State updates and useful qubits in relativistic quantum information

Eduardo Mart\'in-Mart\'inez; Jos\'e Polo-G\'omez; T. Rick Perche

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 28 references

State updates and useful qubits in relativistic quantum information

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a multipartite quantum state in spacetime should be replaced by a polyperspective state — a direct sum of local and joint density operators — so that selective measurement updates remain causal…

desk verdict A solid negative result and a clever but incomplete positive construction; the joint-state update rule is a modeling choice that does not predict statistics at a general processing region. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18906 v2 pith:RBZ3RLE7 submitted 2025-06-23 quant-ph gr-qchep-th

José Polo-Gómez , T. Rick Perche , Eduardo Martín-Martínez This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phgr-qchep-th MSC 81P1681P4083C47

keywords relativisticquantuminformationstateupdateselectivemeasurementpolyperspectiveBellcorrelationsconservationofchargecausalstructureentanglement

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

The paper argues that no single density operator can serve as the post-measurement state in relativistic settings: a state updated along the future lightcone of a selective measurement cannot simultaneously yield the local expectation values $\langle\hat{\sigma}_{z,a}\rangle=1$, $\langle\hat{\sigma}_{z,b}\rangle=0$, and the joint correlation $\langle\hat{\sigma}_{z,a}\otimes\hat{\sigma}_{z,b}\rangle=-1$. To resolve this, the authors propose replacing the multipartite state by a polyperspective state, a direct sum of local density operators for each subsystem plus a joint density operator, so that individual and joint observables are computed from different sectors. Updates are performed by applying measurement maps over the causal pasts of each worldline, which keeps updates covariant, preserves multipartite correlations, and restores conservation of total charge. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a concrete, operational answer to the long-open question of where and how a quantum state changes after a measurement in flat or curved spacetime.

What carries the argument

The central object is the polyperspective state (polystate): the direct-sum object $\tilde{\rho}=\hat{\rho}_a\oplus\hat{\rho}_b\oplus\hat{\rho}_{ab}$ (generalizing to direct sums over all subsets of subsystems), whose summands act as superselection sectors separating individual observables from joint observables. The load-bearing mechanism is the family of completely positive maps $\Psi_S$ that implement all transformations, including time evolution and selective measurements, inside a causally convex set $S$; local states are traced from $\Psi_{J^-(x_i(\tau_i))}$ applied to the initial joint state, and the joint state from $\Psi_{J^-(x_a)\cup J^-(x_b)}$. This is what allows updates to propagate only along causal pasts while keeping enough information to answer both local and joint questions.

What would settle it

In 2D Minkowski spacetime, place two qubits at spacelike-separated events $A=(0,-1)$ and $B=(0,1)$, and perform a transformation at $z=(0,-1/2)$. This $z$ lies in the common past of every point in $J^+(A)\cap J^+(B)$ yet lies in neither $J^-(A)$ nor $J^-(B)$; if that transformation changes the joint statistics observed in a processing region, the polystate built from $J^-(A)\cup J^-(B)$ misses it, directly falsifying the central prescription in Eq. (12).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the state of a multipartite system in spacetime should not be a single density operator but a polyperspective state $\tilde{\rho}_{ab}(\tau_a,\tau_b)=\hat{\rho}_a(\tau_a)\oplus\hat{\rho}_b(\tau_b)\oplus\hat{\rho}_{ab}(\tau_a,\tau_b)$, with local sectors for individual observables and a joint sector for joint observables. The joint sector is obtained by applying the transformation map $\Psi_S$ over the union of causal pasts $J^-(x_a(\tau_a))\cup J^-(x_b(\tau_b))$, while each local sector uses only the causal past of the corresponding worldline. In the Bell-pair example, after Alice measures $\hat{\sigma}_z$ and obtains $+1$, the polystate is $|0_a\rangle\langle0_a|\oplus \frac12 \mathbb{1}_b\oplus |0_a1_b\rangle\langle0_a1_b|$, which simultaneously satisfies Eqs. (2) and (3). The authors further argue that this resolves the Aharonov-Albert charge-conservation objection because total charge is a non-local observable evaluated with the joint sector, while local charge densities are evaluated with the local sectors, so the apparent violation in Eq. (18) is expected rather than pathological.

Load-bearing premise

The framework hangs on the assumption that the joint sector of the polystate, built from the union of the two causal pasts, carries everything a later joint-processing region can know, yet the paper's own footnote concedes that this union need not equal the common past of all processing regions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In any Bell-pair scenario with spacelike-separated measurements, predictions for local and joint observables no longer conflict; the polystate in Eq. (14) reproduces both Eqs. (2) and (3).
The update rule is covariant by construction: it uses only the causal structure of spacetime, so no foliation or preferred frame enters the definition of the state.
Total charge conservation is restored: local charge densities use the local sectors, the total charge on a leaf uses the joint sector, and the inequality in Eq. (18) is an expected feature rather than a violation.
The framework extends to $n$ subsystems by a direct sum over all subset tensor products, with each subset state built from the union of the relevant causal pasts, as shown in Appendix A.
The formalism connects to observer-dependent states: a maximally-informed observer at $x\in M$ uses $\hat{\rho}(x)=\Psi_{J^-(x)}(\hat{\rho}_0)/\operatorname{Tr}[\Psi_{J^-(x)}(\hat{\rho}_0)]$, recovering a one-time-parameter description along any worldline.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the polystate replaces a single state with several, it effectively makes 'the state of the system' relative to a set of questions; a natural test is whether the same construction can be certified operationally in an EPR experiment without assuming post-selection.
The formalism suggests that a fully predictive relativistic quantum theory may need to treat joint observables as primitive, not as products of local ones, which could change how entanglement measures are defined for spatially separated systems.
The gap between $J^-(x_a)\cup J^-(x_b)$ and the common past of all processing regions is a concrete place to look for a limitation: if a transformation in that gap affects joint predictions, the polystate prescription would need an extra sector or a different joint-state rule.
The same direct-sum structure might be adapted to quantum field theory by choosing $\Psi_S$ to be local measurement maps of the type used in algebraic quantum field theory, extending the framework from fixed qubit trajectories to fields.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

This is the first paper I've seen that takes the Bell-pair state-update obstruction seriously and builds a formalism around it rather than hand-waving. The negative result - that no single density operator can satisfy both local expectation values (2) and the joint correlation (3) after a future-lightcone update - is airtight and worth having on record. The polyperspective state, a direct sum of local and joint density operators with independent update rules, is a genuine extension of the usual observer-dependent frameworks, and the Bell pair, EPR, and foliation examples are computed cleanly. The statistical-ensemble reading (Bob's local state is the unconditional ensemble before he hears Alice's result; the joint state is the postselected one) is a helpful clarification.

The soft spots are real, though. The joint-state update in Eq. (12) assigns the joint sector the result of applying Psi to the union of the two causal pasts. But that union is not the causal past of any actual processing region in generic spacetimes, as the authors themselves admit in footnote 7. The stress-test example with a third system in a GHZ state makes the problem concrete: a selective measurement at a point spacelike to both A and B but in the past of the processing region P changes the joint statistics at P, yet Eq. (12) does not see it. So the "fully predictive" claim is too strong; the joint sector is a modeling choice, not a consequence of causal structure. The charge-conservation resolution has a similar flavor - total charge is assigned to the joint sector, so the resolution is definitional. And the QFT extension (Eqs. 15-17) is only sketched; the existence and composition of the maps Psi_S for arbitrary causally convex sets is assumed.

None of this kills the paper. The negative result stands, and the formalism is a useful starting point. But the authors should either prove a stronger statement about which processing regions their joint state covers, or weaken the claims. As it stands, this is a solid, serious paper for the RQI community that deserves careful refereeing.

I'd accept it for peer review and ask for revisions that address the operational footing of Eq. (12).

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that no standard single-density-operator update rule can simultaneously satisfy, in a relativistic setting, (i) full predictivity for both local and joint observables and (ii) the causal propagation of information, and that such update rules also run into the Aharonov-Albert charge-conservation problem. It proposes a 'polyperspective state' consisting of a direct sum of local density operators and a joint density operator, with local sectors updated along the casual past of each trajectory and the joint sector updated along the union of those causal pasts. The authors show that this construction reproduces the expected correlations in a Bell-pair scenario and in an EPR test, and they claim that it resolves the conservation-of-charge issue and generalizes to quantum field theory.

Significance. The impossibility argument based on Eqs. (2)-(3) is correct and cleanly exposes the tension between local and joint predictions after a spacelike measurement. The explicit Bell-pair polystate in Eq. (14) and the EPR-test calculation in App. B are concrete, parameter-free, and internally consistent, and they demonstrate that the proposed direct-sum structure can encode the intended correlations. The paper is a useful contribution to the discussion of relativistic state updates. However, the strongest advertised implications — full predictivity, resolution of charge conservation, and applicability beyond the qubit toy model — depend on the specific choice of the joint-sector update in Eq. (12), and that choice is not derived from causal structure in general.

major comments (3)

[Polyperspective formalism, Eq. (12) and footnote 7] The joint sector is defined by Ψ_{J^-(x_a(τ_a)) ∪ J^-(x_b(τ_b))}(ρ_ab), but the state relevant to a processing region P is Ψ_{J^-(P)}(ρ_ab). In general J^-(P) is strictly larger than the union, as footnote 7 concedes. For example, in 1+1 Minkowski spacetime with x_a=(-1,1), x_b=(-1,-1) and P=(0,0), the point z=(-1/2,0) lies in J^-(P) and is spacelike to both x_a and x_b; a selective measurement on a third system initially GHZ-correlated with A and B at z changes the joint statistics available at P, yet Eq. (12) (and its n-partite generalization, Eq. (A4)) ignores z. Thus the joint sector is not generally the state of any actual processing region unless J^-(P) coincides with the union, which footnote 7 states happens only in special spacetimes such as R×S^1. The 'fully predictive' claim and the conservation-law resolution therefore rest on a modeling choice rather than on causal structure unless an additional physical principle is supplied.
[Final section, around Eq. (18)] The statement that the expectation value of the total charge, ⟨Q(t)⟩_z ≡ Tr[ρ_z(τ(t)) Q(t)], 'is conserved for all z(τ)' is asserted rather than proved. Conservation requires that the maps Ψ_{J^-(z(τ))} preserve the total charge operator Q(t). The ideal measurements in the Bell example do commute with the total charge, but the general claim is not established and would fail for arbitrary transformations in the causal past. A proof of charge conservation under the assumed dynamics, or an explicit statement that charge-preserving maps are part of the definition, is needed for the conservation-law resolution to be load-bearing.
[Eqs. (15)-(17)] The extension to quantum fields presumes that completely positive maps Ψ_S exist and compose consistently for every causally convex set S. This is a nontrivial condition in QFT and is not proved in the manuscript; the qubit examples are finite-dimensional and do not by themselves justify the field-theoretic generalization. Since the conclusions advertise direct implications for quantum field theory, either a proof or a clear restriction of the claims to the qubit setting is required.

minor comments (4)

[Footnote 2] The word 'wordline' appears where 'worldline' is intended; please correct the spelling.
[Appendix C, foliation Ξ paragraph] In the sentence beginning 'given that s_a ≤ s < s_b', the expression Tr_a(ρ_Ξ(t)) should refer to the Ξ-foliation parameter s rather than t, i.e., Tr_a(ρ_Ξ(s)).
[Eq. (18)] The subscript ̃ρ on the expectation value is nonstandard; please define it explicitly, since the left-hand side is computed with ρ_Σ(t) and the right-hand side with ρ(x).
[Abstract and App. A] Calling the construction a 'minimal extension' is potentially misleading because App. A shows that an n-partite polystate contains 2^n − 1 sectors; if 'minimal' is meant in the sense of one state per ordered subset, this should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Bell correlations and charge conservation are put into the polystate by definition (Eqs. (12) and (18)); no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations, but the central consistency claims are not independent derivations.

self definitional [Polyperspective formalism, Eqs. (10)-(12) and (14); Bell-pair example]
"The joint state assigned to A and B should account only for transformations within both of their causal pasts, therefore ρ̂ab(τa,τb)∝Ψ_{J−(xa(τa))∪J−(xb(τb))}(ρ̂ab). ... Eqs. (10)–(12) imply that the polystate at the time of the measurement τa∗ is ρ̃(τa∗,τb)=|0a⟩⟨0a|⊕1/2 1b⊕|0a1b⟩⟨0a1b|, for any τb∈(τb−,τb+). This state correctly reproduces the expectation values in Eqs. (2)–(3)."

The joint sector ρ̂ab is defined by applying Ψ over the union of the two causal pasts, and Ψ is defined in Eq. (13) to project onto |0a⟩ when Alice's measurement lies in S. For τa≥τa∗, that measurement lies in J−(xa(τa)), so Eq. (12) forces ρ̂ab=|0a1b⟩⟨0a1b|, which by construction gives ⟨σz,a⊗σz,b⟩=−1. Thus the preservation of multipartite correlations in the Bell example is not a consequence derived from causal structure; it is baked into the definition of the joint sector. The example is a consistency check of the definitions, not an independent prediction.
self definitional [Covariance and conservation of charges, around Eq. (18)]
"The violation of the conservation of electric charge identified in [17] ... is resolved in the polyperspective formalism by realizing that the charge density q̂(x) is a local operator, while the total charge of the system in a particular leaf, Q̂(t)=∫Σt dΣ q̂(x), is a non-local operator. As a consequence, in this formalism the density operators used to compute the expectation values ⟨q̂(x)⟩, and the one used to compute ⟨Q̂(t)⟩, are generically different."

The 'resolution' of the Aharonov-Albert objection consists in stipulating that local charges are evaluated in the individual sectors while the total charge is evaluated in the joint sector. Inequality (18) then follows immediately from the sector decomposition of the polystate, and charge conservation becomes the statement that the joint-sector state evolves under the chosen Ψ. This is a modeling choice about which state to use for which observable, not a derivation that the total charge is conserved in any pre-existing sense. The paper is explicit about the distinction, so the move is transparent but definitional.

full rationale

No parameters are fitted and no empirical claim is tested, so there is no fitted-input circularity. Self-citations ([7], [24]) are used only to connect to earlier observer-dependent frameworks and are not load-bearing. The central limitation is definitional: the paper constructs the polystate so that local sectors give Eqs. (2) and the joint sector gives Eq. (3), and then verifies that these definitions reproduce the desired values. Likewise, the charge-conservation result is obtained by assigning the total-charge expectation to the joint sector rather than to a single density operator. These are explicit design choices, so the paper is not hiding a fit; however, the advertised properties 'preserves multipartite correlations' and 'respects conservation laws' are consequences of the definitions rather than independent results. Footnote 7 further concedes that the joint-state prescription uses the union of individual pasts, which is generally strictly smaller than the common past of all processing regions; this weakens the 'fully predictive' claim as a statement about causal structure, but it is a stated assumption, not a circular one. On balance, the framework is self-contained and explicitly constructed, with partial definitional circularity in the central consistency claims, but no empirical or self-citation circularity.

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

No free parameters are fitted; the examples use exact states and CP maps. The axioms are mostly standard causal structure plus the paper-specific postulates of separate local and joint sectors and the union-of-pasts joint-state rule. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)

standard math Globally hyperbolic spacetime causal structure: causal pasts and future/past lightcones are defined covariantly, with no preferred foliation.
Invoked in the Bell-pair setup and in footnote 1 to justify why only lightcone hypersurfaces are covariant update surfaces.
domain assumption Selective measurements in spacetime can be represented by completely positive maps Psi_S defined on any causally convex region S, with consistent composition under inclusion.
Eqs. (8)-(12) and Appendix A rely on Psi_S encoding all transformations in S; for QFT this is the nontrivial Fewster-Verch construction, while here it is assumed for qubits.
ad hoc to paper Individual and joint observables are operationally distinct, so they may be assigned different density operators in a direct-sum superselection structure.
This is the core postulate of the polyperspective formalism (Eqs. (4)-(6)); it dissolves the contradiction in Eqs. (2)-(3), but it is not derived from standard quantum mechanics.
ad hoc to paper The joint state for future processing is Psi_{J^-(x_a) union J^-(x_b)}, not the common past of all processing regions.
Eq. (12) defines this; footnote 7 admits the two differ in general spacetimes, so this is a modeling choice.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of State updates and useful qubits in relativistic quantum information." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RBZ3RLE7

@misc{pith2026250618906,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: State updates and useful qubits in relativistic quantum information},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RBZ3RLE7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18906}
}

read the original abstract

We address the longstanding challenge of consistently updating quantum states after selective measurements in a relativistic spacetime. Standard updates along the future lightcones preserve causality but break correlations between causally disconnected parties, whereas updates along the past lightcone either imply retrocausality or do not respect the causal propagation of information. We introduce a minimal extension of multipartite states to encode subsystem-specific contextual information. This "polyperspective" formalism ensures causally consistent covariant state updates, preserves multipartite correlations, and respects conservation laws.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18906 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. A scenario where Alice and Bob perform spacelike measurements at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

L¨ uders, Concerning the state-change due to the mea- surement process, Ann

G. L¨ uders, Concerning the state-change due to the mea- surement process, Ann. Phys. (Berl.)15, 663 (1951)

work page 1951
[2]

before” Bob’s, according to the time parameters, but “after

When Alice measures ˆσz atτ a =τ∗ a and obtains a +1 outcome, the spacetime-dependent maps encoding this transformation are given by Eq. (13), ΨS(ˆρ) = ( ˆρifx a(τ∗ a )/∈S, |0a⟩⟨0a|ˆρ|0a⟩⟨0a|ifx a(τ∗ a )∈S. (B1) From Eqs. (10)–(12), the complete description of the (time-dependent) polystate is given by ˜ρ(τa,τ b) =    1 2 1a⊕ 1 2 1b⊕|Ψ +⟩⟨Ψ+|...

work page
[3]

Jubb, Causal state updates in real scalar quantum field theory, Phys

I. Jubb, Causal state updates in real scalar quantum field theory, Phys. Rev. D105, 025003 (2022)

work page 2022
[4]

Albertini and I

E. Albertini and I. Jubb, Are Ideal Measurements of Real Scalar Fields Causal? (2023), arXiv:2306.12980 [quant- ph]

arXiv 2023
[5]

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

work page 2020
[6]

C. J. Fewster, A Generally Covariant Measurement Scheme for Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space- times, inProgress and Visions in Quantum Theory in View of Gravity(Springer International Publishing,

work page
[7]

A. R. H. Smith,Detectors, Reference Frames, and Time (Springer International Publishing, 2019)

work page 2019
[8]

Polo-G´ omez, L

J. Polo-G´ omez, L. J. Garay, and E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, A detector-based measurement theory for quantum field theory, Phys. Rev. D105, 065003 (2022)

work page 2022

Show all 28 references

[9]

Maeso-Garc´ ıa, J

H. Maeso-Garc´ ıa, J. Polo-G´ omez, and E. Mart´ ın- Mart´ ınez, How measuring a quantum field affects entan- glement harvesting, Phys. Rev. D107, 045011 (2023)

2023
[10]

Grimmer, I

D. Grimmer, I. Melgarejo-Lermas, J. Polo-G´ omez, and E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, Decoding quantum field theory with machine learning, J. High Energy Phys.2023(8), 31

2023
[11]

Oeckl, A Positive Formalism for Quantum Theory in the General Boundary Formulation, Found

R. Oeckl, A Positive Formalism for Quantum Theory in the General Boundary Formulation, Found. Phys.43, 1206 (2013)

2013
[12]

Oeckl, A local and operational framework for the foun- dations of physics, Adv

R. Oeckl, A local and operational framework for the foun- dations of physics, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.23, 437 (2019)

2019
[13]

Oeckl, Spectral decomposition of field operators and causal measurement in quantum field theory, J

R. Oeckl, Spectral decomposition of field operators and causal measurement in quantum field theory, J. Math. Phys.66, 042302 (2025)

2025
[14]

Oeckl and A

R. Oeckl and A. Zampeli, Towards local and compo- sitional measurements in quantum field theory (2025), arXiv:2505.10968 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[15]

R. D. Sorkin, Impossible Measurements on Quantum Fields (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9302018

1993 arXiv
[16]

Aharonov and D

Y. Aharonov and D. Z. Albert, Can we make sense out 10 of the measurement process in relativistic quantum me- chanics?, Phys. Rev. D24, 359 (1981)

1981
[17]

K. E. Hellwig and K. Kraus, Formal Description of Mea- surements in Local Quantum Field Theory, Phys. Rev. D1, 566 (1970)

1970
[18]

Aharonov and D

Y. Aharonov and D. Z. Albert, States and observables in relativistic quantum field theories, Phys. Rev. D21, 3316 (1980)

1980
[19]

C. J. Fewster and R. Verch, Measurement in Quantum Field Theory, inEncyclopedia of Mathematical Physics (Elsevier, 2025) pp. 335–345

2025
[20]

R. M. Wald,General Relativity(Chicago University Press., 1984)

1984
[21]

Pranzini and E

N. Pranzini and E. Keski-Vakkuri, Detector-based mea- surements for QFT: Two issues and an algebraic QFT proposal, Phys. Rev. D111, 045016 (2025)

2025
[22]

C. J. Fewster, Lectures on measurement in quantum field theory (2025), arXiv:2504.17437 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[23]

M. H. Ruep, Weakly coupled local particle detectors can- not harvest entanglement, Class. Quantum Gravity38, 195029 (2021)

2021
[24]

L. E. Ballentine, The statistical interpretation of quan- tum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.42, 358 (1970)

1970
[25]

Polo-G´ omez, L

J. Polo-G´ omez, L. J. Garay, and E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, in preparation
[26]

Malin, Observer dependence of quantum states in rel- ativistic quantum field theories, Phys

S. Malin, Observer dependence of quantum states in rel- ativistic quantum field theories, Phys. Rev. D26, 1330 (1982)

1982
[27]

G lowacki, Towards Relational Quantum Field Theory (2024), arXiv:2405.15455 [quant-ph]

J. G lowacki, Towards Relational Quantum Field Theory (2024), arXiv:2405.15455 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[28]

Relativistic Quantum In- formation

F. Dowker, Useless Qubits in “Relativistic Quantum In- formation” (2011), arXiv:1111.2308 [quant-ph]

2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

L¨ uders, Concerning the state-change due to the mea- surement process, Ann

G. L¨ uders, Concerning the state-change due to the mea- surement process, Ann. Phys. (Berl.)15, 663 (1951)

work page 1951

[2] [2]

before” Bob’s, according to the time parameters, but “after

When Alice measures ˆσz atτ a =τ∗ a and obtains a +1 outcome, the spacetime-dependent maps encoding this transformation are given by Eq. (13), ΨS(ˆρ) = ( ˆρifx a(τ∗ a )/∈S, |0a⟩⟨0a|ˆρ|0a⟩⟨0a|ifx a(τ∗ a )∈S. (B1) From Eqs. (10)–(12), the complete description of the (time-dependent) polystate is given by ˜ρ(τa,τ b) =    1 2 1a⊕ 1 2 1b⊕|Ψ +⟩⟨Ψ+|...

work page

[3] [3]

Jubb, Causal state updates in real scalar quantum field theory, Phys

I. Jubb, Causal state updates in real scalar quantum field theory, Phys. Rev. D105, 025003 (2022)

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Albertini and I

E. Albertini and I. Jubb, Are Ideal Measurements of Real Scalar Fields Causal? (2023), arXiv:2306.12980 [quant- ph]

arXiv 2023

[5] [5]

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

work page 2020

[6] [6]

C. J. Fewster, A Generally Covariant Measurement Scheme for Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space- times, inProgress and Visions in Quantum Theory in View of Gravity(Springer International Publishing,

work page

[7] [7]

A. R. H. Smith,Detectors, Reference Frames, and Time (Springer International Publishing, 2019)

work page 2019

[8] [8]

Polo-G´ omez, L

J. Polo-G´ omez, L. J. Garay, and E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, A detector-based measurement theory for quantum field theory, Phys. Rev. D105, 065003 (2022)

work page 2022