Question

Are there any applications of quantum information theory to physics?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:18 (UCT), posted by SE-user user2172

Comments

I guess they have similar mathematical structures. That's all. But let's see what the experts say about this.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:18 (UCT), posted by SE-user user1355

---

Only that information underlies all of physics, including that of black holes ;)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:18 (UCT), posted by SE-user user346

---

@Deepak: I thought physics underlies all of information. So there, we have a proof of equivalence :)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:18 (UCT), posted by SE-user Marek

---

The "What do you think" part of your question was just an invitation to discussion, not an actual question, so I removed it. You can re-edit if you can make a more specific phrasing: ask a specific question that can be answered, don't just solicit people's opinions.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:18 (UCT), posted by SE-user David Z

---

Try this article by david deutsch...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:18 (UCT), posted by SE-user Abdullah Khalid

---

I am great admirer of David Deutsch but how come Aerodynamics more derivative than Zoology?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:18 (UCT), posted by SE-user Pratik Deoghare

---

I published a paper applying the quantum information idea "mutually unbiased bases" to the problem of understanding the relationship between spin and the generations of elementary particles, see arxiv.org/abs/1006.3114 So my own opinion is that there is a relationship. In general, physics has advanced partly by improvements in the theoretical understanding of fundamental ideas and partly by experiments which cause the rejection of previously held beliefs.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:18 (UCT), posted by SE-user Carl Brannen

---

I think you need to be careful of the context as he says:"There are branches of science — in fact most of them are branches of physics — that we expect, by their nature, to have philosophical implications.An obvious example is cosmology. There are other sciences, such as, say, aerodynamics, in which, no matter how startling or important our discoveries may become, we do not expect fundamental philosophical implications." I think the chart is then rating things by their potential for philosophical implications. My guess is that zoology is rated higher due to a an 'evolution' implication.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:18 (UCT), posted by SE-user TCTopCat

---

While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:18 (UCT), posted by SE-user EnergyNumbers

Answer 1

There's a huge body of literature in applying ideas from quantum information to the study of strongly interacting many body systems. If I have time I'll edit this answer with my own personal review (primarily all of the lovely simulation techniques that QIT has given a solid physical and conceptual foundation to) but as a jumping off point, there is a set of lecture notes with excellent references here.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:18 (UCT), posted by SE-user wsc