Quantum field theory measurements for relativistic particles

Charis Anastopoulos; Nadia Koliopoulou; Ntina Savvidou

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Quantum field theory measurements for relativistic particles

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 single measurement framework now covers photons, Dirac particles, and composite particles, giving spin- and polarization-dependent detection probabilities.

desk verdict Serious QTP-based paper with real new material in photodetection and oscillations, but the Dirac spin-dependent time-of-arrival POVM violates its own positivity requirement—one of the four headline results is internally inconsistent as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.14175 v2 pith:FOYUJZT3 submitted 2026-02-15 quant-ph hep-th

Nadia Koliopoulou , Charis Anastopoulos , Ntina Savvidou This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phhep-th

keywords quantumfieldtheorymeasurementstime-of-arrivalphotodetectionGlauberDiracparticlesparticleoscillationsrelativisticquditsdecoherenthistories

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 one general methodology, the Quantum Temporal Probabilities (QTP) framework, can translate abstract quantum field measurements into concrete detection probabilities for realistic relativistic particles. Unlike most prior work limited to scalar fields, this approach is applied to photons, Dirac particles, and internally structured scalar particles. If correct, it yields time-of-arrival probabilities that depend on spin and polarization, a generalization of Glauber's photodetection theory with identifiable failure regimes, an unambiguous particle oscillation formula with stated validity conditions, and an operational probability formula for relativistic qudits. The central payoff is that detector physics, not an arbitrary choice of observables, fixes the spin or polarization basis and the localization of detection events.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the QTP detection kernel R_ab(x,λ)=⟨Ω|Ĵ_a(x0)Π̂(λ)e^{−iP̂·x}Ĵ_b(x0)|Ω⟩, which encodes all detector properties and the measured observable λ. Combined with the field's two-point correlation function through the master formula, it generates positive-operator-valued measures (POVMs) for time-of-arrival, spin, polarization, and energy-momentum. A second key object is the localization operator Ŝ, whose matrix elements measure how sharply a detection event can be localized in spacetime; maximal localization corresponds to exponential detection kernels and reproduces known relativistic time-of-arrival POVMs. For composite particles, the mass operator M̂ on the internal Hi

What would settle it

Measure the arrival-time distribution of ultra-relativistic electrons with a spin-sensitive detector oriented transverse to the beam; the paper predicts helicity-dependent timing and absorption rates, while spin-blind scalar particle models predict no such dependence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that measurement probabilities for relativistic particles with internal degrees of freedom follow from a master formula P(x,λ)=∫d⁴y R(y,λ) G(x−y/2, x+y/2), where G is a two-point field correlation and R is a detection kernel encoding the detector's response. Applied to photons, this gives a time-of-arrival POVM that is a mixture of scalar-like POVMs for each detector-defined polarization, with the polarization axis determined by the detector's two-point correlation function. Applied to Dirac particles, it gives spin-dependent time-of-arrival probabilities and an operational spin operator fixed by the detection kernel. Applied to internally structured scalar field

Load-bearing premise

The master probability formula is imported from earlier work and assumes the detector state is a momentum eigenstate, the detector current has zero vacuum expectation value, and the recorded observable is stable; if any of these fail for non-scalar fields, every derived POVM inherits the failure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Photon detection probabilities reduce to Glauber's theory only in the maximum-localization, polarization-blind limit; near-field regimes contain rapidly oscillating corrections that are in principle observable.
Dirac-particle time-of-arrival probabilities are generically spin-dependent, with the two helicity modes behaving like distinct particle types in the ultrarelativistic limit.
The particle oscillation formula is unambiguous only when kinetic energy greatly exceeds mass differences and the detector is in the far field; outside that regime, energy-resolved and momentum-resolved detectors yield different oscillation patterns.
Time-of-arrival oscillation probabilities depend on the initial wave-packet shape and decohere beyond a coherence length, whereas energy/momentum detection probabilities do not.
Relativistic qudits admit a concrete operational probability formula, P_tot=∫dq f(q)|⟨V|e^{−iM̂²L/q}|U⟩|², relating preparation and detection channels directly to the qudit state vectors.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial: The framework assigns a specific spin operator to each detector; comparing the predictions of different candidate spin operators in the same Lorentz frame could empirically settle the long-standing relativistic spin-operator problem.
Editorial: A long-baseline space-based quantum optics experiment measuring near-field photodetection rates could test the predicted deviations from Glauber's formula, since QTP gives explicit oscillatory correction terms.
Editorial: The qudit formula suggests an operational route to Lorentz transformations of qudit states: a frame change modifies the momentum distribution f(q) and the basis vectors U and V, potentially connecting relativistic kinematics directly to quantum information quantities.
Editorial: The prediction that energy/momentum oscillation probabilities do not decohere at long distances is a concrete signature that could be searched for in existing neutrino or meson oscillation data.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Main thing to know: this is a serious paper with real new content, but one of its four advertised results is internally inconsistent. The EM and composite-particle sections are worth reading; the Dirac time-of-arrival section is not, as written.

The genuinely new material is the polarization-dependent POVM structure in Sec. 3, the near-field correction to Glauber photodetection, the careful oscillation derivation in Sec. 5 with its explicit validity conditions, and the compact qudit formula Eq. (77). The photodetection part is the strongest: the detector-defined polarization axis and the statement of when Glauber's theory fails are concrete and in-principle testable. The oscillation section honestly separates energy vs momentum detection and explains why the fast K2 oscillations drop out in the far field. No constants are fitted to the predictions; the whole tower follows from Eq. (1) and the specified detection kernels. The bibliography is broad and the prior QTP work is cited where it is used.

The soft spot is not minor. For the Dirac sector, Eqs. (53)-(54) give S_-(p,p') = (p+p')/(2√pp') in the ultrarelativistic limit. By AM-GM this is ≥1. But Eqs. (9)-(10) of the same paper require S to be a positive operator with unit diagonal, and positivity forces |S(p,p')| ≤ 1. So this kernel is not positive semidefinite. The stress-test counterexample is valid: choose g(p)=1 on [1,2] and -10 on [100,101]; the quadratic form is negative, so Eq. (52) produces negative probabilities for an admissible wave packet. This kills the advertised spin-dependent time-of-arrival POVM for the '-' helicity. It may be fixable by choosing a different detection kernel or a different limit, but as written it is a load-bearing contradiction, not a typo.

One more structural point: Eq. (1) is imported from the authors' earlier QTP work rather than re-derived here. That is not circular in the fitting sense—no constants are being fit—but it means every POVM inherits the detector assumptions in Eq. (1), and a referee should check them for gauge and Dirac fields rather than take them on faith.

This paper deserves a serious referee: the EM and oscillation material is good enough that the defect should be fixed rather than hidden. But I would not cite it until the Dirac section is corrected or withdrawn. If I were the editor, I would send it out with a clear instruction to look hard at Sec. 4.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the Quantum Temporal Probabilities (QTP) framework, imported from the authors' earlier work, to measurement probabilities for electromagnetic, Dirac, and composite scalar fields. The claimed results include polarization/spin-dependent time-of-arrival POVMs, a generalization of Glauber photodetection theory, an unambiguous derivation of the particle-oscillation formula with identified limitations, and a relativistic-qudit probability formula. The central methodological claim is that QTP provides a general translation from QFT interactions to concrete experimental probabilities.

Significance. If the results were correct, the paper would be a useful contribution: it supplies explicit, parameter-light POVMs for realistic fields, identifies regimes beyond Glauber theory, and gives a first-principles treatment of oscillations and qudits. No constants are fitted to predicted outcomes, and the derivations trace from the stated master formula. However, the Dirac time-of-arrival section contains a load-bearing positivity violation that invalidates one of the headline results, and the qudit master formula has an inconsistent oscillation phase. These defects prevent the paper from being accepted as it stands.

major comments (2)

[§5.4, Eq. (77)] The localization kernel for the '-' helicity mode in the ultra-relativistic limit, S_-(p,p') = (p+p')/(2√{pp'}), is not positive semidefinite. For example, take g(p)=1 on [1,2], g(p)=-10 on [100,101], and f(p)=g(p)/√p. Then ∫∫ f(p)f(p')S_-(p,p') dp dp' = (∫g)(∫g/p) = (-9)(ln2 - 10 ln(101/100)) ≈ -5.34 < 0. Thus Eq. (52) yields negative conditional probabilities for admissible wave packets, contradicting the paper's own positivity requirement for localization operators stated in Eq. (9) and the Cauchy-Schwarz bound in Eq. (10). The spin-dependent time-of-arrival POVM for Dirac particles is therefore not a valid probability measure.
[§5.4, Eq. (77)] The qudit probability formula P_tot = ∫ dq f(q) |⟨V| e^{-i M̂² L/q}|U⟩|² is inconsistent with the preceding derivation. Eq. (76) gives A_{ij}(q) ∝ e^{i Δ_{ji} L/(2q)}, so Eq. (74) contains the phase e^{i Δ_{ji} L/(2q)}. The correct matrix element is therefore |⟨V| e^{-i M̂² L/(2q)}|U⟩|², not e^{-i M̂² L/q}. The factor-of-two error appears also in the abstract and in the advertised central result, and it changes the oscillation wavelength by a factor of two.

minor comments (5)

[§4.1, Eq. (42)] Equation (42) appears to contain a typographical repetition: 'ζσ(p)/2p ζσ(p)' should presumably read 'ζσ(p)/(2p)'.
[§4.1, Eq. (41)] In Eq. (41) the wavefunction product ψ_r(p)ψ*_{r'}(p') should have p' set to p after integrating over the delta function; the displayed expression is ambiguous.
[§3.2–3.3] The text says the far-field condition will be shown in 'Section 3.2', but the relevant analysis appears in Section 3.3. The condition for neglecting Q(t,L) is stated in terms of L >> wavelength, but the actual suppression argument uses the time sampling τ and rapid oscillation; this should be clarified.
[§2.2, Eq. (10)] The statement 'By definition, ⟨p|Ŝ|p'⟩ ≥ 0' is not a general consequence of Ŝ being a positive operator; it holds in the scalar case because the kernel ilde R is non-negative. The distinction matters for the Dirac section, where positivity of the operator is exactly what fails.
[General] There are several typos, including 'Backround' in the Section 2 heading and missing spaces in the reference list (e.g., Ref. [30]). Please proofread.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reductions found: predictions are derived from an explicit QTP premise, not set equal to their inputs.

full rationale

The master probability formula Eq. (1) is imported from the authors' prior work (Ref. [17]), so the framework is self-referential rather than fully self-contained. Under the circularity criteria, however, this is an explicit framework premise, not a reduction of the claimed results to their inputs: the paper lists the assumptions (detector vacuum P-eigenstate, vanishing current expectation, stable coarse-grained POVM, leading-order coupling) and none of the outputs is fixed by those assumptions alone. The photodetection POVMs (Eqs. 18–22) combine the field correlation with an arbitrary detection kernel; Glauber's theory is recovered only in the a→0 / constant-kernel limit and is not inserted as an input. The oscillation formula (Eqs. 57–62) follows from the δ(ε_i,p − ε_j,p') condition and the resulting e^{iΔL/(2q)} phase, so the standard result emerges from the kinematics. The qudit formula (Eq. 77) is an algebraic rewriting of the derived amplitude with a mass operator, not a fitted reparametrization of a target probability. No parameter is tuned to force the Dirac spin-dependent time-of-arrival result; it is a computation from the EM-current coupling. The non-positivity of S_− in Eq. (54) and the possible negativity of Eq. (52) would be correctness/consistency defects, not circularity, and are not counted here.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no fitted constants; all numbers are detector/source model inputs (a, b±, f(q)). The main axioms are the QTP master formula and perturbative detector assumptions from the authors' prior papers. No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced.

free parameters (3)

localization length parameter a = 0 (Glauber) or >0 (max-localization)
Introduced in §2.2 and §3.2 via R(k)=C e^{-a k}; the choice a=0 recovers Glauber, a>0 gives non-Glauber predictions. This is a detector-model input, not fitted to data.
Dirac detector parameters a, b± (γ±) = free
In §4.3 the symmetric-kernel Dirac time-of-arrival family is parameterized by a, b±; γ±=b±/a controls spin-dependent localization. These are detector-model inputs, not empirical fits.
source momentum distribution f(q) = |J̃(q,-ϵ_q)|^2/(2ϵ_q)
In §5.4 the qudit probability formula depends on the arbitrary source profile f(q); it characterizes the preparation and is not fitted.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption QTP master formula Eq. (1) is assumed valid for all field types at leading order.
Imported from the authors' prior work [17]; not re-derived in this paper. All POVMs in §§3–5 rest on this formula.
domain assumption First-order perturbation theory in the field-apparatus coupling is sufficient; higher-order corrections are neglected.
Used throughout §§2–5, with no quantitative bound on neglected higher-order terms.
domain assumption Detector initial state satisfies |Ω⟩ an eigenvector of P^μ, ⟨Ω|J|Ω⟩=0, and [Π(λ),P^μ]=0.
Assumptions listed in §2.1 immediately before Eq. (3); they define the class of allowed detectors.
domain assumption Decoherent histories supply classical probabilities for detection records.
QTP interprets measurement outcomes through the decoherent-histories framework; no derivation is given here.
domain assumption Composite particles are described by a superposition of scalar fields of different masses with constant mixing coefficients V_i.
§5 states 'we will work here the case where they are constant'; the oscillation and qudit derivations depend on this structure.
domain assumption Standard oscillation formula applies only for kinetic energy much larger than mass differences and far-field detector conditions σ_E L / v_E >> 1.
§5.1 explicitly derives the standard formula under these conditions; outside them, oscillation patterns depend on whether energy or momentum is recorded.
domain assumption Initial states generated by a Schwinger external source produce no additional oscillation phases.
§5.2 uses a localized external source and Magnus identity to argue the source contributes no extra phase to the oscillation formula.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum field theory measurements for relativistic particles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FOYUJZT3

@misc{pith2026260214175,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum field theory measurements for relativistic particles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FOYUJZT3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.14175}
}

read the original abstract

The formulation of a consistent measurement theory for relativistic quantum fields has become a problem of growing foundational and practical significance. Standard non-relativistic measurement models fail to incorporate the essential relativistic principles of locality, causality, and Lorentz covariance, and are therefore inadequate for quantum field theoretic settings. While most existing work focuses on scalar fields, realistic particles possess spin, polarization, and internal degrees of freedom that introduce new conceptual and operational challenges. To this end, we employ the Quantum Temporal Probabilities (QTP) framework for relativistic measurements to describe electromagnetic, Dirac, and internally structured scalar fields. Our results include probabilities for the time-of-arrival that take spin/polarization into account, generalized photodetection formulas beyond Glauber's theory, an unambiguous derivation of the particle oscillation formula together with its limitations, and a first-principles analysis of relativistic qudits.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

[1]

Anastopoulos and N

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

2012
[2]

Okamura and M

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

2015
[3]

Anastopoulos and N

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

2019
[4]

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

2020
[5]

Bostelmann, C

H. Bostelmann, C. J. Fewster, and M. RuepImpossible Measurements Require Impos- sible Apparatus, Phys. Rev. D 103, 025017 (2021)

2021
[6]

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

2023
[7]

Polo-G´ omez, L

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

2022
[8]

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

2022

Show all 71 references

[9]

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

2024
[10]

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

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

2023
[11]

Papageorgiou, J

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

2024
[12]

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

1970
[13]

W. G. Unruh,Notes on Black Hole Evaporation, Phys. Rev. D14, 870 (1976). 22

1976
[14]

General Relativity: An Ein- stein Centenary Survey

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

1979
[15]

Directions in General Relativity

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

1993
[16]

Peres and D

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

2004
[17]

Anastopoulos, B

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

2023
[18]

Papageorgiou and D

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

2023
[19]

C. J. Fewster and R. Verch,Measurement in Quantum Field Theory, Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics, 5, 335 (2025)

2025
[20]

Anastopoulos and N

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

2022
[21]

Torres, K

B. Torres, K. Wurtz, J. Polo-G´ omez, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez,Entanglement Structure of Quantum Fields through Local Probes, JHEP 2023, 58 (2023)

2023
[22]

T. R. Perche, J. Polo-G´ omez, B. Torres, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez,Fully Relativistic Entanglement Harvesting, Phys. Rev. D 109, 045018 (2024)

2024
[23]

Anastopoulos and N

C. Anastopoulos and N. Savvidou,Relativistic Quantum Information Measures from Unequal-Time QFT Correlation Functions, Ann. Phys. 481, 170146 (2025)

2025
[24]

Anastopoulos and N

C. Anastopoulos and N. Savvidou,Coherences of Accelerated Detectors and the Local Character of the Unruh Effect, J. Math. Phys. 53, 012107 (2012)

2012
[25]

Moustos,Asymptotic States of Accelerated Detectors and Universality of the Unruh Effect, Phys

D. Moustos,Asymptotic States of Accelerated Detectors and Universality of the Unruh Effect, Phys. Rev. D98, 065006 (2018)

2018
[26]

C. A. U. Lima, F. Brito, J. A. Hoyos and D. A. T. Vanzella,Probing the Unruh Effect with an Accelerated Extended System, Nature Comm. 10, 3030 (2019)

2019
[27]

Anastopoulos and N

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

2019
[28]

C. J. Shallue and S. M. Carroll,What Hawking Radiation Looks Like as you Fall into a Black Hole, Phys. Rev. D 112, 085013 (2025)

2025
[29]

Cliche and A.Kempf,The Relativistic Quantum Channel of Communication Through Field Quanta, Phys

M. Cliche and A.Kempf,The Relativistic Quantum Channel of Communication Through Field Quanta, Phys. Rev. A 81, 012330 (2010). 23

2010
[30]

Martin-Martinez,Causality Issues of Particle Detector Models in QFT and Quan- tum Optics, Phys

E. Martin-Martinez,Causality Issues of Particle Detector Models in QFT and Quan- tum Optics, Phys. Rev. D 92, 104019 (2015)

2015
[31]

de Ramon, M

J. de Ramon, M. Papageorgiou and E. Martin-Martinez,Relativistic Causality in Parti- cle Detector Models: Faster-than-light Signalling and ”Impossible measurements”, Phys. Rev. D103, 085002 (2021)

2021
[32]

Anastopoulos and M

C. Anastopoulos and M. E. Plakitsi,Relativistic Time-of-Arrival Measurements: Pre- dictions, Post-Selection and Causality Problems, Foundations 3, 724 (2023)

2023
[33]

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)

2022
[34]

Simmons, M

R. Simmons, M. Papageorgiou, M. Christodoulou, and ˇC. Brukner,Factorisation Con- ditions and Causality for Local Measurements in QFT, arXiv:2511.21644
[35]

Oeckl,Causal Measurement in Quantum Field Theory: spacetime, arXiv:2511.06566

R. Oeckl,Causal Measurement in Quantum Field Theory: spacetime, arXiv:2511.06566

arXiv
[36]

Anastopoulos and N

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

2017
[37]

Anastopoulos and N

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

2006
[38]

Savvidou,The Action Operator for Continuous-time HistoriesJ

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

1999 arXiv
[39]

Approaches to Quantum Gravity

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

2009
[40]

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

2003
[41]

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

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

1994
[42]

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

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

1999
[43]

Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information

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

1990
[44]

Gell-Mann and J

M. Gell-Mann and J. B. Hartle,Classical Equations for Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. D47, 3345 (1993). 24

1993
[45]

Gravitation and Quantizations

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

1992 arXiv
[46]

von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics(Princeton Uni- versity Press, Princeton, 1955)

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

1955
[47]

Busch, P

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

1996
[48]

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

1963
[49]

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

1963
[50]

G. W. Ford and R. F. O’Connell,The Rotating Wave Approximation (R WA) of Quan- tum Optics: serious defect, Physica A243, 377 (1997)

1997
[51]

G. S. Agarwal,Rotating-Wave Approximation and Spontaneous Emission, Phys. Rev. A4, 1778 (1971)

1971
[52]

Fleming, N

C. Fleming, N. I. Cummings, C. Anastopoulos and B. L. Hu,The Rotating-Wave Approximation: Consistency and Applicability from an Open Quantum System Analysis, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 43, 405304 (2010)

2010
[53]

Beuthe,Oscillations of Neutrinos and Mesons in Quantum Field Theory, Phys

M. Beuthe,Oscillations of Neutrinos and Mesons in Quantum Field Theory, Phys. Rep. 375, 105 (2003)

2003
[54]

H. J. Lipkin,Quantum Theory of Neutrino Oscillations for Pedestrians: Simple An- swers to Confusing Questions, Phys. Lett. B642, 366 (2006)

2006
[55]

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

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

1997
[56]

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

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

1974
[57]

L. H. Thomas,The Kinematics of an Electron with an Axis, Phil. Mag. 3, 1 (1927)

1927
[58]

Frenkel,Die Elektrodynamik des Rotierenden Elektrons, Z

J. Frenkel,Die Elektrodynamik des Rotierenden Elektrons, Z. Phys. 37, 243 (1926)

1926
[59]

Bauke, S

H. Bauke, S. Ahrens, C. H. Keitel and R. Grobe,What is the Relativistic Spin Opera- tor?, New J. Phys. 16, 043012 (2014)

2014
[60]

Terno,Two Roles of Relativistic Spin Operators, Phys

D. Terno,Two Roles of Relativistic Spin Operators, Phys. Rev. A 67, 014102 (2003)

2003
[61]

E. K. Akhmedov and J. Kopp,Neutrino Oscillations: Quantum Mechanics vs. Quan- tum Field Theory, JHEP 1004:008 (2010). 25

2010
[62]

E. K. Akhmedov and E. Y. Smirnov,Paradoxes of Neutrino Oscillations, Phys. Atom. Nucl.72. 1363 (2009)

2009
[63]

Giunti and C

C. Giunti and C. W. Kim,Quantum Mechanics of Neutrino Oscillations, (Found. Phys. Lett. 14, 213 (2001)

2001
[64]

Schwinger,Particles and Sources, Phys

J. Schwinger,Particles and Sources, Phys. Rev. 152, 1219 (1966)

1966
[65]

Schwinger,Particles, Sources, and Fields, (Reading, Mass., Perseus Books 1998)

J. Schwinger,Particles, Sources, and Fields, (Reading, Mass., Perseus Books 1998)

1998
[66]

Magnus,On the Exponential Solution of Differential Equations for a Linear Oper- ator, Comm

W. Magnus,On the Exponential Solution of Differential Equations for a Linear Oper- ator, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 7, 649 (1954)

1954
[67]

Rideout et al,Fundamental Quantum Optics Experiments Conceivable with Satel- lites – Reaching Relativistic Distances and Velocities, Class

D. Rideout et al,Fundamental Quantum Optics Experiments Conceivable with Satel- lites – Reaching Relativistic Distances and Velocities, Class. Quantum Grav. 29, 224011 (2012)

2012
[68]

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

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

2022
[69]

Zych and C

M. Zych and C. Brukner,Quantum Formulation of the Einstein Equivalence Principle, Nature Phys 14, 1027 (2018)

2018
[70]

Zych,Quantum Systems under Gravitational Time Dilation, (Springer, 2017)

M. Zych,Quantum Systems under Gravitational Time Dilation, (Springer, 2017)

2017
[71]

Anastopoulos and B

C. Anastopoulos and B. L. Hu,Equivalence Principle for Quantum Systems: Dephas- ing and Phase Shift of Free-Falling Particles, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 035011 (2018). 26

2018

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Anastopoulos and N

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

2012

[2] [2]

Okamura and M

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

2015

[3] [3]

Anastopoulos and N

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

2019

[4] [4]

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

2020

[5] [5]

Bostelmann, C

H. Bostelmann, C. J. Fewster, and M. RuepImpossible Measurements Require Impos- sible Apparatus, Phys. Rev. D 103, 025017 (2021)

2021

[6] [6]

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

2023

[7] [7]

Polo-G´ omez, L

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

2022

[8] [8]

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

2022