4 ms·

Can you give a link that clearly describes "measurement-as-a-cascade-of-entanglements process" in some reliable source? Best, some QM textbook. Basically exa

Can you give a link that clearly describes "measurement-as-a-cascade-of-entanglements process" in some reliable source? Best, some QM textbook. Basically exactly the same as this http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf (5.3), but in a well-known textbook or some review paper in a journal with good reputation. I run from time-to-time into a discussion which just needs such pointer...

lisper 11y ago
My paper is based on this one: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9605002v2.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9605002v2.pdf I don't know if that exact paper was ever published, but an earlier version was formally published here: C. H. Adami and N. J. Cerf, “Information Theory of Quantum Entanglement and Measurement,” Physica D 120 (1998) 62-81. But this paper turns out to be a rehash of an older result (Zurek, 1991) http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306072 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306072 which in turn is more or less a rehash of an even older result (1955) by von Neuman: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.7649v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.7649v1.pdf (See the references for the original source.) And there is some evidence that even Bohr and Heisenberg actually understood this. Basically, the physics community bifurcates among those who deny this is true (e.g. Lubos Motl) and those among whom it is considered common knowledge. Indeed, when I submitted my paper to Physics Today back in 2000 it was rejected on the grounds that it was nothing new. The hard part of QM is not understanding it. The hard part is accepting that it is true. Because people really want to believe that the reason that we can make reproducible measurements is that these measurements are a faithful reflection of a underlying metaphysical reality that is actually "out there" in some sense. But that turns out not to be the case. As David Mermin so eloquently puts it (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609013 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609013) we are in fact made of "correlations without correlata."
- dchichkov 11y ago
  Yeah, it feels like it is just common knowledge (usually given as example during the lecture). But it's difficult to find this one in a form of nice reliable formal publication. I wish some student somewhere would publish a review paper in some reputable place, clearly describing this cascade of entanglements from start to the end using an example of photomultiplier. Cascade starting from a photon and ending with a 'classical bit' sitting in the memory cell...
  - lisper 11y ago
    What's wrong with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_in_quantum_mechanics#von_Neumann_measurement_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_in_quantum_mechani... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence ? If you don't like Wikipedia, the references section are chock-full of "real" papers, including this one: http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0306/0306072.pdf http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0306/0306072.pdf

lisper 11y ago

My paper is based on this one: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9605002v2.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9605002v2.pdf I don't know if that exact paper was ever published, but an earlier version was formally published here: C. H. Adami and N. J. Cerf, “Information Theory of Quantum Entanglement and Measurement,” Physica D 120 (1998) 62-81. But this paper turns out to be a rehash of an older result (Zurek, 1991) http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306072 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306072 which in turn is more or less a rehash of an even older result (1955) by von Neuman: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.7649v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.7649v1.pdf (See the references for the original source.) And there is some evidence that even Bohr and Heisenberg actually understood this. Basically, the physics community bifurcates among those who deny this is true (e.g. Lubos Motl) and those among whom it is considered common knowledge. Indeed, when I submitted my paper to Physics Today back in 2000 it was rejected on the grounds that it was nothing new. The hard part of QM is not understanding it. The hard part is accepting that it is true. Because people really want to believe that the reason that we can make reproducible measurements is that these measurements are a faithful reflection of a underlying metaphysical reality that is actually "out there" in some sense. But that turns out not to be the case. As David Mermin so eloquently puts it (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609013 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609013) we are in fact made of "correlations without correlata."

dchichkov 11y ago
Yeah, it feels like it is just common knowledge (usually given as example during the lecture). But it's difficult to find this one in a form of nice reliable formal publication. I wish some student somewhere would publish a review paper in some reputable place, clearly describing this cascade of entanglements from start to the end using an example of photomultiplier. Cascade starting from a photon and ending with a 'classical bit' sitting in the memory cell...
- lisper 11y ago
  What's wrong with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_in_quantum_mechanics#von_Neumann_measurement_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_in_quantum_mechani... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence ? If you don't like Wikipedia, the references section are chock-full of "real" papers, including this one: http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0306/0306072.pdf http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0306/0306072.pdf