Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Measuring a quantum system without problems

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A fully quantum, unitary measurement scheme for σ_z becomes a sharp, projective readout in the semiclassical limit ε→0, with quantified accuracy |ln ε|^{-1/2}.

desk verdict The paper gives a rigorous and detailed semiclassical construction of a measurement scheme that converges to a sharp, projective classical measurement only in the ε→0 limit; the main theorem is likely correct, but the abstract's 'overcoming the measurement problem' overstates what is proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.21211 v2 pith:XIHWASKB submitted 2026-06-19 math-ph math.MP

Marco Falconi , Clotilde Fermanian Kammerer , Raphaël Gautier This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.MP MSC 81P1581Q2035Q41
keywords quantummeasurementproblemno-gotheoremsemiclassicallimitspin-bosonmodelcoherentstatesadiabaticapproximationprojectiveBornrule
topics The Measurement Problem
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 claims that the measurement problem's no-go theorem can be bypassed without abandoning unitary quantum dynamics. For a two-level system with observable σ_z, it constructs a fully quantum probe — a quantized scalar field prepared in a coherent state and adiabatically coupled by a spin-boson Hamiltonian — whose post-interaction state converges, as the semiclassical parameter ε→0, to a classical mixture of two distinct field configurations with exactly the Born probabilities. The scheme is projective and sharp, and the convergence is quantified: the error is at most C/|ln ε|^{1/2}. If correct, this is the first rigorous demonstration that a measurement with an objective pointer readout can emerge from the unitary evolution of an isolated quantum system, provided one accepts the asymptotic limit as the resolution.

What carries the argument

The spin-boson Hamiltonian H_ε(g)=σ_z⊗1+1⊗dΓ_ε(-Δ)+gσ_x⊗φ_ε(g) (a two-level system coupled to a massless scalar field with ε-scaled canonical commutation relations). Through adiabatic and superadiabatic projectors, the evolution decomposes into two modes, each carrying a squeezed coherent state centered on a classical trajectory u_±(t) solving the nonlinear Schrödinger-type equation (2.3). The trajectories scatter to distinct asymptotic states u^∞_± separated by order g²; the amplitude of the cross terms between the two coherent wave packets decays like e^{-C/ε}, which is what makes the limit a classical mixture. The accuracy bound follows from splitting the error into five terms D₁–D₅ captu

What would settle it

Numerically propagate the spin-boson dynamics for decreasing ε with t_ε = c|ln ε| and compute the distance d_{κ₁,κ₂} defined in Theorem 2.8: if the error does not decrease like |ln ε|^{-1/2}, or if the cross-term D_3 fails to decay exponentially when u^∞_+ and u^∞_- are separated, the accuracy theorem fails. A second check: prepare the probe with Re⟨u,g⟩≠0 and see whether projectiveness is lost; the theorem predicts it should be.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 1.9 states that there exists a projective and sharp semiclassical measurement scheme M_{ε→0} for O=σ_z, accurate at least of order |ln ε|^{-1/2}. The von Neumann part consists of a two-level system coupled to a bosonic field in a coherent state |u_ε⟩; the measurement coupling is the interaction-picture spin-boson evolution at time t_ε=O(|ln ε|). Theorems 2.6 and 2.8 show that for small coupling g and initial fields u with Re⟨u,g⟩=0, the final state converges in the sense of Fourier transforms to p_+(ϱ)|+⟩⟨+|δ_{u^∞_+}+p_-(ϱ)|-⟩⟨-|δ_{u^∞_-}, where u^∞_+≠u^∞_-; the distances are bounded by C(κ₁,κ₂)/|ln ε|^{1/2}. This realizes von Neumann's scheme as a concrete unitary model whose classi

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that weak, asymptotic convergence to a classical pointer in the limit ε→0 counts as solving the measurement problem; for every realized ε>0 the probe is still a coherent superposition with exponentially small cross terms, so no single-run definite outcome ever occurs in an actual experiment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any observable on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space can, in principle, be measured by the same construction, since Theorem 1.9's argument adapts from C² to C^n.
  • For a fixed experimental realization at ε>0, the scheme is not perfectly sharp: the pointer retains exponentially small but nonzero superposition, and the ideal outcome appears only as ε→0.
  • The measured probabilities are exactly the Born probabilities p_±(ϱ), and a readout collapses the two-level system to the corresponding eigenstate, in the sense of the limiting instrument.
  • The readout time t_ε grows only logarithmically in 1/ε, so a very small ε is achievable by placing detectors sufficiently far away; the error shrinks as |ln ε|^{-1/2}.
  • The scheme complies with the measurement axioms and unitarity: it does not modify quantum mechanics, only takes a limit of it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The resolution is entirely asymptotic: at any fixed ε>0 the total state is still a pure superposition, so a philosopher or experimentalist demanding a definite single-run outcome at finite ε will not find one; the paper itself concedes M_0 is never realized exactly.
  • The orthogonality condition Re⟨u,g⟩=0 is a fine-tuning of the probe: if it is violated, the initial projectors no longer equal |±⟩⟨±|, and the scheme's projectiveness is expected to degrade; a natural robustness test is to compute how the error bound worsens as this quantity is detuned.
  • The convergence is in a weak topology on Fourier-transformed states, not in trace norm; at finite ε the probe state and the classical mixture are therefore very different as physical states, which suggests that the 'objectivity' achieved is tied to the choice of macroscopic readout rather than to the full quantum state.
  • An analogous construction for continuous-spectrum observables would likely require new ideas, as the paper notes; a first test case would be a harmonic-oscillator probe measuring position, where the two classical trajectories would have to split without a gap.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new notion of a 'semiclassical measurement scheme' M_{ε→0} = (M_ε; M_0), where M_ε is a von Neumann-type triple (H_Pε, ςε, Uε) and M_0 is a Bohr-type classical scheme. For a two-level system with O = σ_z, the authors construct M_ε through a spin-boson Hamiltonian and prove that, as ε→0, the unitary evolution of ϱ ⊗ |u_ε⟩⟨u_ε| converges in the Fourier-transform sense to p_+(ϱ)|+⟩⟨+|δ_{u^∞_+} + p_-(ϱ)|−⟩⟨−|δ_{u^∞_-}, with u^∞_+ ≠ u^∞_- and error O(|ln ε|^{-1/2}). The proof combines superadiabatic projectors (§3.2), adiabatic propagation of squeezed coherent states (Prop. 2.7 and 3.6), scattering and asymptotic splitting of the classical trajectories u_±(t) (§4.1), and a five-term decomposition D_1–D_5 of the distance (§4.2). The paper concludes that this realizes a projective and sharp measurement scheme and thereby overcomes the measurement problem.

Significance. Taken as a theorem about an asymptotic quantum-to-classical transition in a concrete spin-boson model, the mathematical result is strong and original. The construction is explicit, the rate |ln ε|^{-1/2} is quantitative, the Born weights are computed rather than imposed, and the proof is detailed. This is a valuable rigorous contribution to the semiclassical analysis of measurement-type couplings. However, the foundational interpretation is substantially more fragile than the abstract suggests: the scheme is projective and sharp only in the ε→0 Bohr limit, and the finite-ε object is not a measurement scheme in the sense of Definition 1.1. The claim to 'overcome' the no-go theorem is therefore not supported at any realized ε>0.

major comments (3)
  1. [§1.3, Definition 1.8 and Definition 2.2] The central object M_ε is a triple (H_Pε, ςε, Uε) with no pointer observable Z, so it is not a measurement scheme under Definition 1.1. Projectiveness and sharpness are defined only for the limiting Bohr scheme M_0 (Definition 1.8), and the no-go theorem (Theorem 1.5) concerns schemes that do include a pointer observable. Thus Theorem 1.9 does not exhibit a finite-ε projective readable measurement; it exhibits a family of unitary evolutions whose weak limit is a classical projective scheme. The authors themselves state in §2.5 that M_0 cannot be realized exactly. The abstract's claim of overcoming the measurement problem is therefore not established for any realized ε>0; at most one obtains an asymptotic resolution in a redefined sense.
  2. [Theorem 2.8 and Definition 2.4] The accuracy statement is in the sense of Fourier transforms against K ⊗ e^{iφ_ε(ξ)}, i.e. a weak, test-function-dependent topology on the Weyl algebra. It is not a trace-norm or operational distance, and the family d_{κ1,κ2} is not a metric on states. In particular, the exponential suppression of off-diagonal coherences (D_3, Lemma 4.5) and the |ln ε|^{-1/2} rate are statements about this weak convergence. Without a finite-ε pointer observable or POVM, the theorem does not control the probabilities of any concrete detector readout. To support the word 'objective readout', the authors should either add a finite-ε pointer observable and bound the induced probability error, or explicitly qualify the result as an asymptotic, weak-topology statement.
  3. [Lemma 4.5 (D_3 bound)] The exponential bound D_3(ε,t_ε) ≤ C_5∥K∥ e^{-C_6/ε} is a load-bearing estimate: it is the term that suppresses interference between the two branches. The proof is relegated to a reference to the standard theory of squeezed coherent states ([16, §3.2 and §8.5]) without a derivation. Since the states here are time-dependent squeezed coherent states with ε-dependent parameters, and since the separation ∥u_+(t_ε)-u_-(t_ε)∥ enters in the exponent, I would like to see the explicit computation or a precise proposition with hypotheses. This is fixable, but it is a central technical point.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Lemma 3.3, Remark (i)] The expression is written as 'λ_±^ε ± ε(Λ_{-+}^ε − Λ_{-+}^ε)' with two identical terms; almost certainly one should be Λ_{+-}^ε. Please correct.
  2. [§2.2, Eq. (2.2)-adjacent line] The notation '1 + 2g^2 Re⟨u,g⟩_2^2' is ambiguous; it should be '1 + 2g^2 (Re⟨u,g⟩_2)^2' or similar.
  3. [References] Reference [6] has a garbled title: 'Coherent states and applications in mathematical physics, 2nd edition' appears to be merged with 'Fourier Analysis and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations'. Please check the bibliography formatting.
  4. [Abstract and §2.5] The abstract says the paper 'overcomes this century-old problem' while the final bullet of §2.5 concedes 'within an accuracy of order 1/|ln ε|^{1/2}'. These formulations should be reconciled; the theorem is an asymptotic result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the convergence theorem is derived by independent estimates; the 'overcoming the no-go theorem' claim is definitional/asymptotic but not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The central content is Theorem 2.8, obtained from independent quantitative ingredients: adiabatic propagation of coherent states (Prop. 2.7, Lemma 3.7, Prop. 3.6), scattering and trajectory splitting (Props. 4.1–4.2), and the explicit error bounds D1–D5 (Lemmas 4.3–4.7). The Born weights p±(ϱ)=⟨±,ϱ±⟩ are not fitted: Prop. 2.7 shows the initial coefficients |α±|² are carried through the adiabatic modes, and Lemma 4.7 shows the projectors π^t_± converge to |±⟩⟨±|. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations [17,18] appear as motivation and to set up the state-valued-measure formalism; the proof of convergence uses the external results [4] and [16] plus novel estimates in this paper, so self-citation is not load-bearing. The only definitional aspect is Def. 1.8, where projectiveness/sharpness of the semiclassical scheme is defined through the limiting Bohr scheme M0, and the concrete M0 is chosen with a projective and sharp m[ϱ,u]. Thus the claim of 'overcoming the measurement problem' holds only asymptotically in a newly defined sense, not for any finite-ε von Neumann scheme; this is explicitly acknowledged in §2.5 ('we can never realize, in a real experiment, the scheme M0 exactly'). That is a foundational/adequacy limitation rather than a circular derivation.

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

No new physical entities are postulated: the probe is a standard scalar bosonic field on a Fock space, the system is a two-level spin, and state-valued measures are a mathematical reformulation of quantum/classical hybrid states, not new degrees of freedom. The central claim rests on the standard QM axioms (unitarity, Born rule for the initial weights) plus the choice to interpret a weak semiclassical limit as classicality — the latter is the load-bearing interpretive assumption. The 'free parameters' are regime/modeling choices (small g, generic u) that do not tune the conclusion.

free parameters (5)
  • coupling constant g = 0 < |g| < g₀ (g₀ > 0 asserted to exist, value not given)
    Regime parameter: Theorems 2.6/2.8 and Proposition 4.1 hold for sufficiently small coupling. It is not tuned to force the outcome — the same conclusion holds for every small g.
  • initial field configuration u (coherent-state center) = any u ∈ L²∩L^{6/5} with Re⟨u,g⟩=0 and ∃t: Re⟨e^{itΔ}u,g⟩≠0
    Modeling choice for the probe pulse. The orthogonality condition is chosen to make the limiting scheme projective (§2.4, authors call it 'technical but crucial'); the splitting condition is generic.
  • charge distribution g (coupling form factor) = g ∈ S(R³) (or L²∩Ḣ^{-1} for self-adjointness)
    Modeling choice defining the field coupling; appears in the classical trajectories (2.3) and affects the Strichartz smallness conditions in §4.1.
  • measurement time t_ε = t_ε = -(ln ε)/(2C₂+2C₄)
    Chosen to balance the exponential error terms (√ε e^{Ct_ε}) against the polynomial t_ε^{-1/2} terms in Theorem 2.8; derived from the bounds, not fitted to data.
  • semiclassical parameter ε = ε → 0
    The resolution parameter of the scheme; physically ε ~ 1/N_probe (mean particle number). The headline accuracy |ln ε|^{-1/2} and all convergence statements depend on it.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Standard von Neumann measurement formalism (schemes, instruments, projectiveness) as in [13]
    Definition 1.1 and the instrument/projective definitions in §1.1; the whole paper is framed inside this textbook formalism.
  • domain assumption Born rule for the initial system state: p_±(ϱ) = ⟨±, ϱ±⟩
    Definition 2.3 sets the weights of the limit mixture equal to the Born probabilities; the dynamics preserves these weights rather than deriving them from a deeper principle. This is the standard quantum-mechanical input any measurement scheme must reproduce.
  • domain assumption Fourier-transform (Heisenberg-group) convergence is the right notion of quantum-to-classical transition
    Definition 2.4 and the Remark after Definition 1.8 (the authors are 'purposefully vague' about alternatives such as decoherence). The 'objective readout' interpretation rests on this choice of topology.
  • domain assumption A sharp classical-pointer configuration (injective x(λ)) constitutes an objective readout
    Definition 1.6 and the discussion preceding it; this is the Bohr-scheme interpretation that carries the 'solution of the measurement problem' claim.
  • standard math Standard semiclassical/Fock-space machinery: coherent-state convergence, superadiabatic projectors [16,46], Strichartz estimates [6]
    Invoked throughout §3–4 (Lemmas 3.5, 3.7; Proposition 4.1); these are published external results or proved in the paper (Lemma 3.3, Lemma A.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measuring a quantum system without problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XIHWASKB

@misc{pith2026260621211,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measuring a quantum system without problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XIHWASKB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.21211}
}
read the original abstract

The process of measuring quantum observables has been plagued, since the inception of quantum mechanics, by the so-called measurement problem: it is impossible to read a definite outcome on a quantum scale. In its mathematical formulation, the problem takes the form of a no-go theorem, preventing the realization of quantum mechanical measurement schemes that comply both with the measurement and unitarity axioms. Building upon the idea of measurement that dates back to the early days of quantum mechanics, we overcome this century-old problem by proving the existence of a measurement scheme in which the probe (a quantized field) undergoes a quantifiable semiclassical transition, thus allowing, within error limits, for both an objective readout of the measuring device and the compliance with measurement axioms.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Ammari and S

    Z. Ammari and S. Breteaux. Propagation of chaos for many-boson systems in one dimension with a point pair-interaction.Asymptotic Analysis, 76(3-4):123–170, 2012

    2012

  2. [2]

    Ammari and M

    Z. Ammari and M. Falconi. Wigner measures approach to the classical limit of the Nelson model: Convergence of dynamics and ground state energy.J. Stat. Phys., 157(2):330–362, 2014

    2014

  3. [3]

    Ammari and M

    Z. Ammari and M. Falconi. Bohr’s correspondence principle for the renormalized Nelson model.SIAM J. Math. Anal., 49(6):5031–5095, 2017

    2017

  4. [4]

    Ammari and F

    Z. Ammari and F. Nier. Mean field limit for bosons and infinite dimensional phase-space analysis.Annales Henri Poincar´ e, 9(8):1503–1574, 2008

    2008

  5. [5]

    Arai.Analysis on Fock spaces and mathematical theory of quantum fields: An introduction to mathematical analysis of quantum fields

    A. Arai.Analysis on Fock spaces and mathematical theory of quantum fields: An introduction to mathematical analysis of quantum fields. World Scientific, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    Bahouri, J.-Y

    H. Bahouri, J.-Y. Chemin, and R. Danchin.Coherent states and applications in mathematical physics, 2nd editionFourier Analysis and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

    2011

  7. [7]

    Bekka and P

    B. Bekka and P. de la Harpe.Unitary representations of groups, duals, and characters, volume 250 ofMathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    V. P. Belavkin. On the Dynamical Solution of Quantum Measurement Problem.ArXiv e-prints, 2005. arXiv: 0512187[quant-ph]

    2005

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    E. G. Beltrametti, G. Cassinelli, and P. J. Lahti. Unitary measurements of discrete quantities in quantum mechanics.J. Math. Phys., 31(1):91–98, 1990

    1990

  2. [10]

    Born and R

    M. Born and R. Oppenheimer. Zur quantentheorie der molekeln.Ann. der Phys. (4), 84:457– 484, 1927

    1927

  3. [11]

    H. Brown. The insolubility proof of the quantum measurement problem.Found Phys, 16:857–870, 1986

    1986

  4. [12]

    Bub.Interpreting the quantum world

    J. Bub.Interpreting the quantum world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997

    1997

  5. [13]

    Busch, P

    P. Busch, P. Lahti, J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, and K. Ylinen.Quantum Measurement. Theoretical and Mathematical Physics. Springer Cham, 1 edition, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Busch, P

    P. Busch, P. J. Lahti, and P. Mittelstaedt.The quantum theory of measurement, volume 2 ofLecture Notes in Physics. New Series m: Monographs. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition, 1996

    1996

  7. [15]

    Busch and A

    P. Busch and A. Shimony. Insolubility of the quantum measurement problem for unsharp observables.Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. B Stud. Hist. Philos. Modern Phys., 27(4):397–404 (1997), 1996

    1997

  8. [16]

    Combescure and D

    M. Combescure and D. Robert.Coherent states and applications in mathematical physics, 2nd edition. Theoretical and Mathematical Physics. Springer, Dordrecht, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Correggi, M

    M. Correggi, M. Falconi, and M. Olivieri. Ground State Properties in the Quasi-Classical Regime.Anal. PDE, 16(8):1745–1798, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Correggi, M

    M. Correggi, M. Falconi, and M. Olivieri. Quasi-Classical Dynamics.J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS), 25(2):731–783, 2023. MEASURING A QUANTUM SYSTEM WITHOUT PROBLEMS 39

    2023

  11. [19]

    Del Vecchio, J

    S. Del Vecchio, J. Fr¨ ohlich, A. Pizzo, and A. Ranallo. Two results in the quantum theory of measurements. InTrails in modern theoretical and mathematical physics—a volume in tribute to Giovanni Morchio, pages 143–158. Springer, Cham, [2023]©2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    M. J. Everitt, W. J. Munro, and T. P. Spiller. Quantum measurement and the quantum to classical transition in a non-linear quantum oscillator.Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 306(1):012045, 2011

    2011

  13. [21]

    M. Falconi. Self-adjointness criterion for operators in Fock spaces.Math. Phys. Anal. Geom., 18(1):Art. 2, 18, 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    M. Falconi. Cylindrical Wigner measures.Doc. Math., 23:1677–1756, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Fermanian-Kammerer and P

    C. Fermanian-Kammerer and P. G´ erard. Mesures semi-classiques et croisement de modes. Bull. Soc. Math. France, 130(1):123–168, 2002

    2002

  16. [24]

    Fermanian Kammerer and J

    C. Fermanian Kammerer and J. Le Rousseau. Semi-classical analysis.Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics (second edition), Vol. 5 (analysis):47–64, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    A. Fine. Insolubility of the Quantum Measurement Problem.Phys. Rev. D, 2:2783–2787, Dec 1970

    1970

  18. [26]

    Fr¨ ohlich and Z

    J. Fr¨ ohlich and Z. Gang. On the evolution of states in a quantum-mechanical model of experiments.Ann. Henri Poincar´ e, 25(1):535–556, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Fr¨ ohlich, Z

    J. Fr¨ ohlich, Z. Gang, and A. Pizzo. A theory of quantum jumps.Comm. Math. Phys., 406(8):Paper No. 195, 38, 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Fr¨ ohlich and A

    J. Fr¨ ohlich and A. Pizzo. The time-evolution of states in quantum mechanics according to theET H-approach.Comm. Math. Phys., 389(3):1673–1715, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Galkowski, M

    J. Galkowski, M. Zworski, and Z. Huang. Classical-quantum correspondence in Lindblad evolution.J. Math. Phys., 66(9):Paper No. 091503, 33, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    G´ erard and´E

    P. G´ erard and´E. Leichtnam. Ergodic properties of eigenfunctions for the Dirichlet problem. Duke Math. J., 71(2):559–607, 1993

    1993

  23. [31]

    G´ erard, P

    P. G´ erard, P. A. Markowich, N. J. Mauser, and F. Poupaud. Homogenization limits and Wigner transforms.Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 50(4):323–379, 1997

    1997

  24. [32]

    N. Gisin. Quantum measurements and stochastic processes.Phys. Rev. Lett., 52(19):1657– 1660, 1984

    1984

  25. [33]

    Habib, K

    S. Habib, K. Shizume, and W. H. Zurek. Decoherence, chaos, and the correspondence principle.Phys. Rev. Lett., 80(20):4361–4365, 1998

    1998

  26. [34]

    G. A. Hagedorn. Semiclassical quantum mechanics. i. theε→0 limit for coherent states. Comm. Math. Phys., 71, 1980

    1980

  27. [35]

    Hern´ andez, D

    F. Hern´ andez, D. Ranard, and C. J. Riedel. Classical correspondence beyond the Ehrenfest time for open quantum systems with general Lindbladians.Comm. Math. Phys., 406(1):Paper No. 4, 81, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    F. Laudisa. Bohr and von Neumann on the universality of quantum mechanics: materials for the history of the quantum measurement process.Eur. Phys. J. H, 49(20), 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    A. J. Legget and A. Garg. Quantum mechanics versus macroscopic realism: Is the flux there when nobody looks?Phys. Rev. Lett., 54(857), 1985

    1985

  30. [38]

    A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger. Dynamics of the dissipative two-state system.Rev. Mod. Phys., 59:1–85, Jan 1987. Erratum: Rev. Mod. Phys.67(1), 725 (1995)

    1987

  31. [39]

    Lions and T

    P.-L. Lions and T. Paul. Sur les mesures de Wigner.Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana, 9(3):553–618, 1993

    1993

  32. [40]

    L¨ uders.¨Uber die zustands¨ anderung durch den meßprozeß.Ann

    G. L¨ uders.¨Uber die zustands¨ anderung durch den meßprozeß.Ann. Phys. (Leipzig), 443(5– 8):322–328, 1950

    1950

  33. [41]

    Martinez and V

    A. Martinez and V. Sordoni. A general reduction scheme for the time-dependent Born–Oppenheimer approximation.Comptes Rendus, Math´ ematique, 3(334):185–188, 2002. 40 M. F ALCONI, C. FERMANIAN KAMMERER, AND R. GAUTIER

    2002

  34. [42]

    M. Ozawa. Quantum measuring processes of continuous observables.J. Math. Phys., 25(1):79–87, 1984

    1984

  35. [43]

    Quantum measurements and stochastic processes

    P. Pearle. Comment on: “Quantum measurements and stochastic processes” [Phys. Rev. Lett.52(1984), no. 19, 1657–1660; MR0741987 (86d:81005a)] by N. Gisin.Phys. Rev. Lett., 53(18):1775–1776, 1984. With a reply by Gisin

    1984

  36. [44]

    A. Shimony. Approximate measurement in quantum mechanics. II.Phys. Rev. D, 9:2321– 2323, Apr 1974

    1974

  37. [45]

    Spohn and S

    H. Spohn and S. Teufel. Adiabatic decoupling and time-dependent Born-Oppenheimer the- ory.Comm. Math. Phys., 224(1):113–132, 2001. Dedicated to Joel L. Lebowitz

    2001

  38. [46]

    Teufel.Adiabatic perturbation theory in quantum dynamics, volume 1821 ofLecture Notes in Mathematics

    S. Teufel.Adiabatic perturbation theory in quantum dynamics, volume 1821 ofLecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003

    2003

  39. [47]

    von Neumann.Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik

    J. von Neumann.Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 38. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1968. Un- ver¨ anderter Nachdruck der ersten Auflage von 1932. English translation: Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Me...

    1968

  40. [48]

    E. P. Wigner. The problem of measurement.Amer. J. Phys., 31:6–15, 1963

    1963

  41. [49]

    Z. Xu. Quantum-to-classical transition via single-shot generalized measurements.Phys. Rev. A, 113:L060403, 2026

    2026

  42. [50]

    H. D. Zeh. On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory.Found phys, 1:69–76, 1970

    1970

  43. [51]

    W. H. Zurek. Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical–Revisited. S´ eminaire Poincar´ e, 1:1–23, 2005. Politecnico di Milano, D-Mat, P.zza da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy Email address:marco.falconi@polimi.it URL:https://www.mfmat.org/ LAREMA, UMR 6093, Univer...

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.