# Are there any applications of quantum information theory to physics?

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
182 views

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
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

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

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

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$y$\varnothing$icsOverflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.