In this paper, I try to cause some good-natured trouble. The issue at stake is when will we ever stop burdening the taxpayer with conferences and workshops devoted— explicitly or implicitly—to the quantum foundations? The suspicion is expressed that no end will be in sight until a means is found to reduce quantum theory to two or three statements of crisp physical (rather than abstract, axiomatic) significance. In this regard, no tool appears to be better calibrated for a direct assault than quantum information theory. Far from being a strained application of the latest fad to a deepseated problem, this method holds promise precisely because a large part (but not all) of the structure of quantum theory has always concerned information. It is just that the physics community has somehow forgotten this.

In loving memory of Asher Peres, we discuss a most important and influential paper written in 1935 by his thesis supervisor and mentor Nathan Rosen, together with Albert Einstein and Boris Podolsky. In that paper, the trio known as EPR questioned the completeness of quantum mechanics. The authors argued that the then-new theory should not be considered final because they believed it incapable of describing physical reality. The epic battle between Einstein and Bohr intensified following the latter’s response later the same year. Three decades elapsed before John S. Bell gave a devastating proof that the EPR argument was fatally flawed. The modest purpose of our paper is to give a critical analysis of the original EPR paper and point out its logical shortcomings in a way that could have been done 70 years ago, with no need to wait for Bell’s theorem. We also present an overview of Bohr’s response in the interest of showing how it failed to address

We derive an exact expression for the quantumness of a Hilbert space (defined in C. A. Fuchs and M. Sasaki, Quant. Info. Comp. 3, 377 (2003)), and show that in composite Hilbert spaces the signal states must contain at least some entangled states in order to achieve such a sensitivity. Furthermore, we establish that the accessible fidelity for symmetric informationally complete signal ensembles is equal to the quantumness. Though spelling the most trouble for an eavesdropper because of this, it turns out that the accessible fidelity is nevertheless easy for her to achieve in this case: Any measurement consisting of rank-one POVM elements is an optimal measurement, and the simple procedure of reproducing the projector associated with the measurement outcome is an optimal output strategy. 1

This Chapter deals with theoretical developments in the subject of quantum information and quantum computation, and includes an overview of classical information and some relevant quantum mechanics. The discussion covers topics in quantum communication, quantum cryptography, and quantum computation, and concludes by considering whether a perspective in terms of quantum information

In a quantum-Bayesian take on quantum mechanics, the Born Rule cannot be interpreted as a rule for setting measurement-outcome probabilities from an objective quantum state. But if not, what is the role of the rule? In this paper, we argue that it should be seen as an empirical addition to Bayesian reasoning itself. Particularly, we show how to view the Born Rule as a normative rule in addition to usual Dutch-book coherence. It is a rule that takes into account how one should assign probabilities to the consequences of various intended measurements on a physical system, but explicitly in terms of prior probabilities for and conditional probabilities consequent upon the imagined outcomes of a special counterfactual reference measurement. This interpretation is seen particularly clearly by representing quantum states in terms of probabilities for the outcomes of a fixed, fiducial symmetric informationally complete (SIC) measurement. We further explore the extent to which the general form of the new normative rule implies the

Some physicists seem to believe that quantum information theory requires a new concept of

announce my referee reports for the original dense coding and teleportation papers, (2) present a very economical solution to the Bernstein-Vazirani problem that does not even hint at interference between multiple universes, and (3) describe how I inadvertently reinvented the Copenhagen interpretation in the course of constructing a simple, straightforward, and transparent introduction to quantum mechanics for computer scientists. 1. Preface: present at the birth David DiVincenzo, Patrick Hayden, and Barbara Terhal [1] have designated me the “midwife of teleportation ” in recognition of my having written a favorable referee’s report on the discovery paper [2] and having advised the editors that the proposed terminology made sense. Though this honorific raises vexing biological questions — can something with six fathers and no mother be brought forth by a midwife? — I accept the title with pride. As midwife it seemed appropriate for me to read my referee’s report at the Bennett 60th Birthday Symposium, attended, as it was, by all six fathers. I reproduce it here too,

Abstract. Once again, I take advantage of the wonderfully liberal and tolerant mood Andrei Khrennikov sets at his yearly conferences by submitting a nonstandard paper for the proceedings. This pseudo-paper consists of excerpts drawn from two of my samizdats [Quantum States: What the Hell Are They? and Darwinism All the Way Down (and Probabilism All the Way Back Up)] that I think best summarize what I am aiming for on the broadest scale with my quantum foundations program. Section 1 tries to draw a picture of a physical world whose essence is “Darwinism all the way down. ” Section 2 outlines how quantum theory should be viewed in light of that, i.e., as being an expression of probabilism (in Bruno de Finetti or Richard Jeffrey’s sense) all the way back up. Section 3 describes how the idea of “identical ” quantum measurement outcomes, though sounding atomistic in character, nonetheless meshes well with a William Jamesian style “radical pluralism. ” Sections 4 and 5 further detail how quantum theory should not be viewed so much as a “theory of the world, ” but rather as a theory of decision-making for agents immersed within a quantum world—that is, a world in continual creation. Finally, Sections 6 and 7 attempt to sketch once again the very positive sense in which quantum theory is incomplete, but still just as complete is it can be. In total, I hope these heady speculations convey some of the excitement and potential I see for the malleable world quantum mechanics hints of.