Physical boundary of indefinite causal order
Determine how the physically realizable process class changes when specified closed-laboratory, spacetime-localization or background-causality assumptions are relaxed, and give operational implementations or obstructions for the resulting models.
Problem statement
Determine how the physically realizable process class changes when specified closed-laboratory, spacetime-localization or background-causality assumptions are relaxed, and give operational implementations or obstructions for the resulting models.
Lean 4
No Lean statement or proof is attached yet. Have a formalization? Share its source to add it to this problem.
Background
The process-matrix framework (Oreshkov–Costa–Brukner) generalizes quantum theory to allow operations without a fixed causal order between them. Some 'processes' are causally nonseparable — they cannot be explained by any definite (even probabilistic) ordering of events — raising the question of which are physically realizable.
What is known: Causal witnesses detect nonseparability, and implementations of the quantum switch realize coherent control of order. Nonseparability and violation of a causal inequality are different properties. Vilasini–Renner's published spacetime constraints distinguish sharply localized laboratories from delocalized implementations; the physical boundary depends on the laboratory and spacetime model.
Preprint theorem (May 2026): Salzger–Vilasini show that, in a classical acyclic background spacetime and the causal-box framework, processes satisfying fine-grained Acting Once and Local Order closed-laboratory conditions are behaviorally equivalent to quantum-controlled-order circuits (QC-QCs). This is a characterization under explicit assumptions, not a no-go theorem for all indefinite causal order or a characterization of quantum gravity.
Separate accepted-paper progress: Mothe–Abbott–Branciard classify non-influenceable causal order and corresponding controlled-order circuits. APS lists their paper as accepted in PRX Quantum on 20 August 2026 (preprint July 2025), not published in Physical Review Research.
Remaining questions require a specified change of model: relax a closed-lab condition, allow different localization or continuous relativistic implementations, or specify a nonclassical background. Characterize the new achievable processes and observable signatures; do not keep the characterized closed-lab regime open by omitting its assumptions. Related: F10.
Progress & source assessment
Source catalogue review: 4 September 2026. Improved indicates partial progress, including qualified preprint claims.
preprint: QC-QC characterization in classical acyclic spacetime with causal boxes and fine-grained Acting Once/Local Order closed-lab conditions; not an unrestricted quantum-gravity or ICO no-go result. Evidence
- [1]Oreshkov, Costa, Brukner, 'Quantum correlations with no causal order', Nat. Commun. 3, 1092 (2012) link
- [2]Araújo, Branciard, Costa, Feix, Giarmatzi & Brukner, 'Witnessing causal nonseparability', New J. Phys. 17, 102001 (2015) link
- [3]Araújo, Feix, Navascués & Brukner, 'A purification postulate for quantum mechanics with indefinite causal order', Quantum 1, 10 (2017) link
- [4]Vilasini & Renner, 'Fundamental limits for realising quantum processes in spacetime' (2024) link
- [5]Salzger & Vilasini, 'Higher-order quantum processes respecting closed labs in a spacetime have quantum controlled causal order' (2026), preprint link
- [6]Mothe, Abbott & Branciard, 'Correlations and quantum circuits with dynamical causal order', PRX Quantum, accepted 20 August 2026 link
Recorded progress
Add yours →Nothing recorded yet. A pointer to a paper the entry is missing counts.
Machine attempts
0 recordedAttempts run against the statement below and are recorded in full, including the failures. The point is to stop the next model — and the next person — from re-walking a road that is already known to end. Each attempt costs 25 credits.
No machine attempts recorded.
Sign in to run an attempt. New accounts start with enough credits for ten.
Discussion
0 notesNotes are for clarifying the statement, flagging a missing reference, or recording why an approach fails. Claimed solutions belong in a submission, where they can be reviewed.
No notes yet.
Sign in to add a note.