Quantum Mechanical Realization of a Popescu-Rohrlich Box

We consider quantum ensembles which are determined by pre- and post-selection. Unlike the case of only pre-selected ensembles, we show that in this case the probabilities for measurement outcomes at intermediate times satisfy causality only rarely; such ensembles can in general be used to signal between causally disconnected regions. We show that under restrictive conditions, there are certain non-trivial bi-partite ensembles which do satisfy causality. These ensembles give rise to a violation of the CHSH inequality, which exceeds the maximal quantum violation given by Tsirelson's bound, $B_{\rm CHSH}\le 2\sqrt2$, and obtains the Popescu-Rohrlich bound for the maximal violation, $B_{\rm CHSH}\le 4$. This may be regarded as an a posteriori realization of super-correlations, which have recently been termed Popescu-Rohrlich boxes.Comment: 5 page

Is Communication Complexity Physical?

Recently, Brassard et. al. conjectured that the fact that the maximal possible correlations between two non-local parties are the quantum-mechanical ones is linked to a reasonable restriction on communication complexity. We provide further support for the conjecture in the multipartite case. We show that any multipartite communication complexity problem could be reduced to triviality, had Nature been more non-local than quantum-mechanics by a quite small gap for any number of parties. Intriguingly, the multipartite nonlocal-box that we use to show the result corresponds to the generalized Bell inequality that manifests maximal violation in respect to a local hidden-variable theory

The information sources and journals consulted or read by UK paediatricians to inform their clinical practice and those which they consider important: a questionnaire survey

Background: Implementation of health research findings is important for medicine to be evidence-based. Previous studies have found variation in the information sources thought to be of greatest importance to clinicians but publication in peer-reviewed journals is the traditional route for dissemination of research findings. There is debate about whether the impact made on clinicians should be considered as part of the evaluation of research outputs. We aimed to determine first which information sources are generally most consulted by paediatricians to inform their clinical practice, and which sources they considered most important, and second, how many and which peer-reviewed journals they read. Methods: We enquired, by questionnaire survey, about the information sources and academic journals that UK medical paediatric specialists generally consulted, attended or read and considered important to their clinical practice. Results: The same three information sources – professional meetings & conferences, peerreviewed journals and medical colleagues – were, overall, the most consulted or attended and ranked the most important. No one information source was found to be of greatest importance to all groups of paediatricians. Journals were widely read by all groups, but the proportion ranking them first in importance as an information source ranged from 10% to 46%. The number of journals read varied between the groups, but Archives of Disease in Childhood and BMJ were the most read journals in all groups. Six out of the seven journals previously identified as containing best paediatric evidence are the most widely read overall by UK paediatricians, however, only the two most prominent are widely read by those based in the community. Conclusion: No one information source is dominant, therefore a variety of approaches to Continuing Professional Development and the dissemination of research findings to paediatricians should be used. Journals are an important information source. A small number of key ones can be identified and such analysis could provide valuable additional input into the evaluation of clinical research outputs

Causal categories: relativistically interacting processes

A symmetric monoidal category naturally arises as the mathematical structure that organizes physical systems, processes, and composition thereof, both sequentially and in parallel. This structure admits a purely graphical calculus. This paper is concerned with the encoding of a fixed causal structure within a symmetric monoidal category: causal dependencies will correspond to topological connectedness in the graphical language. We show that correlations, either classical or quantum, force terminality of the tensor unit. We also show that well-definedness of the concept of a global state forces the monoidal product to be only partially defined, which in turn results in a relativistic covariance theorem. Except for these assumptions, at no stage do we assume anything more than purely compositional symmetric-monoidal categorical structure. We cast these two structural results in terms of a mathematical entity, which we call a `causal category'. We provide methods of constructing causal categories, and we study the consequences of these methods for the general framework of categorical quantum mechanics.Comment: 43 pages, lots of figure

“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence

The rhetoric of “excellence” is pervasive across the academy. It is used to refer to research outputs as well as researchers, theory and education, individuals and organisations, from art history to zoology. But does “excellence” actually mean anything? Does this pervasive narrative of “excellence” do any good? Drawing on a range of sources we interrogate “excellence” as a concept and find that it has no intrinsic meaning in academia. Rather it functions as a linguistic interchange mechanism. To investigate whether this linguistic function is useful we examine how the rhetoric of excellence combines with narratives of scarcity and competition to show that the hypercompetition that arises from the performance of “excellence” is completely at odds with the qualities of good research. We trace the roots of issues in reproducibility, fraud, and homophily to this rhetoric. But we also show that this rhetoric is an internal, and not primarily an external, imposition. We conclude by proposing an alternative rhetoric based on soundness and capacity-building. In the final analysis, it turns out that that “excellence” is not excellent. Used in its current unqualified form it is a pernicious and dangerous rhetoric that undermines the very foundations of good research and scholarship