Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0904.1609

Quantized self-intervening detector networks

George Jaroszkiewicz

Published Apr 9, 2009• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

A range of quantum optics experiments is discussed in which the apparatus can be modified by detector outcomes during the course of any run. Starting with a single beamsplitter network, we work our way through a series of more complex scenarios, culminating with a proposed self-intervening experiment which could provide evidence for the existence of the Heisenberg cut, the supposed boundary between classical and quantum physics.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.0904.1609

Related papers

Quantized detector network POVMs and the Franson-Bell experiment

George Jaroszkiewicz

We present a generalized POVM formalism for the calculation of quantum optics networks of arbitrary complexity and apply it in a detailed analysis of the Franson-Bell experiment. Our analysis suggests that when it comes to observations of quantum processes, laboratory apparatus cannot always be used according to classical principles.

arXiv:0809.3466•Sep 19, 2008•2 citations

QUANTIZED DETECTOR NETWORKS: A REVIEW OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

George Jaroszkiewicz

QDN (quantized detector networks) is a description of quantum processes in which the principal focus is on observers and their apparatus, rather than on states of SUOs (systems under observation). It is a realization of Heisenberg's original instrumentalist approach to quantum physics, and can deal with time dependent apparatus, multiple observers and inter-frame physics. QDN is most naturally expressed in the mathematical language of quantum computation, a language ideally suited to describe quantum experiments as processes of information exchange between observers and their apparatus. Examples in quantum optics are given, showing how the formalism deals with quantum interference, non-locality and entanglement. Particle decays, relativity and non-linearity in quantum mechanics are also discussed.

arXiv:0709.4198•International Journal of Modern Physics B•Jan 30, 2008•10 citations

Quantized detector networks, particle decays and the quantum Zeno effect

George Jaroszkiewicz

Quantized detector networks (QDN) deal with observers and their apparatus rather than with systems under observation. QDN can be used to investigate the detailed structure of particle decays and the quantum Zeno effect without assuming temporal continuity or invoking non-Hermitian Hamiltonians or complex energies. The formalism is applied to single channel decays, the ammonium molecule and neutral Kaon and B meson decays.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Feb 19, 2008•3 citations

Double-Slit Experiments

George Jaroszkiewicz

Introduction In this chapter we show how the quantized detector network (QDN) formalism describes the double-slit (DS) experiment. This is arguably the simplest experiment that demonstrates quantum affects such as wave–particle duality and quantum interference. It continues to be the focus of much debate and experiment (Mardari, 2005), because theoretical modeling of what is going on reflects current understanding of quantum physics and hence physical reality.We will apply QDN to two variants: the original DS experiment and the monitored DS experiment, where an attempt is made to determine the imagined path of the particle. The DS experiment is widely acknowledged by physicists to be of importance to the understanding of quantum mechanics (QM). So much so that in 2002, the single electron version, first performed by Merli, Missiroli, and Pozzi (Merli et al., 1976), was voted by readers of Physics World to be “the most beautiful experiment in physics” (Rosa, 2012). The DS experiment can be discussed in terms of three stages, shown in Figure 10.1. By the end of the preparation stage, Σ 0 , a monochromatic beam of light or particles has been prepared by a source P , such as a laser. The beam emerges from point O and then passes through an information void V 1 to the first stage, Σ 1 , which consists of a wall or barrier W . This wall has two openings denoted A and B that allow parts of the beam to pass through into another information void V 2 and onto the second and final stage Σ 2 , which consists of a detecting screen S . The screen S is in general some material that can absorb and record particle impacts. In reality, any screen will consist of a finite number of signal detectors, such as photosensitive molecules, but the typical QM modeling is done as if there were a continuum of sites on the screen, such as C , that could register particles.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 28, 2017•0 citations

Quantized Detector Networks: a Quantum Informational Approach to the Description and Interpretation of Quantum Physics

George Jaroszkiewicz

We discuss the QDN (quantized detector network) approach to the formulation and interpretation of quantum mechanics. This approach gives us a system-free approach to quantum physics. By this, we mean having a proper emphasis on those aspects of physics which are observable and an avoidance of metaphysical concepts, which by definition are incapable of verification and should play no role in science on that account. By focusing on only what experimentalists deal with, i.e., quantum information, we avoid the ambiguities and confusion generated by the undue objectification of what are complex quantum processes.

arXiv:quant-ph/0511196•Nov 21, 2005•2 citations

Self-intervening Networks

George Jaroszkiewicz

Introduction In this chapter, we discuss some of the differences between apparatus and systems under observation (SUOs). The discussion is phrased in terms of self–intervening networks , wherein partial quantum outcomes in an early stage of an apparatus can alter future configurations of that apparatus. To explain what we mean, we introduce the following classification of experiments. Note that reference to apparatus here includes real and virtual detectors, and real and virtual modules. Virtual detectors and modules are mathematical fictions that are introduced into the formalism for convenience. Type-Zero Experiments Many important experiments involve signal propagation through “empty space.” We classify these as type zero (T0). The feature of T0 experiments qualifying for this classification is that the observer has no control of the modules in the information void. Examples are experiments in astrophysics, where the observer can choose which source to observe and how they observe it, but has no influence on the physical properties of whatever lies between source and detector. If there are gas clouds between source and detector, the observer can only recognize that fact after the experimental data are analyzed. An important modern variant of T0 experiments involves map location via the Global Positioning System (GPS): signals sent from Earth to geostationary satellites and received by mobile devices back on Earth have traveled through Earth's atmosphere and through empty space, where special relativistic and general relativistic effects have to be taken into account (Ashby, 2002). Before the rise of experimental science, most “experiments” were based on visual observations, which are principally of T0 classification. The advent of the telescope and the microscope did not change things in this respect. Indeed, it has been suggested that science did not progress in antiquity precisely because of the philosophical principle that the only valid experiments could be of T0, as these do not introduce the artificiality of constructed modules into observation, which (it was argued) would give a false perspective on “reality.” The logic of that argument is superb, but it is a dead-end principle in science. Several sciences such as geology, archaeology, and, indeed, cosmology started off with periods of basic observation rather than experimentation. During such initial stages of these sciences, the observations could be classified as T0 experiments.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 28, 2017•0 citations
A range of quantum optics experiments is discussed in which the apparatus can be modified by detector outcomes during the course of any run. Starting with a single beamsplitter network, we work our way through a series of more complex scenarios, culminating with a proposed self-intervening experiment which could provide evidence for the existence of the Heisenberg cut, the supposed boundary between classical and quantum physics.
QDN (quantized detector networks) is a description of quantum processes in which the principal focus is on observers and their apparatus, rather than on states of SUOs (systems under observation). It is a realization of Heisenberg's original instrumentalist approach to quantum physics, and can deal with time dependent apparatus, multiple observers and inter-frame physics. QDN is most naturally expressed in the mathematical language of quantum computation, a language ideally suited to describe quantum experiments as processes of information exchange between observers and their apparatus. Examples in quantum optics are given, showing how the formalism deals with quantum interference, non-locality and entanglement. Particle decays, relativity and non-linearity in quantum mechanics are also discussed.
Introduction In this chapter we show how the quantized detector network (QDN) formalism describes the double-slit (DS) experiment. This is arguably the simplest experiment that demonstrates quantum affects such as wave–particle duality and quantum interference. It continues to be the focus of much debate and experiment (Mardari, 2005), because theoretical modeling of what is going on reflects current understanding of quantum physics and hence physical reality.We will apply QDN to two variants: the original DS experiment and the monitored DS experiment, where an attempt is made to determine the imagined path of the particle. The DS experiment is widely acknowledged by physicists to be of importance to the understanding of quantum mechanics (QM). So much so that in 2002, the single electron version, first performed by Merli, Missiroli, and Pozzi (Merli et al., 1976), was voted by readers of Physics World to be “the most beautiful experiment in physics” (Rosa, 2012). The DS experiment can be discussed in terms of three stages, shown in Figure 10.1. By the end of the preparation stage, Σ 0 , a monochromatic beam of light or particles has been prepared by a source P , such as a laser. The beam emerges from point O and then passes through an information void V 1 to the first stage, Σ 1 , which consists of a wall or barrier W . This wall has two openings denoted A and B that allow parts of the beam to pass through into another information void V 2 and onto the second and final stage Σ 2 , which consists of a detecting screen S . The screen S is in general some material that can absorb and record particle impacts. In reality, any screen will consist of a finite number of signal detectors, such as photosensitive molecules, but the typical QM modeling is done as if there were a continuum of sites on the screen, such as C , that could register particles.
We discuss the QDN (quantized detector network) approach to the formulation and interpretation of quantum mechanics. This approach gives us a system-free approach to quantum physics. By this, we mean having a proper emphasis on those aspects of physics which are observable and an avoidance of metaphysical concepts, which by definition are incapable of verification and should play no role in science on that account. By focusing on only what experimentalists deal with, i.e., quantum information, we avoid the ambiguities and confusion generated by the undue objectification of what are complex quantum processes.
Introduction In this chapter, we discuss some of the differences between apparatus and systems under observation (SUOs). The discussion is phrased in terms of self–intervening networks , wherein partial quantum outcomes in an early stage of an apparatus can alter future configurations of that apparatus. To explain what we mean, we introduce the following classification of experiments. Note that reference to apparatus here includes real and virtual detectors, and real and virtual modules. Virtual detectors and modules are mathematical fictions that are introduced into the formalism for convenience. Type-Zero Experiments Many important experiments involve signal propagation through “empty space.” We classify these as type zero (T0). The feature of T0 experiments qualifying for this classification is that the observer has no control of the modules in the information void. Examples are experiments in astrophysics, where the observer can choose which source to observe and how they observe it, but has no influence on the physical properties of whatever lies between source and detector. If there are gas clouds between source and detector, the observer can only recognize that fact after the experimental data are analyzed. An important modern variant of T0 experiments involves map location via the Global Positioning System (GPS): signals sent from Earth to geostationary satellites and received by mobile devices back on Earth have traveled through Earth's atmosphere and through empty space, where special relativistic and general relativistic effects have to be taken into account (Ashby, 2002). Before the rise of experimental science, most “experiments” were based on visual observations, which are principally of T0 classification. The advent of the telescope and the microscope did not change things in this respect. Indeed, it has been suggested that science did not progress in antiquity precisely because of the philosophical principle that the only valid experiments could be of T0, as these do not introduce the artificiality of constructed modules into observation, which (it was argued) would give a false perspective on “reality.” The logic of that argument is superb, but it is a dead-end principle in science. Several sciences such as geology, archaeology, and, indeed, cosmology started off with periods of basic observation rather than experimentation. During such initial stages of these sciences, the observations could be classified as T0 experiments.