Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Quantum-to-classical transition and the emergence of trajectory level Darwinism with measurements distributed in time: a path integral approach

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under continuous weak measurement, a single measurement record is exponentially concentrated on the classical trajectory, grounding a trajectory-level quantum Darwinism.

desk verdict The central result is a standard semiclassical measurement amplitude, the appendix contains an unjustified continuum limit that undermines the derivation, and the abstract promises results the body never delivers; still worth a referee's time for the conceptual framing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16889 v2 pith:OFIE4YYP submitted 2025-05-22 quant-ph

Harsh Arora , Bishal Kumar Das , Baladitya Suri , Vaibhav Madhok This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantum-to-classicaltransitionpathintegralcontinuousmeasurementquantumDarwinismback-actiondecoherencesemiclassicalapproximationlevitatedoptomechanics
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 derives a path-integral formula for a quantum system under continuous weak measurement and uses it to argue that individual measurement records can display classical trajectories. The central result, Eq. (20), is a joint amplitude for the measurement record and the final position: the usual semiclassical propagator times a Gaussian that exponentially favors records near the classical path. The authors take this to mean that the classical trajectory is the fixed point of measurement-induced phase scrambling, and that elastic scattering of probes spreads this information through the environment, a trajectory-level version of quantum Darwinism. Because the same momentum kicks that record the path also heat it, the formula sets a ceiling on how many redundant copies of one trajectory can exist before Brownian motion takes over; that crossover is accessible in levitated optomechanics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the joint amplitude $\Phi(r_p; r_f, t_f, r_i,0)$, built from a filter-function path integral for measurements distributed in time. Each Feynman path acquires a random phase from the momentum kick $\Delta K(\tau)\cdot r(\tau)$ delivered by scattered plane-wave probes; expanding around the classical path $r_{\rm cl}$ leaves a Gaussian integral over fluctuations with the usual semiclassical prefactor. The probe integration assumes isotropic elastic scattering, which turns each measurement into a sinc factor, and the continuum limit $\lambda=\alpha\sqrt{\Delta t}$, together with the product representation of the sinc function and $\zeta(2)=\pi^2/6$, converts the product of sincs into the Gaussian exponent of Eq. (20). This chain, semiclassical saddle point, isotropic elastic scattering, and a controlled continuum limit, carries the argument.

What would settle it

Recompute the product of single-measurement factors with the deviations $\delta r(\tau_j)$ scaled as $C(\Delta t)^{\gamma}$ for a range of $\gamma$: if the limiting amplitude is not the Gaussian in Eq. (20) for all physically reasonable $\gamma$, the central result depends on an unstated scaling convention. Experimentally, the predicted conditional record distribution could be tested with a continuously monitored levitated nanoparticle: it should be Gaussian, centered on the classical path, with the width set by the measurement resolution $\alpha$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated in Eq. (20), is that the joint amplitude for the record $r_p(\tau)$ and the final position is $$\Phi = \sqrt{\frac{\$partial^{2}$ S_{\rm cl}}{\partial r_b\,\partial r_a}}\, $e^{{iS_{\rm cl}}$/\hbar}\, \exp\!\left[-\frac{2\$pi^{2}$}{3\$alpha^{2}$}\int d\tau\, \lvert r_p(\tau)-r_{\rm cl}(\tau)\$rvert^{2}$\right],$$ with $\alpha$ the inverse measurement resolution. The meaning is that each individual measurement record is exponentially concentrated on the classical trajectory, so a single record, not just an ensemble, can exhibit classical motion. The paper also claims that the elastic scattering which records the trajectory heats it, so the redundancy of the record is bounded: for a trapped particle the ceiling is set by the resolution in units of zero-point motion, and beyond that ceiling the semiclassical trajectory description fails.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the continuum limit used to turn the product of measurement factors into a Gaussian is well defined: the deviations between the measurement record and the classical path must shrink with the time step in exactly the way needed for the expansion to converge; if they do not scale that way, Eq. (20) does not follow from the preceding integrals.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Individual measurement records, not only density-matrix ensembles, can carry the quantum-to-classical transition: each record's amplitude is a Gaussian centered on the classical trajectory.
  • Quantum Darwinism gets a trajectory-level mechanism: elastic scattering of plane-wave probes proliferates information about the classical path throughout the environment.
  • Decoherence and heating are two faces of the same scattering: the momentum kicks that localize and record the trajectory also randomize it into Brownian motion once the record becomes too redundant.
  • For a trapped particle the redundancy ceiling is set by the measurement resolution measured in units of zero-point motion; macroscopic systems sit far below that ceiling, while the semiclassical trajectory description collapses to a single record in the opposite limit.
  • The deterministic-to-Brownian crossover is, in principle, observable in levitated optomechanics, giving an experimental window on the quantum-to-classical transition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Eq. (20) survives, the Gaussian record weight can be read as a likelihood for trajectory reconstruction from weak measurement data, connecting this path-integral record statistics to quantum state estimation, a route the paper does not develop.
  • The coefficient $\zeta(2)=\pi^2/6$ suggests the Gaussian may be a universal accumulation of many independent small-angle scatterings; replacing isotropic elastic scattering with directional or inelastic probes would change the exponent, offering a testable family of generalized record statistics.
  • The redundancy-back-action bound could be recast as an information-theoretic capacity: each environmental record carries a finite number of bits about the classical trajectory before heating erases it, which would quantify Darwinism rather than just asserting it.
  • The paper's mutual-monitoring picture of entanglement suggests a many-body criterion for classicality, namely whether collective degrees of freedom show trajectories depends on how macroscopic each subsystem is relative to the entanglement strength; making that criterion quantitative is a natural next step.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes a path-integral description of the quantum-to-classical transition under position measurements distributed in time, modeled concretely as elastic scattering of plane-wave probes off the system. The central claim is Eq. (20): the joint amplitude for the measurement record r_p(τ) and the final position, Φ = (∂²S_cl/∂r_b∂r_a)^{1/2} e^{iS_cl/ℏ} exp[−(2π²/3α²)∫dτ |r_p(τ)−r_cl(τ)|²], allegedly showing that continuous measurement exponentially selects trajectories near the classical path and that scattered probes proliferate that information throughout the environment, giving trajectory-level quantum Darwinism. After a semiclassical expansion of the propagator (Section III), the authors integrate the probe scattering angles in Appendix A and take a continuum limit in which the probe resolution scales as λ = α√Δt (Appendices A and B). Section IV gives a qualitative discussion of complementarity, decoherence, and Darwinism. The abstract accompanying the submission additionally advertises a heating/back-action bound, a deterministic-to-Brownian crossover, a zero-point-motion resolution ceiling, and a levitated-optomechanics test; none of these appear in the body of the paper.

Significance. If Eq. (20) were correctly derived, this would be a clean, single-parameter statement of how measurement resolution selects classical trajectories at the level of individual records, complementing ensemble-level decoherence results, and the scattering setup would be a concrete mechanism for information proliferation. The proposal is genuinely non-circular: the Gaussian record weight follows from an explicit angular integral over an assumed isotropic elastic scattering matrix, with no fitted constants and a coefficient fixed by the calculation. These are real strengths of intent and method. They are not realized in the submitted manuscript, however: the continuum-limit step producing the Gaussian factor in (20) is mathematically invalid, the phase of the amplitude is not derived, the abstract promises results the body does not contain, and the Darwinism claim is never quantified. The central result must be re-derived and re-interpreted before the paper's claims can be assessed; the paper also does not currently contain the advertised heating, Brownian, or optomechanics results.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A10); Eq. (20)] The replacement of the sum in (A9) by the integral in (A10) is not a Riemann sum and is not justified. With λ = α√Δt, the m = 1 term of log I is (4ζ(2)/α²) Σ_j |δr(τ_j)|²/Δt, which for a fixed deviation function δr(τ) diverges as 1/Δt, whereas the text replaces it by the finite integral (4ζ(2)/α²)∫|δr(τ)|² dτ. The replacement is valid only if δr_j = d_j Δt with convergent d_j, in which case the exponent becomes (4ζ(2)/α²)∫|d(τ)|² dτ with d = lim (r_p − r_cl)/Δt, and the limiting record is the classical trajectory itself. This O(Δt) scaling is never stated, and it is not the natural scale set by a single probe of resolution λ = α√Δt (δr ~ √Δt), under which each sinc argument in (A6) is O(1) and the product Π_j I_j vanishes as M→∞; for any δr ~ Δt^β with β < 1, the log(1−x) expansion used below (B3) is invalid and the assertion that the m ≥ 2 terms are O(Δt²) fails. The heuristic record equation (1), r_meas ~ r_cl + αζ with white noise ζ, is likewise inconsistent with the hidden O(Δt) scaling, since its accumulated deviations are of order α√t. Thus the Gaussian factor in Eq. (20), as a functional of r_p − r_cl, is not the limit of the discrete product of probe amplitudes, and the central result is not derived.
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (B3)] The sentence 'We drop the last term in Eq. (B3) as it does not converge in the continuous limit and therefore can be absorbed as a normalizing factor' dismisses a record-dependent quantity. The last term in (B3) is log(4πi) − i(2π/λ) δr_3(τ_j); the second part depends on the record, and with λ = α√Δt the summed phase −i(2π/α) Σ_j δr_3(τ_j)/√Δt diverges for every scaling of δr (for δr ~ Δt it grows as Δt^(−1/2); for δr ~ √Δt it grows as the number of steps M). A divergent, record-dependent phase cannot be absorbed into a normalization constant, so the overall phase e^{iS_cl/ℏ} claimed in Eq. (20) is not shown to be the limit of the discrete amplitude. Relatedly, the prefactor in Eq. (A6) is algebraically incorrect: the angular integral ∫dΩ exp[i(2π/λ) n·δr] equals 4π sin((2π/λ)|δr|)/((2π/λ)|δr|), which is real, so the factors i and exp(−i(2π/λ)δr_3) in (A6) are spurious, and the 'phase' later discarded in (B3) originates from this error.
  3. [Abstract vs Sections I–IV] The abstract accompanying the submission promises results that no section delivers: a bound 'tying decoherence and measurement back-action together' via heating, a deterministic-to-Brownian crossover, a ceiling fixed by the resolution in units of the zero-point motion, a collapse to a single record, and an accessible test in levitated optomechanics. Section IV ends with qualitative suggestions for future work, and the body contains no derivation of a heating force, no Brownian-motion analysis, no zero-point resolution ceiling, and no levitated-optomechanics estimate. The abstract also states that repeated measurements give 'the origin of the back-action force,' but no such force is derived beyond the phase factor in Eq. (12). The manuscript therefore substantially overclaims relative to its content.
  4. [Section IV] The title promises 'trajectory level Darwinism,' and Section IV asserts that the isotropic scattering of probes 'proliferates information ... and gives rise to objectivity and redundancy - an essential ingredient for quantum Darwinism.' No redundancy, objective-state, or mutual-information quantity is computed anywhere in the paper; Fig. 3 and the surrounding discussion are qualitative. Even granting Eq. (20), the step from a joint system-record amplitude to the claim that the environment contains many copies of the classical-trajectory information is an assertion, not a result. This gap should either be filled by an explicit calculation or the claims should be scaled back.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (A5)] The symbol z in Eq. (A5) is undefined, the record notation is inconsistent (¯x_q in Eq. (4), r_p(τ) in Eq. (19), δr in (A6)), and the integrand of the dτ integral in (A10) still carries τ_j instead of τ.
  2. [Section IV, after Eq. (32)] The text reads 'hence result in Eq. (41) [36]', but the manuscript has no Eq. (41); the intended reference appears to be Eq. (32).
  3. [Eq. (18)] The semiclassical prefactor in Eq. (18) omits the standard (1/2πiℏ)^(d/2) and Maslov phase factors; if Eq. (18) is quoted as the Van Vleck propagator, it should carry them.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (B5)] The coefficient in (B5) is incorrect for m ≥ 3: the expansion of log(1−x) gives 4^m ζ(2m)/m, not 4m ζ(2m) (the two agree for m = 1, 2). Since the m ≥ 2 terms are discarded this does not affect (A10), but the formula should be corrected.
  5. [Throughout] The manuscript contains many typographical errors that impede reading, including 'Scrh¨odinger's', 'accross', 'viascattering', 'picutre', 'appoximation', 'complimentarity', 'interreputing', 'valishing', 'probablity', 'susbsystem', and 'involes'; a careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: Eq. (20) is derived from the stated isotropic scattering ansatz and explicit weak-measurement/semiclassical assumptions; the questionable continuum-limit and dropped-phase steps are mathematical-validity issues, not circularity.

full rationale

The central Gaussian record weight in Eq. (20) is not a restatement of an input or a fitted parameter. It is obtained by an explicit calculation from an assumed elastic, uniform-on-the-sphere scattering matrix S(K_f,K_i) ∝ δ(|K_f|-|K_i|)/sinθ (Appendix A), the angular integral giving a sinc factor I_j, the Weierstrass product for sinc, and the ζ(2m) sum in Appendix B. The semiclassical and weak-measurement assumptions (S_cl≫ℏ, λ_p≫σ_max, and the neglect of -i∫ΔK·η in Eq. (17)) are stated before Eq. (20) is used, so the conclusion is explicitly conditional rather than hidden. There are no author self-citations carrying the argument; the cited filter-function framework [25,26] is external and used as a starting point. No data are fitted and no parameter is renamed as a prediction. The appendices do contain a serious mathematical-validity concern: Eq. (A10) replaces Σ_j |δr_j|^2/Δt by ∫|δr|^2 dτ, which is not a Riemann-sum identity without an unstated O(Δt) scaling of δr_j, and Eq. (B3) discards a record-dependent phase as a 'normalizing factor'. These would undermine the derivation if unresolved, but they are defects in the limiting procedure, not a circular equivalence between the conclusion and the assumptions. Hence the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central amplitude rests on standard path-integral machinery, a specific isotropic scattering model, and two localization assumptions, plus an ad hoc continuum limit. The only free parameter is alpha, introduced through lambda = alpha sqrt(dt), which controls the width of the Gaussian record weighting. No new particles or entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • alpha (measurement resolution continuum parameter)
    Defined by lambda = alpha sqrt(dt) in Appendix A; physically introduced to make the continuum limit converge, but no value or calibration is given and the final record variance depends on it.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Semiclassical stationary phase approximation: S_cl >> hbar so non-classical paths cancel
    Invoked in Section II and Eq. (3) to justify dominance of classical paths; standard path-integral approximation.
  • domain assumption Elastic, isotropic, weak scattering of plane-wave probes with uniform angular distribution
    Eq. (A4) and the choice f(theta, phi) = 1/sqrt(4 pi sin theta) in Appendix A; this fixes the sinc form and the Gaussian coefficient.
  • domain assumption System wave packet remains localized enough that third and higher potential derivatives are negligible (Eq. 15)
    Section III, around Eq. (15); necessary for truncating the fluctuation path integral and keeping the semiclassical prefactor.
  • domain assumption Probe wavelength much larger than the wave-packet width so probes do not resolve deviations from r_cl
    Section III after Eq. (16); used to drop the Delta K times eta term in Eq. (13).
  • ad hoc to paper The continuum limit is obtained by setting lambda = alpha sqrt(dt) and discarding non-convergent terms as normalization
    Appendix A, Eq. (A10) and Appendix B, Eq. (B3); this limit is asserted with no scaling of delta_r and is the main fragility of the derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum-to-classical transition and the emergence of trajectory level Darwinism with measurements distributed in time: a path integral approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OFIE4YYP

@misc{pith2026250516889,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum-to-classical transition and the emergence of trajectory level Darwinism with measurements distributed in time: a path integral approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OFIE4YYP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16889}
}
read the original abstract

We present a formulation for the emergence of classical dynamics in a quantum world using a path integral approach that incorporates continuous measurements. Our approach complements decoherence and coarse-grained quantum-to-classical transition frameworks. The path-integral formulation provides the joint statistics of a sequence of measurements, with each Feynman path picking up an additional random phase. Its magnitude is proportional to the measurement strength, and we give conditions under which the dominant contribution to the probability amplitude comes from trajectories near classical paths. Information proliferates across the environment, a key feature of quantum Darwinism, via plane-wave probe scattering. Extending to repeated measurements, we show that in the continuous limit each system trajectory picks up an additional phase due to momentum kicks from the probes--the origin of the back-action force. We provide conditions under which measurements yield enough ``which-path'' information while keeping the wave packet localized. This allows the quantum-to-classical transition to be described from individual measurement records, complementing the ensemble description from density matrices. We further show that the same scattering that decoheres a trajectory heats it, tying decoherence and measurement back-action together. This bounds how redundantly an individual classical trajectory can be recorded before back-action randomises it into Brownian motion. For a trapped particle, the ceiling is fixed by the resolution measured in units of the zero-point motion. It is not restrictive for macroscopic systems; it collapses to a single record where the semiclassical description of a trajectory fails, delimiting the regime in which objective classical trajectories exist. The deterministic-to-Brownian crossover is accessible in levitated optomechanics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16889 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Weak measurements distributed in time might change [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Protocol for measurement distributed in time as a cir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. At the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    phase randomization

    Depending on the strength of the measurement, this phase can be a small perturbation (weak measurement) to the original phase or it can lead to a complete ran- domization of the original phase(strong measurement). In the former case, as long as the measurement strength is approximately withinπℏ, the paths in the vicinity of classical paths still contribut...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Peres, Chaotic evolution in quantum mechanics, Phys

    A. Peres, Chaotic evolution in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. E53, 4524 (1996)

    1996

  3. [3]

    Peres,Quantum theory: concepts and methods, Vol

    A. Peres,Quantum theory: concepts and methods, Vol. 72 (Springer, 1997)

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Haake,Quantum signatures of chaos(Springer, 1991)

    F. Haake,Quantum signatures of chaos(Springer, 1991)

    1991

  5. [5]

    J. v. Neumann, Zur operatorenmethode in der klassischen mechanik, Annals of Mathematics33, 587 (1932)

    1932

  6. [6]

    T. F. Jordan, Steppingstones in hamiltonian dy- namics, American Journal of Physics72, 1095 (2004), https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article- pdf/72/8/1095/10126585/1095 1 online.pdf

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    B. O. Koopman, Hamiltonian systems and trans- formation in hilbert space, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences17, 315 (1931), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.17.5.315

    doi:10.1073/pnas.17.5.315 1931

  8. [8]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum- mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Phys. Rev.47, 777 (1935)

    1935

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    J. S. Bell, On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox, Physics Physique Fizika1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  2. [10]

    Bhattacharya, S

    T. Bhattacharya, S. Habib, and K. Jacobs, Continuous quantum measurement and the emergence of classical chaos, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 4852 (2000)

    2000

  3. [11]

    Bohr, Discussion with einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics, inNiels Bohr Collected Works, Vol

    N. Bohr, Discussion with einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics, inNiels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 7 (Elsevier, 1996) pp. 339–381

    1996

  4. [12]

    W. H. Zurek, Decoherence and the transition from quan- tum to classical, Physics today44, 36 (1991)

    1991

  5. [13]

    Bohr, Can quantum-mechanical description of physi- cal reality be considered complete?, Phys

    N. Bohr, Can quantum-mechanical description of physi- cal reality be considered complete?, Phys. Rev.48, 696 (1935)

    1935

  6. [14]

    BOHR, The quantum postulate and the recent devel- opment of atomic theory1, Nature121, 580 (1928)

    N. BOHR, The quantum postulate and the recent devel- opment of atomic theory1, Nature121, 580 (1928)

    1928

  7. [15]

    W. H. Zurek, Decoherence, einselection, and the quan- tum origins of the classical, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 715 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    Shankar,Principles of quantum mechanics(Plenum, New York, NY, 1980)

    R. Shankar,Principles of quantum mechanics(Plenum, New York, NY, 1980)

    1980

  9. [17]

    Kofler and i

    J. Kofler and i. c. v. Brukner, Classical world arising out of quantum physics under the restriction of coarse- grained measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 180403 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    Feynman and A

    R. Feynman and A. Hibbs,Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals(McGraw-Hill)

  11. [19]

    Bhattacharya, S

    T. Bhattacharya, S. Habib, and K. Jacobs, Continu- ous quantum measurement and the quantum to classical transition, Phys. Rev. A67, 042103 (2003)

    2003

  12. [20]

    Joos and H

    E. Joos and H. D. Zeh, The emergence of classical proper- ties through interaction with the environment, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter59, 223 (1985)

    1985

  13. [21]

    Schlosshauer, The quantum-to-classical transition and decoherence (2019), arXiv:1404.2635 [quant-ph]

    M. Schlosshauer, The quantum-to-classical transition and decoherence (2019), arXiv:1404.2635 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    M. R. Gallis and G. N. Fleming, Environmental and spontaneous localization, Phys. Rev. A42, 38 (1990)

    1990

  15. [23]

    Ghose, P

    S. Ghose, P. Alsing, I. Deutsch, T. Bhattacharya, and S. Habib, Transition to classical chaos in a coupled quantum system through continuous measurement, Phys. Rev. A69, 052116 (2004)

    2004

  16. [24]

    Habib, K

    S. Habib, K. Jacobs, and K. Shizume, Emergence of chaos in quantum systems far from the classical limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 010403 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    C. M. Caves and G. J. Milburn, Quantum-mechanical model for continuous position measurements, Phys. Rev. A36, 5543 (1987)

    1987

  18. [26]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum mechanics of measurements dis- tributed in time. ii. connections among formulations, Phys. Rev. D35, 1815 (1987)

    1987

  19. [27]

    Taylor,Scattering Theory: The Quantum Theory of Nonrelativistic Collisions, Dover Books on Engineering (Dover Publications, 2012)

    J. Taylor,Scattering Theory: The Quantum Theory of Nonrelativistic Collisions, Dover Books on Engineering (Dover Publications, 2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    The process of measurement, which involves interactions with external agents, alters the phases associated with each of the interfering paths

    and complimentarity. The process of measurement, which involves interactions with external agents, alters the phases associated with each of the interfering paths. Further, the scattering process shows that information about theeinselectedthe system proliferates throughout the...

    2019

  21. [29]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum mechanics of measurements dis- tributed in time. a path-integral formulation, Phys. Rev. D33, 1643 (1986)

    1986

  22. [30]

    E. J. Heller,The Semiclassical Way to Dynamics and Spectroscopy(Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    S. M. Tan and D. F. Walls, Loss of coherence in interfer- ometry, Phys. Rev. A47, 4663 (1993)

    1993

  24. [32]

    Storey, S

    P. Storey, S. Tan, M. Collett, and D. Walls, Path de- tection and the uncertainty principle, Nature367, 626 (1994)

    1994

  25. [33]

    Schulman,Techniques and Applications of Path In- tegration, Dover Books on Physics (Dover Publications, 2012)

    L. Schulman,Techniques and Applications of Path In- tegration, Dover Books on Physics (Dover Publications, 2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

    DeWitt-Morette, The semiclassical expansion, Annals of Physics97, 367 (1976)

    C. DeWitt-Morette, The semiclassical expansion, Annals of Physics97, 367 (1976)

    1976

  27. [35]

    Schlosshauer,Decoherence: And the Quantum-To- Classical Transition, The Frontiers Collection (Springer, 2007)

    M. Schlosshauer,Decoherence: And the Quantum-To- Classical Transition, The Frontiers Collection (Springer, 2007)

    2007

  28. [36]

    Kaulakys and V

    B. Kaulakys and V. Gontis, Quantum anti-zeno effect, Phys. Rev. A56, 1131 (1997)

    1997

  29. [37]

    that a formulation in terms of fluctuating phase difference between the multiple inteferring paths is completely equivalent and leads to loss of coherence

  30. [38]

    K. T. Kapale, S. Qamar, and M. S. Zubairy, Spectro- scopic measurement of an atomic wave function, Phys. Rev. A67, 023805 (2003)

    2003

  31. [39]

    M. O. Scully, B.-G. Englert, and H. Walther, Quantum optical tests of complementarity, Nature351, 111 (1991)

    1991

  32. [40]

    Stern, Y

    A. Stern, Y. Aharonov, and Y. Imry, Phase uncertainty and loss of interference: A general picture, Phys. Rev. A 41, 3436 (1990)

    1990

  33. [41]

    Bertet, S

    P. Bertet, S. Osnaghi, A. Rauschenbeutel, G. Nogues, A. Auffeves, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, A complementarity experiment with an interferometer at the quantum–classical boundary, Nature411, 166 (2001)

    2001

  34. [42]

    C. J. Riedel and W. H. Zurek, Quantum darwinism in an everyday environment: Huge redundancy in scattered photons, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 020404 (2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    Habib, K

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

    1998

  36. [44]

    Casati, I

    G. Casati, I. Guarneri, and J. Reslen, Classical dynam- ics of quantum entanglement, Phys. Rev. E85, 036208 (2012)

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.