtleties related with entanglement of two such configurations essential for consideration of non-locality and some other questions. Two entangled systems with quantum states described by Witting configurations are discussed in the present work. Duplication of points with respect to vertices of dodecahedron produces rather significant increase with number of symmetries in 25920/60=432 times. Quantum circuits model is a natural language for description of operations with different states and measurements of such systems. Quanta 2024; 13: 38–46.
A numerical experiment based on a particle number-conserving quantum field theory is performed for two initially independent Bose–Einstein condensates that are coherently coupled at two temperatures. The present model illustrates ab initio that the initial phase of each of the two condensates does not remain random at the Boltzmann equilibrium, but is distributed around integer multiple values of 2π from the interference and thermalization of forward and backward propagating matter waves. The thermalization inside the atomic vapors can be understood as an intrinsic measurement process that defines a temperature for the two condensates and projects the quantum states to an average wave field with zero (relative) phases. Following this approach, focus is put on the original thought experiment of Anderson on whether a Josephson current between two initially separated Bose–Einstein condensates occurs in a deterministic way or not, depending on the initial phase distribution.Quanta 2024; 13: 28–37.
Modular exponentiation (ME) operators are one of the fundamental components of Shor's algorithm, and the place where most of the quantum resources are deployed. I propose a method for constructing the ME operators that relies upon the simple observation that the work register starts in state $\vert 1 \rangle$. Therefore, we do not have to create an ME operator $U$ that accepts a general input, but rather, one that takes an input from the periodic sequence of states $\vert f(x) \rangle$ for $x \in \{0, 1, \cdots, r-1\}$, where $f(x)$ is the ME function with period $r$. The operator $U$ can be partitioned into $r$ levels, where the gates in level $x \in \{0, 1, \cdots, r-1\}$ increment the state $\vert f(x) \rangle$ to the state $\vert f(x+1) \rangle$. The gates below $x$ do not affect the state $\vert f(x+1) \rangle$. The obvious problem with this method is that it is self-defeating: If we knew the operator $U$, then we would know the period $r$ of the ME function, and there would be no need for Shor's algorithm. I show, however, that the ME operators are very forgiving, and truncated approximate forms in which levels have been omitted are able to extract factors just as well as the exact operators. I demonstrate this by factoring the numbers $N = 21, 33, 35, 143, 247$ by using less than half the requisite number of levels in the ME operators. This procedure works because the method of continued fractions only requires an approximate phase value. This is the basis for a factorization strategy in which we fill the circuits for the ME operators with more and more gates, and the correlations between the various composite operators $U^p$ (where $p$ is a power of two) compensate for the missing levels.
The Gottesman–Knill theorem asserts that quantum circuits composed solely of Clifford gates can be efficiently simulated classically. This theorem hinges on the fact that Clifford gates map Pauli strings to other Pauli strings, thereby allowing for a structured simulation process using classical computations. In this work, we break down the step-by-step procedure of the Gottesman–Knill theorem in a beginner-friendly manner, leveraging concepts such as matrix products, tensor products, commutation, anti-commutation, eigenvalues, and eigenvectors of quantum mechanical operators. Through detailed examples illustrating superposition and entanglement phenomena, we aim to provide a clear understanding of the classical simulation of Clifford gate-based quantum circuits. While we do not provide a formal proof of the theorem, we offer intuitive physical insights at each stage where necessary, empowering readers to grasp the fundamental principles underpinning this intriguing aspect of quantum computation. Quanta 2024; 13: 20–27.
Quantum tunneling of particles plays an important role in many chemical reactions. Studying quantum tunneling in time-dependent potential wells is tricky since most of the available solutions of time-dependent potential wells are coupled to specific properties of the Hamiltonian. Here, we investigate the tunneling probability of a quantum wavepacket in time-dependent potential well by using the split operator method. This numerical method can give us an overview of the tunneling probability of a quantum wavepacket for any temporal change in the shape of the potential well. We study a time-dependent potential well model evolving from symmetric to asymmetric quartic double well since quartic potential wells resemble certain practically available potential well models. Quanta 2024; 13: 11–19.
We begin with a study of operations and the effects they measure. We define the probability that an effect $a$ occurs when the system is in a state $\rho$ by $P_{\rho}(a)=\textrm{Tr}(\rho a)$. If $P_{\rho}(a)\ne0$ and $\mathcal{I}$ is an operation that measures $a$, we define the conditional probability of an effect $b$ given $a$ relative to $\mathcal{I}$ by $P_{\rho}(b\mid a)=\textrm{Tr}[\mathcal{I}(\rho)b]/P_{\rho}(a)$. We characterize when Bayes' quantum second rule $P_{\rho}(b\mid a)=\frac{P_{\rho}(b)}{P_{\rho}(a)}\,P_{\rho}(a\mid b)$ holds. We then consider Lüders and Holevo operations. We next discuss instruments and the observables they measure. If $A$ and $B$ are observables and an instrument $\mathcal{I}$ measures $A$, we define the observable $B$ conditioned on $A$ relative to $\mathcal{I}$ and denote it by $(B\mid A)$. Using these concepts, we introduce Bayes' quantum first rule. We observe that this is the same as the classical Bayes' first rule, except it depends on the instrument used to measure $A$. We then extend this to Bayes' quantum first rule for expectations. We show that two observables $B$ and $C$ are jointly commuting if and only if there exists an atomic observable $A$ such that $B=(B\mid A)$ and $C=(C\mid A)$. We next obtain a general uncertainty principle for conditioned observables. Finally, we discuss observable conditioned quantum entropies. The theory is illustrated with many examples. Quanta 2024; 13: 1–10.
The primary ingredients of reality are the universal quantum fields, which fluctuate persistently, spontaneously, and randomly. The general perception of the scientific community is that these quantum fluctuations are due to the uncertainty principle. Here, we present cogent arguments to show that the uncertainty principle is a consequence of the quantum fluctuations, but not their cause. This poses a conspicuous enigma as to how the universal fields remain immutable with an expectation value so accurate that it leads to experimental results, which are precise to one part in a trillion. We discuss some reasonable possibilities in the absence of a satisfactory solution to this enigma. Quanta 2023; 12: 190–201.
Feynman famously recommended accepting the basic principles of quantum mechanics without trying to guess the machinery behind the law. One of the corollaries of the Uncertainty Principle is that the knowledge of probability amplitudes does not allow one to make meaningful statements about the past of an unobserved quantum system. A particular type of reasoning, based on weak values, appears to do just that. Has Feynman been proven wrong by the more recent developments? Most likely not. Quanta 2023; 12: 180–189.
We show how imaginary numbers in quantum physics can be eliminated by enlarging the Hilbert space followed by an imposition of—what effectively amounts to—a superselection rule. We illustrate this procedure with a qubit and apply it to the Mach–Zehnder interferometer. The procedure is somewhat reminiscent of the constrained quantization of the electromagnetic field, where, in order to manifestly comply with relativity, one enlarges the Hilbert Space by quantizing the longitudinal and scalar modes, only to subsequently introduce a constraint to make sure that they are actually not directly observable.Quanta 2023; 12: 164–170.
We provide a pedagogical presentation of Shor's factoring algorithm, which is a quantum algorithm for factoring very large numbers (of order of hundreds to thousands of bits) in polynomial time. In contrast, all known classical algorithms for the factoring problem take an exponential time to factor such large numbers. Shor's algorithm therefore has profound implication for public-key encryption such as RSA and Diffie–Hellman key exchange. We assume no prior knowledge of Shor's algorithm beyond a basic familiarity with the circuit model of quantum computing. Shor's algorithm contains a number of moving parts, and can be rather daunting at first. The literature is replete with derivations and expositions of Shor's algorithm, but most of them seem to be lacking in essential details, and none of them provide a pedagogical presentation. They require a thicket of appendices and assume a knowledge of quantum algorithms and classical mathematics with which the reader might not be familiar. We therefore start with first principle derivations of the quantum Fourier transform (QFT) and quantum phase estimation (QPE), which are the essential building blocks of Shor's algorithm. We then go on to develop the theory of modular exponentiation (ME) operators, one of the fundamental components of Shor's algorithm, and the place where most of the quantum resources are deployed. We also delve into the number theory that establishes the link between factorization and the period of the modular exponential function. We then apply the QPE algorithm to obtain Shor's factoring algorithm. We also discuss the post-quantum processing and the method of continued fractions, which is used to extract the exact period of the modular exponential function from the approximately measured phase angles of the ME operator. The manuscript then moves on to a series of examples. We first verify the formalism by factoring N=15, the smallest number accessible to Shor's algorithm. We then proceed to factor larger integers, developing a systematic procedure that will find the ME operators for any semi-prime N=p×q (where q and p are prime). Finally, we factor the composite numbers N=21, 33, 35, 143, 247 using the Qiskit simulator. It is observed that the ME operators are somewhat forgiving, and truncated approximate forms are able to extract factors just as well as the exact operators. This is because the method of continued fractions only requires an approximate phase value for its input, which suggests that implementing Shor's algorithm might not be as difficult as first suspected.Quanta 2023; 12: 41–130.
A theoretical particle-number conserving quantum field theory based on the concept of imaginary time is presented and applied to the scenario of a coherent atomic laser field at ultra-cold temperatures. The proposed theoretical model describes the analytical derivation of the frequency comb spectrum for an atomic laser realized from modeling a coherent atomic beam of condensate and non-condensate quantum field components released from a trapped Bose–Einstein condensate at a given repetition phase and frequency. The condensate part of the atomic vapor is assumed to be subjected to thermal noise induced by the temperature of the surrounding thermal atomic cloud. This new quantum approach uses time periodicity and an orthogonal decomposition of the quantum field in a complex-valued quantum field representation to derive and model the quantum field's forward- and backward-propagating components as a standing wave field in the same unique time and temperature domain without quantitative singularities at finite temperatures. The complex-valued atom laser field, the resulting frequency comb, and the repetition frequency distribution with the varying shape of envelopes are numerically monitored within a Monte Carlo sampling method, as a function of temperature and trap frequency of the external confinement. Quanta 2023; 12: 171–179.
Until recently, a quantum instrument was defined to be a completely positive operation-valued measure from the set of states on a Hilbert space to itself. In the last few years, this definition has been generalized to such measures between sets of states from different Hilbert spaces called the input and output Hilbert spaces. This article presents a theory of such instruments.Ways that instruments can be combined such as convex combinations, post-processing, sequential products, tensor products and conditioning are studied. We also consider marginal, reduced instruments and how these are used to define coexistence (compatibility) of instruments. Finally, we present a brief introduction to quantum measurement models where the generalization of instruments is essential. Many of the concepts of the theory are illustrated by examples. In particular, we discuss Holevo and Kraus instruments.
One of the first proposals for the use of quantum computers was the simulation of quantum systems. Over the past three decades, great strides have been made in the development of algorithms for simulating closed quantum systems and the more complex open quantum systems. In this tutorial, we introduce the methods used in the simulation of single qubit Markovian open quantum systems. It combines various existing notations into a common framework that can be extended to more complex open system simulation problems. The only currently available algorithm for the digital simulation of single qubit open quantum systems is discussed in detail. A modification to the implementation of the simpler channels is made that removes the need for classical random sampling, thus making the modified algorithm a strictly quantum algorithm. The modified algorithm makes use of quantum forking to implement the simpler channels that approximate the total channel. This circumvents the need for quantum circuits with a large number of CNOT gates. Quanta 2023; 12: 131–163.
