Dear Professor Kupczynski,

I believe your recent "Contextual Observables and Quantum Information", quant-ph/0408002 v1 of 31 July 2004, is the paper I mentioned in my preceding email of Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:35:32 +0300 (printed below). In this latest paper, quant-ph/0408002 v1, you wrote:

"It seems to us that any successful device in quantum information must take into consideration the fact that the values of all quantum observables are contextual and the manipulation of the quantum state has nothing to do with the change of the attributes of some well defined and localised physical microsystem.
...

"In our opinion any successful design of a quantum hardware for the purpose of quantum information must be consistent with the contextual and statistical character of quantum theory."

In addition to the issue raised in my preceding email, about the UNspeakable (J. Bell) *total information of a quantum system*, please see the obstacles from a well-known paper by C.N. Yang,

http://God-does-not-play-dice.net/Yang.html#1

I wonder how you or any of your colleagues would manage to manipulate qbits locally.

Louis Marchildon, for example, assumes that "macroscopic objects exist and are always in definite states" [Ref. 3]. If true, does a quantum state exist "immediately prior to the measurement"?

If yes, where would you place it on your light cone?

If you can't find any place for it on your light cone, please send me your critical comments on my proposal at

http://God-does-not-play-dice.net/1.html#zero

I extend this immodest request to all recipients of this email.

Thank you for your time.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
--
http://God-does-not-play-dice.net

References

[Ref. 3] Louis Marchildon, Why Should we Interpret Quantum Mechanics? quant-ph/0405126 v2

Footnote 4: "By this assumption, I mean that they are not in quantum superpositions of macroscopically distinct states. They may still be subject to the very tiny uncertainties required by Heisenberg's principle."

--
Subject: The total information of a quantum system
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:35:32 +0300
From: Dimi <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Marian Kupczynski <mkupczyn@uottawa.ca>
CC: shafiee@sharif.edu, caslav.brukner@univie.ac.at,
anton.zeilinger@univie.ac.at

Dear Professor Kupczynski,

In your recent quant-ph/0407199 v1 [Ref. 1], you wrote that the contextuality of the quantum observables and its implication for the quantum computing will be given in a following paper.

Since you quoted Bouwmeester, Ekert, and Zeilinger's "The Physics of Quantum Information", ref. [17] in [Ref. 1], I wonder if you will elaborate on their speculation of 'total information of a quantum system', which has been critically examined in [Ref. 2].

I agree that "total information does not change when one observes the quantum phenomena in different ways" [Ref. 2], only we might need new physics,

http://God-does-not-play-dice.net/McGuire.html#note

Regards,

Dimi Chakalov
--
http://God-does-not-play-dice.net

References

[Ref. 1] M. Kupczynski, Entanglement and Bell Inequalities, quant-ph/0407199 v1

"The fact that the quantum state vector is not an attribute of a single quantum system requires more caution in the problems related to the implementation the quantum computing devices [42, 32, 26]. The more detailed discussion of the contextuality of the quantum observables [11, 34, 39] and its implication for the quantum computing will be given in the following paper."
 

[Ref. 2] A. Shafiee et al., Information and The Brukner-Zeilinger Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: A Critical Investigation, quant-ph/0407198 v1

"In contrast to the Shannon information, the total information of a quantum system is invariant under the change of a transformation from one complete set of complementary variables to another. This means that the total information does not change when one observes the quantum phenomena in different ways [4]."