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:quant-ph/0607165 · AIP conference proceedings

Models of Measurement for Quantum Fields and for Classical Continuous Random Fields

PETER T. MORGAN

Published Jan 1, 2007• 2 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

A quantum field model for an experiment describes thermal fluctuations explicitly and quantum fluctuations implicitly, whereas a comparable continuous random field model would describe both thermal and quantum fluctuations explicitly. An ideal classical measurement does not affect the results of later measurements, in contrast to ideal quantum measurements, but we can describe the consequences of the thermal and quantum fluctuations of classically non‐ideal measurement apparatuses explicitly. Some details of continuous random fields and of Bell inequalities for random fields will be discussed.

DOI
10.1063/1.2713457

Related papers

Bell inequalities for random fields

PETER T. MORGAN

The assumptions required for the derivation of Bell inequalities are not satisfied for random field models in which there are any thermal or quantum fluctuations, in contrast to the general satisfaction of the assumptions for classical two point particle models. Classical random field models that explicitly include the effects of quantum fluctuations on measurement are possible for experiments that violate Bell inequalities.

arXiv:cond-mat/0403692•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•May 23, 2006•23 citations

The straw man of quantum physics

Morgan, Peter

The violation of Bell inequalities by experiment has convinced physicists that we cannot maintain a classical view of the world. When we argue against the possibility of local realist hidden-variable models, however, the ubiquitous requirement of realism, that "measurement results depend on pre-existing properties of objects that are independent of the measurement", reduces classical theory to a straw man. When our most successful physical theories have been field theories for well over a century, and probabilistic for almost as long, the proper comparison is between quantum fields and random fields, for which there are no sharply defined objects and no properties, so that realism is inapplicable. If we model quantum fluctuations explicitly, we can construct random field models as alternatives to quantum field models.

arXiv:0810.2545•Oct 15, 2008•2 citations

On the measurements regarding random observables

Spiridon Dumitru, Attila Laszlo Boer

Both classical and respectively quantum observables can be modeled as somewhat similar examples of random variables. In such a model the associated measurements preserve the values spectrum of an observable but change the corresponding probabilistic weights (probability density or respectively the wave function). Such a model ensures theoretical estimations for predicted errors specific to the mean values as well as to the fluctuations of both types of observables. The model stands out of ourdays prevalent opinion that measurement theories must be depicted in entirely different manners in the classical respectively quantum cases.

arXiv:0803.2783•Mar 19, 2008•5 citations

Classicality of the heat produced by quantum measurements

Majid Mohammady

Quantum measurements can be expressed in a thermodynamic context. Here, they are broken down into a series of distinct steps and the consequent energetic changes --- work and heat --- are investigated. When the assumption is made that the measurement outcome must be stable over time, the heat fluctuations from a quantum measurement are shown to be necessarily classical.

arXiv:2103.15749•Physical Review A•Dec 8, 2021•5 citations

Experimental Tests of Bell Inequalities

Marco Genovese

Introduction Annus mirabilis 1964 1964 was a wonderful year for physics. In this annus mirabilis, summarising and simplifying a little, the quark model was proposed by Gell-Mann and Zweig and charm and colour properties were introduced, Higgs published his work on the scalar boson, the _ boson and CP violation were discovered, cosmic background radiation was identified and, finally, Bell inequalities were suggested. Most of these works were later subjects of a Nobel prize. Unluckily John Bell left us too early for this achievement, but, at least in my opinion, his work [1] is probably the most fruitful among all these huge advances, since now we can recognise that it was the root of a fundamental change in our vision of the physical world, providing, on one hand, the possibility of a test of quantum mechanics against a whole class of theories (substantially all the theories that we could define as “classical”) and, on the other hand, introducing a clear notion of quantum nonlocality that represents not only a challenge in understanding quantum mechanics, but also one of the most important resources paving the way to quantum technologies that were developed in the last decades based on the quantum correlations discussed in the Bell paper. In the following we will present the experimental progress in testing Bell inequalities. Rather amazingly even 50 years after Bell's paper, a conclusive test of his proposal is still missing [2, 3]. Nevertheless, huge progress has been achieved with respect to the first experiments.We will discuss these developments and the remaining problems for a conclusive test of Bell inequalities in detail. The Bell Inequalities, Their Hypotheses and the Experimental Loopholes In order to understand the experimental difficulties in achieving a final test of Bell inequalities, let us analyse a little how these inequalities are derived and the explicit and implicit hypotheses they contain. The proof of Bell inequalities usually starts by considering two separated subsystems of an entangled state, which are addressed to two independent measurement apparatuses measuring the expectation values of two dichotomic observables, Aa and B b . a, b are two parameters describing the settings of the measuring apparatus A and B , respectively.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 31, 2016•2 citations

Quantum measurement theory

Kurt A. Jacobs

Introduction and overview Much that is studied in quantum measurement theory, and thus in this book, is very different from that studied in its classical counterpart, Bayesian inference. While quantum measurement theory is in one sense a minimal extension of the latter to quantum states, quantum measurements cause dynamical changes that never need appear in a classical theory. This has a multitude of ramifications, many of which you will find in this book. One such consequence is a limit to the information that can be obtained about the state of a quantum system, and this results in relationships between information gained and dynamics induced that do not exist in classical systems. Because of the limits to information extraction, choosing the right kinds of measurements becomes important in a way that it never was for classical systems. Finding the best measurements for a given purpose, and working out how to realize these measurements, is often nontrivial. The relationship between information and disturbance impacts the control of quantum systems using measurements and feedback, and we discuss this application in Chapter 5. The ability to extract information about quantum systems is also important in using quantum systems to make precise measurements of classical quantities such as time, acceleration, and the strengths of electric and magnetic fields. This subject is referred to as quantum metrology, and we discuss it in Chapter 6.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 14, 2014•10 citations
A quantum field model for an experiment describes thermal fluctuations explicitly and quantum fluctuations implicitly, whereas a comparable continuous random field model would describe both thermal and quantum fluctuations explicitly. An ideal classical measurement does not affect the results of later measurements, in contrast to ideal quantum measurements, but we can describe the consequences of the thermal and quantum fluctuations of classically non‐ideal measurement apparatuses explicitly. Some details of continuous random fields and of Bell inequalities for random fields will be discussed.
The violation of Bell inequalities by experiment has convinced physicists that we cannot maintain a classical view of the world. When we argue against the possibility of local realist hidden-variable models, however, the ubiquitous requirement of realism, that "measurement results depend on pre-existing properties of objects that are independent of the measurement", reduces classical theory to a straw man. When our most successful physical theories have been field theories for well over a century, and probabilistic for almost as long, the proper comparison is between quantum fields and random fields, for which there are no sharply defined objects and no properties, so that realism is inapplicable. If we model quantum fluctuations explicitly, we can construct random field models as alternatives to quantum field models.
Both classical and respectively quantum observables can be modeled as somewhat similar examples of random variables. In such a model the associated measurements preserve the values spectrum of an observable but change the corresponding probabilistic weights (probability density or respectively the wave function). Such a model ensures theoretical estimations for predicted errors specific to the mean values as well as to the fluctuations of both types of observables. The model stands out of ourdays prevalent opinion that measurement theories must be depicted in entirely different manners in the classical respectively quantum cases.
Introduction Annus mirabilis 1964 1964 was a wonderful year for physics. In this annus mirabilis, summarising and simplifying a little, the quark model was proposed by Gell-Mann and Zweig and charm and colour properties were introduced, Higgs published his work on the scalar boson, the _ boson and CP violation were discovered, cosmic background radiation was identified and, finally, Bell inequalities were suggested. Most of these works were later subjects of a Nobel prize. Unluckily John Bell left us too early for this achievement, but, at least in my opinion, his work [1] is probably the most fruitful among all these huge advances, since now we can recognise that it was the root of a fundamental change in our vision of the physical world, providing, on one hand, the possibility of a test of quantum mechanics against a whole class of theories (substantially all the theories that we could define as “classical”) and, on the other hand, introducing a clear notion of quantum nonlocality that represents not only a challenge in understanding quantum mechanics, but also one of the most important resources paving the way to quantum technologies that were developed in the last decades based on the quantum correlations discussed in the Bell paper. In the following we will present the experimental progress in testing Bell inequalities. Rather amazingly even 50 years after Bell's paper, a conclusive test of his proposal is still missing [2, 3]. Nevertheless, huge progress has been achieved with respect to the first experiments.We will discuss these developments and the remaining problems for a conclusive test of Bell inequalities in detail. The Bell Inequalities, Their Hypotheses and the Experimental Loopholes In order to understand the experimental difficulties in achieving a final test of Bell inequalities, let us analyse a little how these inequalities are derived and the explicit and implicit hypotheses they contain. The proof of Bell inequalities usually starts by considering two separated subsystems of an entangled state, which are addressed to two independent measurement apparatuses measuring the expectation values of two dichotomic observables, Aa and B b . a, b are two parameters describing the settings of the measuring apparatus A and B , respectively.
Introduction and overview Much that is studied in quantum measurement theory, and thus in this book, is very different from that studied in its classical counterpart, Bayesian inference. While quantum measurement theory is in one sense a minimal extension of the latter to quantum states, quantum measurements cause dynamical changes that never need appear in a classical theory. This has a multitude of ramifications, many of which you will find in this book. One such consequence is a limit to the information that can be obtained about the state of a quantum system, and this results in relationships between information gained and dynamics induced that do not exist in classical systems. Because of the limits to information extraction, choosing the right kinds of measurements becomes important in a way that it never was for classical systems. Finding the best measurements for a given purpose, and working out how to realize these measurements, is often nontrivial. The relationship between information and disturbance impacts the control of quantum systems using measurements and feedback, and we discuss this application in Chapter 5. The ability to extract information about quantum systems is also important in using quantum systems to make precise measurements of classical quantities such as time, acceleration, and the strengths of electric and magnetic fields. This subject is referred to as quantum metrology, and we discuss it in Chapter 6.