Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 28 references

A quantum outcome becomes a spacetime event only when three information-theoretic certificates are met, and decoherence alone never suffices.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 06:35 UTC pith:IW3L4RTW

load-bearing objection A carefully-scoped, correctly-derived toy model of 'event anchoring' whose advertised QFT/GR interface is the one step the paper does not actually prove — still worth refereeing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13096 v1 pith:IW3L4RTW submitted 2026-07-14 quant-ph

Events as Spacetime Anchors: Local Irreversibility at the Interface of Quantum Field Theory and Relativity

Shuo Zhang This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P0581T05 PACS 03.65.Ta03.67.-a
keywords spacetime eventsquantum irreversibilitydecoherencequantum Darwinismopen quantum systemscausal structurefoundations of quantum mechanicsquantum field theory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that the tension between quantum field theory and general relativity is also about descriptive primitives: QFT has no intrinsic criterion for when a quantum process becomes a definite spacetime fact. It proposes that an anchored event—a stable node in relativistic causal structure—is produced when a system–environment interaction simultaneously (A) classicalizes the system state, (B) redundantly records the outcome in many environmental fragments, and (C) makes the outcome irrecoverable at the channel level. These three jointly sufficient conditions define local generative freezing, with a freezing time t*. Using a repeated-collision qubit model, the paper derives t* in closed form and proves that classicalization always precedes or coincides with irrecoverability, so decoherence alone can never anchor an event. If accepted, the framework offers an operational, information-theoretic criterion for where in spacetime history a definite fact has been established, while remaining compatible with global unitarity.

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a tripartite operational characterization of when a quantum outcome becomes a spacetime event. An anchored event is defined as a spacetime-localized quantum–environment interaction whose outcome is (A) classicalized in the system's reduced state, (B) redundantly imprinted in multiple environmental fragments, and (C) irrecoverable in the induced channel's ability to transmit quantum coherence or entanglement. In the repeated-collision model these criteria are realized within purely unitary global dynamics, and the freezing time — the earliest collision count where all three hold — has the exact closed form n* = max(⌈DA/Λ⌉_+, ⌈DC/Λ⌉, R*⌈dB/Λ⌉), with a single de

What carries the argument

The central object is the repeated-collision model of a qubit system interacting sequentially with independent environment qubits, governed by controlled rotations with angle θ. The key identity is the exponential decay of the conditional environmental overlap λ_n = |cos θ|^n, which sets the per-collision rate Λ = −ln|cos θ| and simultaneously controls all three certification depths: state-level classicalization, channel-level diamond-norm distance to pointer measure-and-prepare channels, and grouped mutual information for redundancy. The freezing time n* = max(⌈DA/Λ⌉_+, ⌈DC/Λ⌉, R*⌈dB/Λ⌉) encapsulates the rate–depth decomposition.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the heuristic mapping of the repeated-collision qubit model to a localized detector interacting with a relativistic quantum field, which assumes the environment fragments are approximately independent wavepacket modes and that reduced density matrices survive the type-III algebraic structure of local QFT; the paper explicitly concedes this as an open obstacle.

What would settle it

In a controlled experiment with a qubit interacting sequentially with an engineered environment, measure the trace-norm distance to the dephased state (condition A) and the diamond-norm distance to a pointer measure-and-prepare channel (condition C) versus collision number n. If Proposition 1 is wrong, one should observe nA > nC for some admissible tolerances (εeb ≤ εd). Alternatively, a direct calculation of the freezing time in an actual detector coupled to a massless scalar field would either follow the exponential law λ_n = |cosθ|^n or show that the closed form (23) fails to transfer, sett

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • In any system where these three conditions are met, an observer can operationally certify that a definite spacetime event has occurred, without invoking a collapse postulate.
  • Classicalization certifiably precedes irrecoverability; therefore the window between (A) and (C) is an experimentally accessible regime where decoherence has already made the system appear classical but the event is not yet irreversibly anchored.
  • The closed-form freezing time predicts that weakly coupled, well-isolated systems never anchor (t*→∞ as θ→0), while strongly coupled macroscopic interactions anchor within a few collisions, consistent with known decoherence timescales.
  • If adopted, the framework converts 'when is an event real?' into a set of finite-tolerance comparisons — trace-norm distance, mutual information thresholds, and diamond-norm channel distance — all computable in principle.
  • The poset of anchored events provides a candidate microphysical generation mechanism for the discrete structure that causal set theory postulates axiomatically, without committing to fundamental discreteness.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A consequence the author leaves implicit: if these three certificates are what fixes a spacetime fact, then the density of anchored events becomes a physical parameter — regions with sparse event formation could display an effectively discrete causal skeleton, which might be probed in isolated quantum systems where recoherence should remain possible.
  • The framework suggests a quantitative link between the thermodynamic cost of information erasure and gravitational effects: the paper mentions high event density near black holes or during inflation may amplify cumulative costs, a connection worth exploring for entropy bounds.
  • A testable extension: in a superconducting qubit coupled to a controlled bath of two-level absorbers, one could measure per-collision mutual information and the diamond-norm distance to a measure-and-prepare channel to verify the predicted ordering nA < nC < nB for chosen tolerances.
  • The claim that alternative certificates reparameterize tolerances without altering the structure could be checked by replacing the dephasing channel with a different noise model; the paper expects a monotone reparameterization, which is a concrete mathematical conjecture.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an 'event-centered framework' in which quantum processes become definite spacetime facts through 'local generative freezing': three jointly sufficient conditions (A) local classicalization of the system state, (B) redundant recording of the outcome in environmental fragments, and (C) channel-level irrecoverability of pointer-basis coherences. The framework is instantiated in a repeated-collision qubit model with globally unitary dynamics. The model yields closed-form times for each condition and a freezing time n* = max(ceil(DA/Λ)_+, ceil(DC/Λ), R* ceil(dB/Λ)) (Eq. 23), together with Proposition 1 that classicalization (A) is certified no later than irrecoverability (C) under the admissibility constraint εeb ≤ εd. The paper further argues that history is a partially ordered causal skeleton of frozen events and that the framework provides an interface between QFT and relativistic spacetime, while explicitly disclaiming any derivation of the Born rule or single-outcome selection.

Significance. If the central claims are accepted, the paper provides a concrete, quantitatively testable separation between ordinary decoherence and the formation of irreversible spacetime events, and a candidate operational meaning for 'when a quantum process becomes a fact'. The mathematical core of the toy model is a significant strength: Eqs. (13)–(19), (23), and the Appendix A proof of the exact diamond-norm distance (18) are correct, and the independent 5×10^4-parameter numerical scan supporting Proposition 1 and Eq. (23) is good practice. The paper is also commendably candid about its limitations, especially in §8.4. However, the advertised QFT/GR significance depends on a bridge—from the discrete collision model to a relativistic quantum field—that is explicitly heuristic and currently lacks quantitative control. The present contribution is therefore best read as a rigorous analysis of a toy model plus a suggestive conceptual framework, rather than a derivation applicable to QFT in curved or flat spacetime.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.1, §8.4] The paper's advertised significance—'events as the interface between QFT and relativistic spacetime'—rests on the heuristic mapping of the repeated-collision qubit model to a localized Unruh–DeWitt-type detector with outgoing wavepacket modes. The exact results (13)–(23) are derived for initially uncorrelated environment qubits with a rigorous partial trace. Section 8.4 concedes that in algebraic QFT the local algebras are generically type III, so strict partial traces and reduced density matrices are unavailable (the split property only interpolates type-I factors), and that Reeh–Schlieder vacuum correlations contradict literal fragment independence. No quantitative estimate is provided for either approximation error—e.g., how the split-property error scales with the collar, or how large the vacuum mutual information between wavepacket fragments is relative to the signal in Eq. (16). Wi
  2. [Def. 1, §§4.2–4.3, Eq. (7)] The central claim that 'events anchor at t*' is true by construction, because an anchored event is defined as the satisfaction of Conditions (A), (B), and (C). The genuinely derived content is the calculation of t* in the toy model. This definitional circularity is not an internal inconsistency, but it means the paper's quantitative conclusions only evaluate when the paper's own criteria are met, not whether those criteria are the correct operational characterization of a spacetime event. The paper should more clearly separate the definitional criterion from the derived predictions and provide independent justification for why A∧B∧C are jointly the right conditions—for example, by making the connections to spectrum broadcast structures and Fawzi–Renner recovery bounds in §8.3 quantitative rather than gestural.
  3. [§4.2, Prop. 1] Proposition 1 (nA ≤ nC) and the corollary that condition (A) never binds depend on the admissibility constraint εeb ≤ εd. The paper motivates this constraint by mathematical convenience—the pointer measure-and-prepare set is exactly computable and cleanly implies (A)—but provides no physical or operational reason why the tolerances for state-level classicality and channel-level irrecoverability must be ordered in this way. If a user's operational thresholds violate εeb ≤ εd, the separation can fail (indeed, the Appendix A implication (C)⇒(A) is at tolerance 2εeb, not εd). Please provide a principled justification for the admissibility condition, or qualify the 'threshold-independent' claim accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and §1] The rendered title contains a typo: 'The ory' instead of 'Theory'. Please correct.
  2. [§6.1] The detector mapping uses τ both for the detector's proper time and for the collision interval in Eq. (20). Rename one of them to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Eq. (15)] The notation ⌈x⌉_+ is used without definition. Define it in the text before Eq. (15) or (23).
  4. [Fig. 1] The caption of panel (a) labels the solid curve as '|cosθ|^n [Cond. (A)]' and '|cosθ|^n [Cond. (C)]'; for condition (A) the expression is |sin α||cosθ|^n, which coincides with |cosθ|^n only for α=π/2. Please clarify in the caption that α=π/2 is assumed in that panel, or plot the state-dependent factor separately.
  5. [Data availability] The numerical verification scripts are 'available from the author upon reasonable request.' For reproducibility, deposit them in a permanent repository with versioning and a DOI.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Event anchoring at t* is stipulated via Definition 1 = Eq. (7), so the central claim 'events anchor at t*' is definitional; the computed freezing times, channel distances, and Proposition 1 are independently derived and involve no self-citation.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 4.1–4.3 (Definition 1 and Eq. (7)); 'Logical Relations' and §6.5]
    "Definition 1 (Anchored Event). An anchored event is a spacetime-localized quantum–environment interaction whose outcome is classicalized, redundantly recorded in the environment, and effectively irrecoverable... Local generative freezing is said to occur at the earliest time t∗ such that the following three conditions are simultaneously satisfied: (A)... (B)... (C)... t∗ = inf{t | Conditions (A), (B), and (C) are satisfied}. At t = t∗, the outcome becomes an anchored event in the sense of Definition 1"

    The statement 'the outcome becomes an anchored event at t*' is a direct restatement of Definition 1 combined with Eq. (7): an anchored event is defined as an interaction satisfying (A)∧(B)∧(C), and t* is defined as the first time those conditions hold. Similarly, the paper's conceptual claim that 'decoherence does not by itself constitute event formation' is entailed by defining an anchored event to require all three conditions. The model computations (Eqs. 13–23, Proposition 1) are independently derived algebraically and are not circular; only the identification of t* with 'event anchoring' is by construction. The paper is explicit that these are operational criteria, so this is a stipulative definition rather than a hidden derivation, but the advertised conceptual conclusion is definitio

full rationale

The quantitative derivation chain is self-contained within the repeated-collision model: the reduced state (13), per-fragment mutual information (16), diamond-norm distance (18), closed-form freezing time (23), and Proposition 1 are computed from the model by exact algebra rather than fitted to data or imported from the author's prior work. There is no author self-citation; all references are to external literature, and Section 8.3 explicitly disclaims uniqueness of the criteria, noting that alternatives amount to monotone reparameterizations. The advertised transfer to relativistic QFT is explicitly labeled heuristic in §6.1 and §8.4, which concedes the type-III algebra and Reeh–Schlieder obstacles; this is a missing derivation or scope limitation, not circularity. The only genuine reduction-by-construction is that 'anchored event' and the freezing time are stipulated via conditions A∧B∧C: Definition 1 and Eq. (7) make the conclusion 't* is the anchoring time' true by definition. Because the paper is transparent about this stipulation and because the computed content (n*, nB, nC, the A–C ordering) retains independent mathematical content, the circularity is partial but not total.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 4 invented entities

The central claim is definitional plus computational: anchoring is defined as A∧B∧C, so the freezing time is a function of five hand-chosen tolerances and model knobs (θ, α, τ). No quantity in the paper is fitted to external data; conversely, nothing is predicted that could falsify the framework. The honest contribution is the certified ordering and the closed-form rate–depth decomposition, both of which survive monotone changes of the tolerance functionals (§8.3). The heaviest assumptions are the existence of a candidate outcome/pointer basis and the heuristic transfer of the toy model to relativistic QFT, both conceded by the authors.

free parameters (6)
  • εd (classicalization tolerance) = 0.05 (baseline)
    Hand-chosen 'illustrative tolerance'; sets certification depth DA; all reported nA values, A–C gaps, and regime boundaries scale with it.
  • εeb (irrecoverability tolerance) = 0.005 (baseline)
    Hand-chosen; together with εd sets the headline A–C gap nC − nA ≈ ln(εd/εeb)/Λ.
  • δ (per-record fidelity tolerance) = 0.2 (baseline)
    Hand-chosen; controls ηδ ≈ sqrt(2δ ln2), hence group size mδ and redundancy depth dB.
  • R* (redundancy threshold) = 10 (baseline)
    Hand-chosen 'public accessibility' threshold; when R*dB > DC it makes the model redundancy-limited (χ ≈ 1.3).
  • θ (coupling strength) and τ (collision interval) = θ ∈ {15°,30°,45°,60°,75°}; τ ~ 10^-13 s in the timescale example
    Model/clock parameters, chosen illustratively; they set the rate Λ and physical freezing time t* but not the certification structure.
  • α (initial-state angle) = π/2 (baseline symmetric input)
    Model input, not fitted; sets the state-level coherence factor |sinα|; the A–C gap at common threshold is ln(1/|sinα|)/Λ, so the 'generic initial state' gap is a function of this knob.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Existence of a 'candidate outcome' X and a preferred pointer basis, selected by the system–environment interaction (einselection), is presupposed; the framework certifies anchoring of an already-given outcome, not its generation.
    Def. 1 and §4.2 define conditions on 'the classical outcome variable X associated with a pointer observable'; §8.1 explicitly fences off event generation ('once such a candidate record r exists...'). This is a load-bearing presupposition for the whole framework.
  • domain assumption The environment decomposes into approximately independent fragments E1...EN, with well-defined partial traces and marginals; each fragment's conditional state has overlap (cosθ)^m with the others.
    Condition (B) (Eq. 3) and the grouped-redundancy computation require independent fragments; §8.4 concedes the Reeh–Schlieder theorem implies vacuum correlations and that a finite-tolerance notion of fragment independence in QFT is only expected, not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The repeated-collision qubit model is a valid stand-in for a localized Unruh–DeWitt-type detector interacting sequentially with a relativistic field, with environment qubits mapping to outgoing wavepacket modes.
    §6.1: 'This collisional model is an illustrative open-system realization of the freezing conditions, not a derivation of them from relativistic quantum field theory'; the mapping is heuristic, and §8.4 notes strict partial traces are unavailable for type III algebras (split property only interpolates).
  • ad hoc to paper Admissibility constraint εeb ≤ εd on tolerances; Proposition 1 (nA ≤ nC), the paper's threshold-independent structural claim, uses εeb ≤ εd in its proof.
    Prop. 1 proof (Sec. 6.5): 'If n certifies (C)... then |sinα||cosθ|^n ≤ εeb ≤ εd'. The ordering of the two thresholds is an input; the genuinely emergent part is the |sinα| factor for generic states.
  • standard math Standard quantum-information background: diamond-norm and trace-norm properties, contractivity of trace distance under channels, EB ⟺ separable Choi state, channel-discrimination bound 1/2(1+ε/2), Stinespring dilation.
    Used throughout §6.4 and Appendix A (Eqs. A.1–A.6, Eq. 6, §4.3); these are textbook results [13,14].
  • domain assumption Operational tolerances εd, εeb, δ, R* are interpreted as the finite resolution of physically bounded observers rather than as fundamental constants.
    §4.3 and §5 argue thresholds 'encode the finite resolution of physically bounded observers'; this interpretive move is what turns free parameters into physical content.
  • standard math Global unitarity of the model: the joint state remains pure |Ψ(n)> and all three conditions are properties of the reduced description; Poincaré recurrence is exponentially long in N.
    §6.1, §6.6: 'Irreversibility is effective and local... No violation of global unitarity is required or implied.'
invented entities (4)
  • Anchored event / local generative freezing no independent evidence
    purpose: Names the proposed transition from a candidate quantum record to a 'definite spacetime fact' usable in a relativistic causal structure.
    Definition 1; purely operational/definitional — the paper states (§8.2) it predicts no deviations from standard QFT, so there is no falsifiable handle outside the framework.
  • 'Causal skeleton' poset H of frozen events no independent evidence
    purpose: The proposed structure of physical history at the record level (partially ordered set of anchored events).
    §7.1 Eq. (27); explicitly operational ('a statement about the operational organization of recorded history rather than about the fine structure of spacetime itself'); resembles causal sets [20] but no independent handle proposed.
  • Boundary compression (ρSE, I∂) → (r, ρres) no independent evidence
    purpose: Schematic placeholder for event generation, the part of the problem the paper does not solve.
    §8.1 Eq. (28); the authors state it is a schematic view and that a fuller account 'remains open.'
  • Information-processing 'bandwidth' B no independent evidence
    purpose: Diagnostic for the rate of system–environment correlation build-up; in the model equals the per-step mutual information Hbin((1+|cosθ|)/2).
    §5 Eq. (8); defined via the model's own quantities, no independent operational definition outside the toy model.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18280 in / 28260 out tokens · 267782 ms · 2026-08-02T06:35:21.723157+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

General relativity (GR) is naturally organized around spacetime events and their causal order, whereas quantum field theory (QFT) is formulated in terms of states, operators, and unitary evolution, without an intrinsic criterion for when a quantum process becomes a definite spacetime fact. We propose an event-centered framework in which events are locally irreversible records generated by quantum-environment interactions and serve as an interface between quantum dynamics and relativistic spacetime structure. Event anchoring is characterized operationally by three jointly sufficient conditions: local classicalization, redundant environmental recording, and irreversibility against recovery. Their joint satisfaction defines local generative freezing. We realize these criteria in an explicit repeated-collision open-system model. The model is illustrative rather than a derivation from relativistic QFT, but it remains globally unitary and yields the freezing time in closed form. For all admissible tolerances, local classicalization is certified no later than channel-level irrecoverability, and generically earlier. Full anchoring occurs only when both irrecoverability and the required record redundancy have been reached, producing irrecoverability-limited and redundancy-limited regimes. At the level of anchored records, physical history is therefore represented as a partially ordered causal skeleton of frozen events on which effective field-theoretic descriptions operate. The framework addresses event anchoring--when a candidate outcome becomes a stable spacetime fact--while remaining compatible with standard QFT and relativistic causality. It does not derive the Born rule or solve single-outcome selection, which belong to the separate problem of event generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13096 by Shuo Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Freezing dynamics for θ = 60◦ (| cos θ| = 0.5), with εd = 0.05, εeb = 0.005, R∗ = 10, δ = 0.2. (a) Classicalization (A) and irrecoverability (C) share the same exponential decay law but are evaluated against different thresholds; for the symmetric input α = π/2 shown here (solid), the resulting gap of 3 collision steps is set by the ratio of the two illustrative tolerances. The gray dashed curve shows the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Parameter scan across coupling strengths, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Threshold robustness of the certification structu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Haag, Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Alge - bras, 2nd Edition, Springer-V erlag, Berlin, 1996

    R. Haag, Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Alge - bras, 2nd Edition, Springer-V erlag, Berlin, 1996

    1996

  2. [2]

    Vilasini, L.-Q

    V . Vilasini, L.-Q. Chen, L. Y e, R. Renner, Events and their Localisation are Relative to a Lab, arXiv preprint (2025). arXiv:2505.21797

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Apadula, E

    L. Apadula, E. Castro-Ruiz, ˇC. Brukner, Quantum Ref- erence Frames for Lorentz Symmetry, Quantum 8 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Mandrysch, M

    J. Mandrysch, M. Navascués, Quantum field measure- ments in the Fewster–V erch framework, Lett. Math. Phys. 115 (2025) 115. doi:10.1007/s11005-025-02001-3 . 12

    work page doi:10.1007/s11005-025-02001-3 2025

  5. [5]

    Hausmann, A

    L. Hausmann, A. Schmidhuber, E. Castro-Ruiz, Measurement events relative to temporal quan- tum reference frames, Quantum 9 (2025) 1616. doi:10.22331/q-2025-01-30-1616

    doi:10.22331/q-2025-01-30-1616 2025

  6. [6]

    Einstein, Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation, Sitzungsber

    A. Einstein, Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (1915) 844–847

    1915

  7. [7]

    Minkowski, Raum und Zeit, Phys

    H. Minkowski, Raum und Zeit, Phys. Z. 10 (1909) 104– 111

    1909

  8. [8]

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

    2003

  9. [9]

    Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the Quantum-to- Classical Transition, Springer-V erlag, Berlin, 2007

    M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the Quantum-to- Classical Transition, Springer-V erlag, Berlin, 2007

    2007

  10. [10]

    W . H. Zurek, Quantum Darwinism, Nat. Phys. 5 (2009) 181–188. doi:10.1038/nphys1202

    doi:10.1038/nphys1202 2009

  11. [11]

    Blume-Kohout, W

    R. Blume-Kohout, W . H. Zurek, Quantum Darwinism: Entanglement, branches, and the emergent classicality of redundantly stored quantum information, Phys. Rev. A 73 (2006) 062310. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.73.062310

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.73.062310 2006

  12. [12]

    C. J. Riedel, W . H. Zurek, M. Zwolak, The rise and fall of redundancy in decoherence and quan- tum Darwinism, New J. Phys. 14 (2012) 083010. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/14/8/083010

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/14/8/083010 2012

  13. [13]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P . W . Shor, M. B. Ruskai, Entanglement breaking channels, Rev. Math. Phys. 15 (2003) 629–641. doi:10.1142/S0129055X03001709

    doi:10.1142/s0129055x03001709 2003

  14. [14]

    Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information, Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018

    J. Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information, Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018

    2018

  15. [15]

    M. A. Nielsen, I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2000

    2000

  16. [16]

    Baumgratz, M

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, Quantify- ing coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 140401. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.140401

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.140401 2014

  17. [17]

    Scarani, M

    V . Scarani, M. Ziman, P . Štelmachovi ˇc, N. Gisin, V . Bužek, Thermalizing Quantum Machines: Dissipation and Entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 097905. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.097905

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.88.097905 2002

  18. [18]

    Ciccarello, S

    F. Ciccarello, S. Lorenzo, V . Giovannetti, G. M. Palma, Quantum collision models: Open system dynamics from repeated interactions, Phys. Rep. 954 (2022) 1–70. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.01.001

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.01.001 2022

  19. [19]

    Kretschmann, D

    D. Kretschmann, D. Schlingemann, R. F. Werner, The information-disturbance tradeo ff and the continuity of Stinespring’s representation, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 54 (2008) 1708–1717. doi:10.1109/TIT.2008.917696

    arXiv 2008

  20. [20]

    Bombelli, J

    L. Bombelli, J. Lee, D. Meyer, R. D. Sorkin, Space- time as a causal set, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 521–524. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.521

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.521 1987

  21. [21]

    R. D. Sorkin, Causal sets: Discrete gravity, in: A. Gombero ff, D. Marolf (Eds.), Lectures on Quantum Gravity, Springer, New Y ork, 2005

    2005

  22. [22]

    V an Raamsdonk, Building up spacetime with quan- tum entanglement, Gen

    M. V an Raamsdonk, Building up spacetime with quan- tum entanglement, Gen. Rel. Grav. 42 (2010) 2323–2329. doi:10.1007/s10714-010-1034-0

    doi:10.1007/s10714-010-1034-0 2010

  23. [23]

    J. A. Wheeler, Information, physics, quantum: The sear ch for links, in: W . H. Zurek (Ed.), Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, 1990

    1990

  24. [24]

    Horodecki, J

    R. Horodecki, J. K. Korbicz, P . Horodecki, Quantum origins of objectivity, Phys. Rev. A 91 (2015) 032122. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.91.032122

    doi:10.1103/physreva.91.032122 2015

  25. [25]

    J. K. Korbicz, Roads to objectivity: Quantum Darwin- ism, Spectrum Broadcast Structures, and Strong quan- tum Darwinism—a review, Quantum 5 (2021) 571. doi:10.22331/q-2021-11-08-571

    doi:10.22331/q-2021-11-08-571 2021

  26. [26]

    Fawzi, R

    O. Fawzi, R. Renner, Quantum conditional mu- tual information and approximate Markov chains, Commun. Math. Phys. 340 (2015) 575–611. doi:10.1007/s00220-015-2466-x . 13

    doi:10.1007/s00220-015-2466-x 2015

  27. [775]

    doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.715

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.75.715

  28. [1440]

    doi:10.22331/q-2024-08-14-1440

    doi:10.22331/q-2024-08-14-1440 2024