Hi rats,
These days I’ve been searching in the garbage bin (i.e.,
arxiv) for a nice topic to chew. I didn’t have to dig deep. A preliminary
search shows that only this year there have been uploaded 129 articles on quantum
discord, and the number is growing as I write this post. This puts discord into
the category of pandemic. The stakes are high: if we don’t act soon, quantum
discord could destroy thousands of promising scientific careers, and possibly even
cause the end of civilization!
But let’s go by parts.
The quantum discord of a bipartite state was first defined
by Ollivier and Zurek as the difference between its original quantum
mutual information and the same quantity after we perform a rank-1 projective
measurement on one part.
Now, what does that mean? Probably, nothing. But lack of
motivation has never prevented investigation at international scale. And so we
ended up with one more research topic that clearly goes nowhere, in the line of
entanglement sudden death, NMR quantum computing and quantum game theory (ah! You
don’t remember quantum game theory? Then suffer!!).
The first victims of the epidemic were the hundreds of PhD
students who were forced to calculate quantum discord in the weirdest physical
scenarios: ground states of inexistent spin chains, non-inertial frames, cavity
QED, nuclear spins… This extraordinary proliferation of unnecessary
calculations may remind some of the negativity
fever we experienced in QI just seven years ago. There, the goal was to
compute the negativity of every bipartite two-level system in the Universe, and
their proponents nearly succeeded at this task.
[A reflexion: if you are not sure about the meaning of a
quantity, is it worth calculating it?]
Nevertheless, there is a big difference between entanglement
and quantum discord.
An experimental demonstration of entanglement can be quite challenging,
both for the experimentalist and the theorist. Experimentally, you need a
degree of control of your physical system in order to prepare the state and
perform the appropriate tomographic measurements. Theoretically, you have to
prove that a particular density matrix (or a family of density matrices with certain
features) is out of the set of separable states, whose approximate
characterization is a strongly NP-hard problem.
In contrast, as shown by Ferraro et al., the set of
states with zero quantum discord has zero measure. This is very convenient from
an experimental point of view, because it makes quantum tomography obsolete:
any experimentalist that prepares a bipartite quantum system can immediately
claim that it has non-zero quantum discord on the grounds that he was able to produce it!!
Now, you may think that the 2009 article by Ferraro et al.
put a stop to discord research. That was actually the original intention of the
authors (I happen to know them). However, rather than killing the bacteria, the
vaccine made them stronger. Check for yourselves! The number of yearly papers
on the subject has doubled since 2009. More interestingly, Ferraro et al.’s paper
has now 195 citations, all from articles on quantum discord.
How can that be? I recently witnessed a talk about discord
where this paper was cited. Naturally, I was curious about why someone would
like to mention a paper that discredits all his research. This is the explanation I got:
“Ferraro et al.’s result shows us that discord is everywhere. Consequently, discord is at the heart of every quantum communication protocol”.
“Ferraro et al.’s result shows us that discord is everywhere. Consequently, discord is at the heart of every quantum communication protocol”.
Now THAT is an argument! Let me rephrase it in a more casual
way:
“Dude!! This is amazing!! There is discord between your
mouth and my penis!!!”.
Unfortunately, the fact that everything has discord erases
the meaning of the quality “non-zero discord”. Imagine a world where everybody
is blonde. Would the word “blonde” have a meaning?
Wouldn’t it be like “wireless”?
![]() |
A world where everybody were blond could be very spooky. |
One of the latest mutations of The Plague has the form of papers
“proving” that certain separable states with non-zero discord constitute a
resource in bipartite communication protocols. The truth is: that can only be
true in very artificial scenarios. First, if your figure of merit depends
linearly on the initial state, or is just convex, any result you may achieve
with a separable state (with zero or non-zero discord) can be equalled or
improved with a pure product state (of zero discord). Second, even if your
figure of merit is not convex, any communication protocol with steps 1, 2, …, n
that requires a separable state rho with non-zero discord at step 1 can be
implemented too if, at the beginning of the protocol, both parties share a
correlated classical state (of zero discord) and use the classical correlations
of their zero-discord state to prepare rho locally before proceeding to step 1.
Rats, I don’t know what to do. Men greater than this rodent have
tried to stop this madness, but have failed miserably. Were they too subtle in
expressing their dislike for discord? Shall we throw our excrements at the speaker’s
face next time we attend a talk on the topic in order to make our point clear? I
can’t say that I approve this. But, should you do it, send me the video.
Ok, I’m tired. These are the take-home messages:
1) Kids: say "no" to quantum discord! It's just not worth it!
2) Discord Stus of the world: if my arguments haven't convinced you to stop spreading your disease, then at least stop calling it "quantum correlations". The term "quantum correlations" has been disputed for many years by the entanglement and nonlocality communities. The last thing we need is a new third party messing things even more.
Yours truly,
Schroedinger’s rat