Abstract:Quantum states are very delicate, so it is likely some sort of quantum error correction will be necessary to build reliable quantum computers. The theory of quantum error-correcting codes has some close ties to and some striking differences from the theory of classical error-correcting codes. Many quantum codes can be described in terms of the stabilizer of the codewords. The stabilizer is a finite Abelian group, and allows a straightforward characterization of the error-correcting properties of the code. The stabilizer formalism for quantum codes also illustrates the relationships to classical coding theory, particularly classical codes over GF(4), the finite field with four elements.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is related to the physical equivalence between the Einstein frame and the Jordan frame in the Brans - Dicke theory. Specifically, the paper explores whether these two frames have the same physical meaning when describing the theory of gravity, especially in the application of cosmological models.
### Background Information
The Brans - Dicke theory is a natural generalization of general relativity. In this theory, the effective gravitational constant \( G_{\text{eff}}=\phi^{-2} \) changes with the evolution of the Brans - Dicke field \(\phi\). This change affects the cosmic expansion rate and allows the formation of bubbles at the end of the inflationary period.
### Definitions of the Two Frames
1. **Jordan Frame**: This is the original Brans - Dicke theory frame, in which the gravitational constant is a function of the scalar field.
2. **Einstein Frame**: The frame obtained through conformal transformation. In this frame, the gravitational constant is fixed, but a new scalar field (called the dilaton field) is introduced.
### Controversies in the Academic Community
In the literature, there are controversies regarding the physical equivalence of these two frames. Some researchers believe that they are physically equivalent, while others do not agree. For example:
- Some people use the Einstein frame to simplify equation - solving, but return to the Jordan frame when analyzing the final results because most people insist that the Jordan frame maintains the equivalence principle.
- Conversely, some people also think that the Einstein frame can be used as a physical frame and can also maintain the equivalence principle.
### Research Methods
To explore this problem, the author cites Chisholm's equivalence theorem. This theorem states that if a Lagrangian \( L[\phi] \) is known under a set of field variables \(\phi\), and these field variables can be expressed as a nonlinear but local function \( \phi = f[\varphi] \) of another set of field variables \(\varphi\), then the S - matrices calculated from \( L[\phi] \) and \( L_t[\varphi] \) are the same on - shell. This means that the two sets of field variables can describe the same physical phenomena.
### Specific Applications
The author shows the application of this theory through several examples:
- **String Theory**: In string theory, the string frame and the Einstein frame are related by conformal transformation, and according to the equivalence theorem, they are physically equivalent.
- **Free Massless Scalar Field Theory**: Through a specific transformation, it is shown that even when derivative self - interactions are introduced, the results of the tree - graph and the one - loop graph are still zero, indicating that the theory is still essentially free.
- **Brans - Dicke Theory**: Through conformal transformation, the Brans - Dicke Lagrangian in the Jordan frame is converted into the form in the Einstein frame. According to the equivalence theorem, these two frames are physically equivalent in the absence of a scalar field potential.
### Conclusions
The main conclusion of the paper is that for the case without a scalar field potential, the Einstein frame and the Jordan frame are physically equivalent. However, when considering cosmological models, due to different initial and boundary conditions, the results in the two frames may be different. Therefore, the equivalence only holds under specific conditions.
Through these discussions, the author clarifies the controversy regarding the physical equivalence between the Einstein frame and the Jordan frame and provides a theoretical basis.