Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Relativistic Quantum Information from Unequal-Time QFT Correlation Functions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that QFT detection-event probabilities violate two classical hierarchy conditions—Kolmogorov additivity and measurement independence—and that the violation sizes define new quantum resources beyond Bell inequalities.

desk verdict The measurement-independence half is correct but essentially antibunching; the Kolmogorov-additivity example compares postselected ensembles and does not test Eq. (14), so the paper's central claim is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11631 v1 pith:UTTSCRZZ submitted 2024-11-18 quant-ph gr-qchep-th

Charis Anastopoulos , Konstantina Savvidou This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phgr-qchep-th
keywords relativisticquantuminformationfieldtheoryunequal-timecorrelationfunctionsTemporalProbabilitiesKolmogorovadditivitymeasurementindependencetime-of-arrivalmeasurementsstatereduction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the probabilities of particle-detection events in quantum field theory cannot be reproduced by any classical stochastic process, because they violate two conditions that every classical probability hierarchy obeys: Kolmogorov additivity (the consistency between joint and lower-level probabilities) and measurement independence (the claim that what one detector measures is defined independently of what another measures). The authors argue that the size of each violation, measured by a statistical distance or norm, defines a new kind of quantum resource, one that is different from the nonlocality captured by Bell inequalities. They demonstrate both violations in concrete time-of-detection setups for scalar fields, and they derive a relativistic state-reduction rule for particles recorded through scattering as a by-product. A sympathetic reader would care because this points toward a relativistic quantum information theory built directly from unequal-time QFT correlation functions rather than from non-relativistic state manipulations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the QTP probability hierarchy $P_n(z_1,\ldots,z_n)$, written as a linear functional $G^{A_1\ldots A_n}R^{(1)}_{A_1}(z_1)\cdots R^{(n)}_{A_n}(z_n)$ of the closed-time-path (CTP) correlation functions $G_{\beta_1\ldots\beta_n}^{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_n}$ of field composite operators, with $R^A(z)$ the detector kernels. The two classicality conditions are Kolmogorov additivity, $P_{n-1}(z_1,\ldots,z_{i-1},z_{i+1},\ldots,z_n)=\int dz_i\, P_n(z_1,\ldots,z_n)$, and measurement independence, which in this setting yields the across-levels inequalities $P_n(z,z,z_3,\ldots,z_n)\ge P_{n-1}(z,z_3,\ldots,z_n)^2$ and the Cauchy-Schwarz bound $P_2(z_1,z_2)\le \sqrt{P_2(z_1,z_1)P_2(z_2,z_2)}$. Violation of the first condition is quantified by the statistical distance between a marginal and the lower-level distribution; violation of the second is quantified by the negative part of $P_2(z_1,z_2)-\sqrt{P_2(z_1,z_1)P_2(z_2,z_2)}$, with the smallest negative eigenvalue of the two-point correlation tensor $G_{AB}$ as a sufficient diagnostic. The scattering setup introduces the reduction operator $\hat S$, whose second partial trace gives a modified localization operator and whose diagonal blocks define single-particle density matrices $\hat\sigma_k$; integrating $P_2(t,\tau)$ over $t$ yields the non-selective post-measurement state $\hat\rho_1^{\mathrm{ns}} = \int dk\, \tilde\rho_1(k,k)\,\hat\sigma_k$, which is what makes the Kolmogorov violation quantitative.

What would settle it

Measure in the scattering setup the statistical distance $w_1$ between $\int dt\,P_2(t,\tau)$ and $P_1(\tau)$ for a particle that is scattered at the first detector and absorbed at the second; if the distance is zero for all initial states and detector parameters, the claimed Kolmogorov violation is absent. Alternatively, repeat the same two-detector calculation with two identical detectors (both scattering or both absorbing); since the hierarchy condition then applies literally, a vanishing violation there would show that the Sec. 5 effect depends on the mixed detector types rather than on irreducible QFT nonclassicality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the hierarchy of $N$-detector probability densities constructed by the Quantum Temporal Probabilities method extracts information from the closed-time-path hierarchy of unequal-time field correlation functions, and that this hierarchy is irreducibly nonclassical: it violates Kolmogorov additivity and measurement independence. Classical hierarchies satisfy both conditions; QFT generically violates them, and the degree of violation can be quantified by norms such as the statistical distance $w_{n,i}$ and the non-additivity sequence $W$, or by the violation functions $Q^{(1)}$ and $Q^{(2)}$. For detection-time observables in a free scalar field, the violation of measurement independence is tied to entanglement in the two-particle density matrix and occurs for a range of amplitude ratios and time separations, while the violation of Kolmogorov additivity arises in a scattering setup where a particle leaves a record in the first detector and is then absorbed by a second. The paper also shows that the scattering-based two-detector probability implies an explicit relativistic state-reduction rule that is derivative, not fundamental, arising from the joint probability assignment and postselection.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the two-detector probability in the scattering setup of Sec. 5 belongs to the same probabilistic hierarchy as the single-detector probability, so that the marginal over the first detection time can be compared with the single-detector probability as a test of Kolmogorov additivity; since the two detectors are of different types, the comparison is not literally the Kolmogorov condition and the claimed violation could be an artifact of comparing different hierarchies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • QFT detection probabilities cannot be simulated by any classical stochastic process when Kolmogorov additivity fails; they can only be simulated by a 'local' stochastic process when both conditions hold.
  • The quantum resources defined here are distinct from Bell-inequality nonlocality: Bell inequalities compare different hierarchies at the same level, while these conditions constrain different levels of a single hierarchy.
  • Measurement independence is violated for entangled two-particle states in time-of-arrival setups over explicit parameter ranges, and the non-classicality measure $Q_2^{(2)}$ approaches 1 as the superposition size grows.
  • The scattering detection setup yields a relativistic state-reduction rule: the post-measurement density matrix after a recorded scattering event is $\hat\rho_1^{(x,t)}$, and the non-selective update wipes out off-diagonal momentum coherence with weights set by detector scattering matrices.
  • The violation of Kolmogorov additivity is bounded above by half the trace distance between the non-selective post-measurement state and the initial state, $w_1 \le \tfrac12 \mathrm{Tr}|\hat\rho_1^{\mathrm{ns}}-\tilde\rho_1|$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the detection-time probabilities are experimentally measurable, the derived parameter ranges give a direct test: observing $P_2(t,t) < P_1(t)^2$ or $G(t_1,t_2)>0$ would confirm the predicted violation without needing Bell-type settings.
  • The same hierarchy-based conditions should apply to other QFT observables beyond detection times, and the violation measures could be defined purely from correlation functions, potentially unifying Kolmogorov non-additivity, measurement independence, and Bell-type criteria.
  • The strongest demonstration of Kolmogorov violation relies on a sub-ensemble with two different detector types; repeating the calculation with two identical scattering detectors would clarify whether the effect survives when the hierarchy condition is interpreted literally.
  • The state-reduction rule suggests that in relativistic QFT, information loss in multi-time measurements is encoded in off-diagonal momentum coherence, which may connect to information-balance questions such as higher-order correlations in Hawking radiation, where the authors have previously shown non-thermality at multi-detector level.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a framework for relativistic quantum information based on the Quantum Temporal Probabilities (QTP) approach, in which multi-detector probabilities are expressed through unequal-time field correlation functions. It defines two classicality conditions for the resulting hierarchy of probability densities: Kolmogorov additivity and measurement independence. Violations of these conditions are proposed as novel quantum resources. A concrete calculation for a free scalar field demonstrates violation of the measurement-independence inequality using entangled two-particle states and time-of-arrival measurements. A second calculation, using a scattering detector followed by an absorption detector, is claimed to demonstrate violation of Kolmogorov additivity and to yield a relativistic state-reduction rule. The paper concludes that QFT hierarchies are irreducibly non-classical in a way that differs from Bell-inequality violations.

Significance. If the central claims were established, the paper would provide a covariant way to quantify non-classical correlations directly from QFT correlation functions, going beyond the usual entanglement-based resource framework. The Sec. 4 measurement-independence example is explicit, checkable, and internally consistent, and the derived reduction rule for particles detected through scattering is a useful byproduct of the formalism. However, the paper's main advertised result—that QFT violates Kolmogorov additivity—rests on a comparison that does not implement the paper's own definition of a probabilistic hierarchy. The deficiency is not a matter of presentation: it concerns the only concrete evidence for one of the two central claims, so the overall thesis is not supported as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 5.1–5.3, Eq. (14)] The Kolmogorov test in Sec. 5 compares quantities that belong to different probabilistic hierarchies. According to Sec. 3.1, a hierarchy is defined by a fixed rule for the type of apparatuses that appear at every level n; the Kolmogorov condition (14) is a compatibility condition between levels of that single hierarchy. In the Sec. 5 example, however, the one-event probability P1(t) uses the composite operator C1 = :phi^2: with kernel R1, while the two-event probability P2(t,tau) uses C1,R1 for the first detector and C2 = phi with R2 for the second. The marginal integral of P2 over the first time therefore should be compared with the one-detector probability for a detector of the retained type C2, not with the P1 constructed from C1. As written, the difference between \tilde P(tau) = integral dt P2(t,tau) and P1(tau) is a comparison across different apparatus rules, so it does not test Eq. (14).
  2. [Sec. 5.2–5.3, Eqs. (76), (82), (90)] The discrepancy quantified by w1 is affected by postselection and does not measure Kolmogorov non-additivity. Equation (76) redefines the initial single-particle density matrix through the combined absorption coefficient alpha_{1,2}, so that the joint probability P2 is conditioned on both detections occurring. Consequently, \tilde P(tau) = integral dt P2(t,tau) is a postselected subensemble average, not the one-detector probability obtained from the original state in the same experiment. The paper itself concedes in Eq. (82) that even the other marginal, integral dtau P2(t,tau), equals P1(t) only "modulo the change L1 -> L1^* and the corresponding change (76) in rho1, to accommodate for post-selection." Thus the difference between \tilde P and P1 reflects state reduction or measurement disturbance—explicitly so in Eqs. (84)–(89)—rather than a failure of Kolmogorov additivity. The resource measure w1 in Eq. (90) is therefore not a measure of non-additivity.
  3. [Abstract and Table 1] Because the two preceding points invalidate the only demonstration of a Kolmogorov-additivity violation, the abstract's statement that QFT violates that condition, and the associated non-additivity resource W, are not established by the evidence in the paper. The Sec. 4 measurement-independence violation is independent and may well survive, but the two-condition classification of QFT hierarchies summarized in Table 1 is not supported by the manuscript as it stands.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5.1] The sentence "For a single-particle state, all n-particle reduced density matrices vanish except for rho1. Hence, only diagram (ii) of Fig. 5 contributes to P1, and only diagram (iii) of Fig. 5 contributes to P2" is inconsistent with Appendix A, where the term P2^(iii) involves rho2 and the term P2^(iv) involves rho1; the single-particle contribution that survives is the scattering term P2^(iv).
  2. [Sec. 5.1] The paragraph beginning "Their explicit expressions are given in the Appendix" contains a duplicated and garbled sentence: "The forms of these terms are expressed Four terms survive, and their explicit expressions are given in the Appendix."
  3. [Sec. 5.2] In the sentence "We denote by t the detection time at detector 1 and by t+tau the time of the second direction", the phrase "the time of the second direction" should read "the time of the second detection".
  4. [Sec. 1.1] The phrase "consists with relativistic causality" should be "is consistent with relativistic causality".
  5. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (13)] The notation "p0 = 1" is unexplained; it presumably means \hbar = 1 or the zeroth-order term of the expansion, and this should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The Sec. 5 Kolmogorov-additivity example builds the claimed violation into the postselected normalization of P2, so this central pillar reduces to state reduction by construction; the measurement-independence part is independent.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 5.2, Eqs. (76) and (82); Sec. 5.3, Eq. (90)]
    "The probability density P2pt, τq of Eq. (77) satisfies the Kolmogorov condition when integrating over the time τ of the second measurement, ∫ dτ P2pt, τq “ P1ptq, modulo the change L1 Ñ L˚1 for the localization operator, and the corresponding change (76) in ρ1, to accommodate for post-selection in the statistical ensembles."

    Kolmogorov additivity, Eq. (14), is an exact equality between P1 and a marginal of P2 within a single hierarchy. Before comparing, Eq. (76) normalizes P2 by redefining the effective state with the joint absorption coefficient α1,2, and Eq. (82) then states that the τ-marginal equals P1 only modulo that redefinition and L1→L1^*. The exact equality is therefore broken by the normalization and postselection inserted in Eqs. (74)-(79), not derived. The measure w1 in Eq. (90) is the statistical distance between the postselected state and the non-selectively evolved state, i.e., the state-reduction effect of that postselection, so the claimed Kolmogorov violation is the inserted postselection by construction.

  2. renaming known result [Sec. 5.3, paragraph after Eq. (86)]
    "We emphasize that in the QTP analysis, the reduction rule follows from the form of the joint probability P2 ... Hence, the reduction rule is a derivative and not a fundamental notion. This is why the reduction rule in the first detector depends on the normalization of probabilities in the second detector. There is no action backwards in time, simply a redefinition of the relevant statistical sub-ensemble due to postselection."

    The paper presents the difference caused by this postselection-dependent reduction rule as the violation of Kolmogorov inequality and as a novel quantum resource. However, the reduction operator S and the redefined state in Eq. (76) are constructed from the same P2 normalization and second-detector absorption coefficient. Comparing the pre- and post-reduction states measures exactly the postselection that was put into Eq. (76); renaming this state-reduction effect as a hierarchy-level Kolmogorov violation does not supply an independent derivation of Eq. (14)'s failure.

full rationale

The QTP probability assignment is imported from self-authored references, but that import is not itself circular: the QTP formula (10) is a stated probability rule, and non-additivity of sequential measurements follows from it rather than being assumed. The measurement-independence resource calculations of Sec. 4 are self-contained: P1 and P2 are evaluated from the same probability rule, and the inequalities (28)-(31) are derived and then checked on model wavefunctions; no output is fitted back into an input. The circularity is concentrated in the Sec. 5 demonstration of Kolmogorov-additivity violation, which is the paper's only support for the abstract's claim that QFT violates Kolmogorov additivity. There, the two-event probability is normalized by conditioning on joint detection (Eq. 76), Eq. (82) explicitly concedes that the marginal equals P1 only after replacing L1 by L1^* and the state by the postselected one, and Eq. (90) then measures the distance between states that differ by exactly that inserted postselection. The reduction rule responsible for the difference is itself derived from the same P2 normalization, so the example exhibits state reduction under a new name rather than deriving a violation of Eq. (14) for a single hierarchy. The MI half of the paper and the QTP framework remain independent, so the circularity is partial rather than total; the score reflects that one of the two central claimed violations reduces by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are postulated. The reduction operator S is derived from the model, not assumed. The central claim relies on the QTP measurement framework imported from the authors' prior work and on several modeling approximations.

free parameters (5)
  • wavepacket separation a = chosen (a/sigma scanned)
    Gaussian wavepackets in Sec 4.3; the resource measures Q depend on a.
  • wavepacket width sigma = chosen
    Determines the time and position spread of A_i(t) in the violation estimates.
  • central momentum p = chosen (p1=p2=p)
    Sets the velocity v_p in Eq 68 and the violation time windows.
  • detector kernel parameters gamma0, gamma1 = 0 (maximum localization limit)
    Exponential detection kernel Eq 54; maximum localization requires gamma0=gamma1=0.
  • field mass m = 0 for Fig 3
    The numerical plots are for a massless field; the massive case suppresses some terms.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption QTP probability assignment (Eq 10) is the correct measurement rule for QFT
    Imported from Refs 7,17,29,30; all violations are derived within this framework.
  • domain assumption Decoherent histories probability assignment with decoherence
    QTP relies on the decoherent histories program, not von Neumann measurement theory.
  • domain assumption Detector kernels have timelike, positive-energy support (Eq 8)
    Used to set R-tilde=0 for spacelike or negative-energy momenta; standard for particle detectors.
  • ad hoc to paper The P_b term (Eq 43) can be dropped due to rapid oscillations
    This approximation is central to obtaining the product form Eq 44 and the violation estimates, but no error bounds are given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relativistic Quantum Information from Unequal-Time QFT Correlation Functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UTTSCRZZ

@misc{pith2026241111631,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relativistic Quantum Information from Unequal-Time QFT Correlation Functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UTTSCRZZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11631}
}
abstract

This paper continues on the program of developing a relativistic quantum information theory in terms of unequal-time correlation functions in quantum field theory (QFT)[arXiv:2208.03696]. Here, we focus on the definition of quantum resources from the irreducibly quantum behavior contained in the correlation functions of a QFT. We explain how set-ups with $N$ particle detectors probe the information in the high order field correlation functions. Our main object is the associated hierarchy of probability densities of $N$-detector events. We show that classical probabilistic hierarchies are subject to two conditions: Kolmogorov additivity and measurement independence. QFT violates those conditions, and the degree of violation enables us to define novel quantum resources. We give specific examples in set-ups where the main observables are the times of particle detection events. The new resources capture instances of irreducibly quantum behavior differ from the quantum behavior encapsulated in Bell inequalities. An interesting byproduct of our analysis is a relativistic state reduction rule for particles detected through scattering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11631 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The hierarchy of correlation functions in relation to the hierarchy of probabilities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A two-measurement set-up: two detectors at distances [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The measure Q p1q 2 of Eq. (32) for m “ 0 as a function of a{σ and for different values of the source-detector distance x: (i) a{x “ 0.1, (ii) a{x “ 0.02, and (iii) a{x “ 0.01. 5.1 The measurement model We will again consider measurements of a single scalar field ϕˆpxq, but now we will consider different couplings to the apparatus. For a single measurement event, we will employ the composite operator Cˆ 1pxq “: ϕˆpx… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diagrammatic form of the two terms that appear in the probability density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Diagrammatic form of the four terms that appear in the probability density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A set-up in which a particle is recorded by the first detector through scattering, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Entanglement Entropy and Quantum Field Theory: A Non- Technical Introduction, Int. J. Quant. Inform. 4, 429 (2006)

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Witten, Notes on Some Entanglement Properties of Quantum Field Theory , Rev

    E. Witten, Notes on Some Entanglement Properties of Quantum Field Theory , Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 45003 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Chitambar, D

    E. Chitambar, D. Leung, L. Mancinska, M. Ozols, and A. Winter, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About LOCC (But Were Afraid to Ask) , Commun. Math. Phys., 328, 303 (2014). 26

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox , Physics 1, 195 (1964)

    work page 1964

  5. [5]

    A. J. Leggett and A. Garg, Quantum Mechanics Versus Macroscopic Realism: Is the Flux There When Nobody Looks?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 857 (1985)

    work page 1985

  6. [6]

    Anastopoulos and N

    C. Anastopoulos and N. Savvidou, Quantum Information in Relativity: The Challenge of QFT Measurements, Entropy 24, 4 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Anastopoulos, B

    C. Anastopoulos, B. L. Hu, and K. Savvidou, Quantum Field Theory Based Quantum Information: Measurements and Correlations , Ann. Phys. 450, 169239 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Peres and D

    A. Peres and D. Terno, Quantum Information and Relativity Theory , Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 93 (2004)

    work page 2004

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Papageorgiou and D

    M. Papageorgiou and D. Fraser, Eliminating the ‘Impossible’: Recent Progress on Local Measurement Theory for Quantum Field Theory , Found. Phys. 54 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    A. S. Blum, The State is not Abolished, It Withers Away: How Quantum Field Theory Became a Theory of Scattering , Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 60, 46 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    R. J. Glauber, The Quantum Theory of Optical Coherence, Phys. Rev. 130, 2529 (1963)

    1963

  4. [12]

    R. J. Glauber, Coherent and Incoherent States of the Radiation Field , Phys. Rev. 131, 2766 (1963)

    1963

  5. [13]

    K. E. Hellwig and K. Kraus, Operations and measurements. II, Comm. Math. Phys. 16, 142 (1970)

    1970

  6. [14]

    W. G. Unruh, Notes on Black Hole Evaporation , Phys. Rev. D14, 870 (1976)

    1976

  7. [15]

    General Relativity: An Ein- stein Centenary Survey

    B. S. DeWitt, Quantum Gravity: the New Synthesis in “General Relativity: An Ein- stein Centenary Survey”, eds. S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979)

    1979

  8. [16]

    Directions in General Rela- tivity

    R. Sorkin, Impossible Measurements on Quantum Fields, in “Directions in General Rela- tivity”, eds. B. L. Hu and T. A. Jacobson (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1993)

    1993

  9. [17]

    Anastopoulos and N

    C. Anastopoulos and N. Savvidou, Time-of-Arrival Probabilities for General Particle Detectors, Phys. Rev. A86, 012111 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Anastopoulos and N

    C. Anastopoulos and N. Savvidou, Measurements on Relativistic Quantum Fields: I. Probability Assignment, arXiv:1509.01837

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Okamura and M

    K. Okamura and M. Ozawa, Measurement Theory in Local Quantum Physics , J. Math. Phys. 57, 015209 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    C. J. Fewster and R. Verch, Quantum Fields and Local Measurements , Comm. Math. Phys. 378, 851 (2020). 27

    2020

  13. [21]

    Bostelmann, C

    H. Bostelmann, C. J. Fewster, and M. Ruep Impossible Measurements Require Impossible Apparatus, Phys. Rev. D 103, 025017 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    C. J. Fewster, I. Jubb, and M. H. Ruep, Asymptotic Measurement Schemes for Every Observable of a Quantum Field Theory , Ann. Henri Poincar´ e 24, 1137–(2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Polo-G´ omez, L

    J. Polo-G´ omez, L. J. Garay, L. J. and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez,A Detector-Based Measure- ment Theory for Quantum Field Theory , Phys. Rev. D 105, 065003 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    T. R. Perche, Localized Nonrelativistic Quantum Systems in Curved Spacetimes: A Gen- eral Characterization of Particle Detector Models , Phys. Rev. D106, 025018 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    T. R. Perche, J. Polo-G´ omez, B. de S. L. Torres, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Particle Detectors from Localized Quantum Field Theories , Phys. Rev. D109, 045013 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Bednorz, General Quantum Measurements in Relativistic Quantum Field Theory , Phys

    A. Bednorz, General Quantum Measurements in Relativistic Quantum Field Theory , Phys. Rev. D108, 056020 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Papageorgiou, J

    M. Papageorgiou, J. de Ram´ on, and C. Anastopoulos. Particle-Field Duality in QFT Measurements, Phys. Rev. D109, 065024 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    C. J. Fewster and R. Verch, Measurement in Quantum Field Theory , arXiv:2304.13356

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Anastopoulos and N

    C. Anastopoulos and N. Savvidou, Time-of-Arrival Correlations, Phys. Rev. A95, 032105 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Anastopoulos and N

    C. Anastopoulos and N. Savvidou, Time of Arrival and Localization of Relativistic Par- ticles, J. Math. Phys. 60, 0323301 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Anastopoulos and N

    C. Anastopoulos and N. Savvidou, Time-of-Arrival Probabilities and Quantum Measure- ments, J. Math. Phys. 47, 122106 (2006)

    2006

  24. [32]

    Savvidou, The Action Operator for Continuous-time Histories J

    K. Savvidou, The Action Operator for Continuous-time Histories J. Math. Phys. 40, 5657 (1999); Continuous Time in Consistent Histories , gr-qc/9912076

    1999 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Approaches to Quantum Gravity

    N. Savvidou, Space-time Symmetries in Histories Canonical Gravity , in “Approaches to Quantum Gravity”, edited by D. Oriti (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    R. B. Griffiths, Consistent Quantum Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2003)

    2003

  27. [35]

    Omn´ es, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics , (Princeton University Press, Princeton 1994)

    R. Omn´ es, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics , (Princeton University Press, Princeton 1994)

    1994

  28. [36]

    Omn´ es,Understanding Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton 1999)

    R. Omn´ es,Understanding Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton 1999)

    1999

  29. [37]

    Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information

    M. Gell-Mann and J. B. Hartle, Quantum Mechanics in the Light of Quantum Cosmol- ogy, in “Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information”, ed. by W. Zurek, (Addison Wesley, Reading 1990); 28

    1990

  30. [38]

    Gell-Mann and J

    M. Gell-Mann and J. B. Hartle, Classical Equations for Quantum Systems , Phys. Rev. D47, 3345 (1993)

    1993

  31. [39]

    Gravitation and Quantizations

    J.B. Hartle, Spacetime Quantum Mechanics and the Quantum Mechanics of Spacetime in “Gravitation and Quantizations”, Proceedings of the 1992 Les Houches Summer School, ed. by B. Julia and J. Zinn- Justin, Les Houches Summer School Proceedings, Vol. L VII, (North Holland, Amster...

    1992 arXiv

  32. [40]

    von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton Univer- sity Press, Princeton, 1955)

    J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton Univer- sity Press, Princeton, 1955)

    1955

  33. [41]

    Busch, P

    P. Busch, P. J. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt,The Quantum Theory of Measurement, Lecture Notes in Physics Monographs, volume 2 (1996)

    1996

  34. [42]

    J. S. Schwinger, Brownian Motion of a Quantum Oscillator , J. Math. Phys. 2, 407 (1961)

    1961

  35. [43]

    L. V. Keldysh, Diagram Technique for Nonequilibrium Processes , Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 47, 1515 (1964)

    1964

  36. [44]

    G. Zhou, Z. Su, B. Hao and L. Yu, Equilibrium and Nonequilibrium Formalisms Made Unified, Phys. Rep. 118, 1 (1985)

    1985

  37. [45]

    Quantum Concepts in Space and Time

    B. S. DeWitt, Effective Action for Expectation Values, in “Quantum Concepts in Space and Time”, ed. R. Penrose and C. J. Isham (Claredon Press, Oxford, 1986)

    1986

  38. [46]

    Calzetta and B

    E. Calzetta and B. L. Hu, Nonequilibrium Quantum Fields: Closed-Time-Path Effective Action, Wigner Function, and Boltzmann Equation , Phys. Rev. D37, 2878 (1988)

    1988

  39. [47]

    Calzetta and B

    E. Calzetta and B. L. Hu, Closed-Time-Path Functional Formalism in Curved Spacetime, Phys. Rev. D35, 495 (1987)

    1987

  40. [48]

    E. A. Calzetta and B. L. Hu, Nonequilibrium Quantum Field Theory (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    Berges, Introduction to Nonequilibrium Quantum Field Theory , AIP Conf

    J. Berges, Introduction to Nonequilibrium Quantum Field Theory , AIP Conf. Proc. 739, 3 (2004)

    2004

  42. [50]

    Kamenev, Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011)

    A. Kamenev, Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    Rammer, Quantum Field Theory of Non-equilibrium States (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009)

    J. Rammer, Quantum Field Theory of Non-equilibrium States (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009)

    2009

  44. [52]

    A. S. Wightman, Quantum Field Theory in Terms of its Vacuum Expectation Values , Phys. Rev. 101, 860 (1956)

    1956

  45. [53]

    R. F. Streater and A. S. Wightman, PCT, Spin and statistics, and All That (Princeton University Press, 2000). 29

    2000

  46. [54]

    Lehmann, K

    H. Lehmann, K. Symanzik, and W. Zimmermann, Zur Formulierung Quantisierter Feldtheorien, Nuov. Cim. 1, 202 (1955)

    1955

  47. [55]

    Directions in Gen- eral Relativity, Vol II: Brill Festschrift

    E. Calzetta and B. L. Hu, Decoherence of Correlation Histories in “Directions in Gen- eral Relativity, Vol II: Brill Festschrift”, eds B. L. Hu and T. A. Jacobson (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993)

    1993

  48. [56]

    Heat Kernel Techniques and Quantum Gravity

    E. Calzetta and B. L. Hu, Correlations, Decoherence, Disspation and Noise in Quantum Field Theory, in “ Heat Kernel Techniques and Quantum Gravity”, ed. S. A. Fulling (Texas A& M Press, College Station 1995)

    1995

  49. [57]

    Anastopoulos, Classical Versus Quantum Probability in Sequential Measurements , Found

    C. Anastopoulos, Classical Versus Quantum Probability in Sequential Measurements , Found. Phys. 36, 1601 (2006)

    2006

  50. [58]

    Kofler and ˇC

    J. Kofler and ˇC. Brukner, Condition for Macroscopic Realism Beyond the Leggett-Garg Inequalities, Phys. Rev. A87, 052115 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    Clemente and J

    L. Clemente and J. Kofler, Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Macroscopic Realism from Quantum Mechanics , Phys. Rev. A91, 062103 (2015)

    2015

  52. [60]

    J. J. Halliwell, Leggett-Garg Inequalities and No-Signaling in Time: A Quasiprobability Approach, Phys. Rev. A93, 022123 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    J. J. Halliwell, Comparing Conditions for Macrorealism: Leggett-Garg Inequalities Ver- sus No-Signaling in Time , Phys. Rev. A96, 012121 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    J. S. Bell, A. Shimony, M. A. Horne, and J. F. Clauser, An Exchange on Local Beables , Dialectica 39, 85 (1985)

    1985

  55. [63]

    Barrett and N

    J. Barrett and N. Gisin, How Much Measurement Independence Is Needed to Demon- strate Nonlocality?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 100406 (2011)

    2011

  56. [64]

    At the Frontier of Spacetime

    M. J. W. Hall, The Significance of Measurement Independence for Bell Inequalities and Locality, in “At the Frontier of Spacetime”, ed. T. Asselmeyer-Maluga (Springer, Switzer- land 2016),

    2016

  57. [65]

    M. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  58. [66]

    Anastopoulos, Quantum Theory: A Foundational Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    C. Anastopoulos, Quantum Theory: A Foundational Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy, Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    2012

  60. [68]

    T. D. Newton and E. P. Wigner Localized States for Elementary Systems , Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 400 (1949)

    1949

  61. [69]

    Le´ on,Time-of-Arrival Formalism for the Relativistic Particle , J

    J. Le´ on,Time-of-Arrival Formalism for the Relativistic Particle , J. Phys A: Math. Gen. 30, 4791 (1997). 30

    1997

  62. [70]

    Kijowski, On the Time Operator in Quantum Mechanics and the Heisenberg Uncer- tainty Relation for Energy and Time , Rep

    J. Kijowski, On the Time Operator in Quantum Mechanics and the Heisenberg Uncer- tainty Relation for Energy and Time , Rep. Math. Phys. 6, 361 (1974)

    1974

  63. [71]

    Wilde, Quantum Information Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    M. Wilde, Quantum Information Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    2013

  64. [72]

    Anastopoulos and N

    C. Anastopoulos and N. Savvidou, Multi-Time Measurements in Hawking Radiation: Information at Higher-Order Correlations , Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 025015 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    Anastopoulos and N

    C. Anastopoulos and N. Savvidou, How Black Holes Store Information in High-Order Correlations, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D29, 2043011 (2020)

    2020

  66. [74]

    Mohageg et al, The Deep Space Quantum Link: Prospective Fundamental Physics Experiments using Long-Baseline Quantum Optics , EPJ Quantum Technol

    M. Mohageg et al, The Deep Space Quantum Link: Prospective Fundamental Physics Experiments using Long-Baseline Quantum Optics , EPJ Quantum Technol. 9, 25 (2022)

    2022

  67. [75]

    Emary, N

    C. Emary, N. Lambert, and Franco Nori, Leggett-Garg Inequalities, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 016001 (2014)

    2014

  68. [76]

    R. M F. Houtappel, H. van Dam, and E. P. Wigner, The Conceptual Basis and Use of the Geometric Invariance Principles , Rev. Mod. Phys. 37, 595 (1965)

    1965

  69. [77]

    G. C. Ghirardi and A. Bassi, Dynamical Reduction Models, Phys. Rep., 379, 257 (2003)

    2003

  70. [78]

    K¨ allen,On the Definition of the Renormalization Constants in Quantum Electrody- namics, Helv

    G. K¨ allen,On the Definition of the Renormalization Constants in Quantum Electrody- namics, Helv. Phys. Acta 25, 417 (1952)

    1952

  71. [79]

    4 ż d3qd3q1d3kd3k1 p2πq64?ωqωq1ωkωk1 ρ2pq, k; q1, k1qe´ipq´q1q¨x1 ˆ

    H. Lehmann, ¨Uber Eigenschaften von Ausbreitungsfunktionen und Renormierungskon- stanten Quantisierter Felder, Nuov. Cim. 11, 342 (1954). A The two-event probability density of Sec. 5 The probability for one measurement event with ˆCpxq“ : ˆϕpxq2 : consists of two terms, each ...

    1954

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.