Experimental Approaches to Distinguishing Quantum Collapse from Unitary Evolution: A Weak Measurement Perspective

Peter Renkel

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Experimental Approaches to Distinguishing Quantum Collapse from Unitary Evolution: A Weak Measurement Perspective

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

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

Pith's one-line read A quantum dot acting as an unconscious observer could distinguish collapse-based from unitary quantum mechanics by the size of a residual interference term.

desk verdict A clearly written which-path proposal with a standard visibility formula, but the claimed collapse-vs-unitary dichotomy is asserted, not derived, and the test is circular. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19380 v1 pith:RH672ZCL submitted 2025-05-26 quant-ph

Peter Renkel This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords weakmeasurementunconsciousobserverwavefunctioncollapseunitaryevolutionquantuminterpretationinterferencedottrappedions

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 proposes an experiment that would let a single automated device — an 'unconscious observer' — discriminate between quantum interpretations that invoke wave-function collapse and those that treat evolution as purely unitary. The device reads the state of a qubit and sets a second qubit accordingly, but does not involve any conscious agent; an external experimentalist probes the device's own state with a weak measurement to confirm that it qualifies as an observer without destroying coherence. Under collapse-based reasoning (Copenhagen as the representative), the final probability of finding the second qubit in $|0\rangle$ is exactly $1/2$, whereas under unitary evolution it is $\frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{Re}(D))$, where $D$ is the overlap of the observer's two post-measurement states. The paper gives a concrete implementation with two trapped ions and a quantum dot, and argues that persistent interference at an observer discriminability above $\Lambda = 4.6$ would constitute evidence against collapse at the scale of the apparatus.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 'unconscious observer': a quantum system that (1) measures a qubit and sets another qubit based on the outcome, and (2) encodes the outcome in its own state so an external experimentalist can read it out weakly. The quantitative quantity that carries the argument is $D$, the overlap of the observer's two post-measurement states; the unitary prediction is $p_2(\downarrow) = \frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{Re}(D))$, and the experiment rests on measuring this probability while independently confirming, through a single-photon weak measurement with discriminability $\Lambda = 1/|F(r)F'(r)|$, that the observer really did record the outcome. The weak measurement plays a dual role: it satisfies the second criterion for being an observer, and it perturbs the interference term only by a factor of order $1/\Lambda$, which the paper keeps above $1/4.6$ so the signal is not erased.

What would settle it

Measure the second-ion spin-down probability in repeated runs with the quantum dot present but never observed until the final readout, while independently measuring the overlap $D$ and the discriminability $\Lambda$. If $p_2(\downarrow)$ equals $1/2$ within the expected statistics for runs with $\Lambda > 4.6$ and $\mathrm{Re}(D)$ measurably nonzero, the paper's unitary prediction is refuted; conversely, if $p_2(\downarrow)$ matches $\frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{Re}(D))$ only when a human checks the quantum dot's record, the experiment would demonstrate that collapse is tied to conscious verification rather than to the automated device.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the same simple circuit — prepare two qubits, let a candidate observer measure the first and set the second, apply a rotation, and read out the second qubit — yields different probabilities depending on whether a collapse occurred at the observer. Collapse-based interpretations give $p_2(0) = 1/2$ (Eq. 4), while unitary evolution gives $p_2(0) = \frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{Re}(D))$ (Eqs. 9 and 24), with $D = \int d\Omega\, \psi^*_{QD}(\Omega)\psi'_{QD}(\Omega)$ the inner product of the quantum-dot states associated with the two outcomes. The extra term $\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Re}(D)$ is the interference signal; the paper argues that with $N > 4/\mathrm{Re}(D)^2$ trials one can separate the two predictions at 95% confidence, and that in the trapped-ion/quantum-dot realization the required parameter regime is reachable if the observer's states are sufficiently distinguishable ($\Lambda > 4.6$) yet not fully orthogonal. If persistent interference is observed under those conditions, the paper concludes, collapse-based interpretations are challenged at the scale of the apparatus itself.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on assuming that the quantum dot's interaction with the first ion is already a measurement that collapses the wave function, because collapse-based interpretations themselves do not specify at what physical stage a measurement becomes a collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the experiment runs as designed and interference persists for trials with $\Lambda > 4.6$, the collapse-based prediction $p_2 = 1/2$ is rejected at the 95% confidence level for the apparatus scale tested.
The number of required measurements is set by the overlap $D$: $N > 4/\mathrm{Re}(D)^2$, so a small interference term demands many repetitions, and the paper gives this as the practical feasibility condition.
With ideal gates and a perfectly distinguishable observer ($\mathrm{Re}(D) = 1$), unitary evolution predicts $p_2(\downarrow) = 1$, the maximal separation from the collapse value.
The extension with a classical conditional operation lets the experimenter restrict statistics to trials where the observer's discriminability exceeds the threshold, sharpening the test.
If decoherence acts before the final readout, $\rho_{00}(t)$ decays toward $1/2$ and the interpretive distinction vanishes; measuring $N\rho_{00}(t_{\rm meas})$ as a function of time provides a built-in consistency check, with unitary evolution approaching $1/2$ asymptotically while a collapse interpretation stays flat.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the same circuit could be used to map the boundary where collapse is supposed to set in: by varying the size or complexity of the 'observer' (from a single atom up to a quantum dot), one could search for a threshold in $\Lambda$ or in system mass where the interference term disappears.
The paper implicitly assumes the quantum dot's interaction is already a measurement; a reader could test the sensitivity of the conclusion by shifting the collapse point to the final human readout, in which case the collapse prediction coincides with the unitary one and the two interpretations become indistinguishable by this scheme.
A practical extension would be to measure $\mathrm{Re}(D)$ independently in a calibration run without the second qubit, using the electron analog experiments cited in the paper, and then compare the calibrated value with the interference observed when the second qubit is present; agreement would validate the decoherence-return assumption (Eq. 23).

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

Here's my take. The paper has two genuinely useful pieces: a clean operational definition of an 'unconscious observer' (measures a system, encodes the result in its own state, lets an external experimenter read that result weakly), and a concrete Yb+/quantum-dot realization that is worked out in enough detail to be taken seriously. The author correctly derives the standard which-path visibility formula, p2 = 1/2(1+Re(D)), and is appropriately cautious about the moving-ion eigenfunction expansion and about the stability of D. The decoherence and error appendices are thoughtful.

The soft spot is the center of the paper. The collapse prediction p2 = 1/2 is asserted, not derived: Copenhagen does not supply a rule that turns a QD-ion interaction into a collapse event, and if collapse is postponed to the final projective readout, the unitary calculation gives exactly Eq. 24. The paper's claim that GRW, CSL, and Diosi-Penrose give 'identical results' is false without calculation; for a single ion and a small QD, the collapse rates are negligible, so persistent interference rules out nothing about those models. The protocol is also circular: D' is extracted from the same measured probability that the test is designed to interpret, so agreement with Eq. 31 is a consistency check, not evidence for unitarity.

Smaller issues: Eq. 5 labels a state that already includes the observer's correlation as 'pre-measurement', and reference [21] is Schumacher's quantum coding paper rather than Deutsch's thought experiment. Both fixable.

Who should read this? People interested in operational definitions of measurement and in ion-QD which-path experiments might take the setup as a starting point. The paper will not do what it claims. I would send it to a referee for a serious assessment only under a strict request to derive concrete collapse-model predictions and to demand an independent D calibration; absent that, I'd expect rejection. If I were the editor, I'd probably desk reject in current form, but the concrete proposal makes it worth a referee's time to see whether a reframed version can stand.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an experiment intended to discriminate between collapse-based and unitary interpretations of quantum mechanics. A two-ion entangled state is prepared; a quantum dot (QD) acts as an 'unconscious observer' that measures the first ion's spin and sets the second ion's spin accordingly. A weak single-photon measurement is used to verify that the QD's states are distinguishable, and a subsequent rotation and projective measurement of the second ion yield a probability that the paper claims is 1/2 under collapse-based interpretations (Eq. 4) versus 1/2(1+Re(D)) under unitary evolution (Eq. 24). The central claim is that observing persistent interference for a QD with discriminability above a threshold would rule out collapse at the apparatus scale. The manuscript also includes appendices on environmental decoherence, measurement errors, and QD recoil.

Significance. The proposal is creative and contains useful concrete elements: the weak-measurement verification of the observer's pointer states (Section 7.3), the explicit treatment of decoherence (Appendix A), and the error analysis (Appendix B) are steps in the right direction, and the paper honestly flags several assumptions that would need experimental validation. However, the interpretive conclusion is not supported. The collapse prediction is an assumption about where collapse occurs, not a consequence of any specific collapse model; the unitary prediction depends on an unknown, unmeasured overlap D; and the proposed use of Eq. (31) makes the test circular. The paper therefore does not establish an experimental discrimination between collapse-based and unitary interpretations. If the conceptual issues were resolved, the experimental machinery described could be a useful platform for studying decoherence and which-path information, but as it stands the central claim is not defensible.

major comments (4)

[§5, Eq. (5)] The pre-measurement state in Eq. (5) is written as (|00⟩+|11⟩)|obs⟩/√2, but this is the state after the observer has already measured the first qubit and set the second qubit accordingly; after the Hadamard and before that interaction the state is (|0⟩+|1⟩)|0⟩|obs⟩/√2. The derivation of Eq. (9) therefore conflates the CNOT-like preparation of the second ion with the measurement interaction, so the unitary prediction does not follow from the experimental sequence as stated.
[§4, Eq. (4)] The collapse prediction p2=1/2 rests entirely on the assertion that 'the act of measurement by the unconscious observer collapses the state of the first qubit.' Copenhagen supplies no criterion for when a quantum-dot–ion interaction counts as a measurement; if collapse is placed instead at the final projective readout, the same calculation as §5 yields p2(↓)=1/2(1+Re(D)), making the two predictions identical. Without a concrete rule for where collapse occurs, the claimed discrimination is not defined.
[§4 and §2] The statement that 'the results for most other collapse-based interpretations are expected to be identical' is not supported by the cited models. GRW, CSL, and Diosi-Penrose collapse rates depend on mass, superposition size, and interaction time; for a single Yb+ ion and a small quantum dot these rates are generally negligible on the relevant timescale, so those models predict p2 close to Eq. (24), not Eq. (4). Persistent interference would therefore only rule out a collapse placed ad hoc at the quantum dot, not collapse at the apparatus scale.
[§7.3, Eq. (31), and §8] The proposed test is circular: the unitary prediction is parameterized by the unknown overlap D (Eq. (24)), and the protocol proposes to extract D′ from the same measured probability via Eq. (31) and then treat agreement as evidence for unitary evolution. Since the collapse prediction is only the D=0 limit, the experiment is a consistency check of a one-parameter family, not an independent discrimination between two rival predictions; an independent determination of D is required.

minor comments (4)

[Appendix B, Eq. (36)] In the displayed simplification, 'p2(0)' should be 'p1(1)'; the final equality is correct only after that typo is fixed.
[References] Reference [21] is cited in the introduction for 'Deutsch's thought experiments', but [21] is Schumacher's 'Quantum coding'; Deutsch's relevant work is [7].
[§5, statistical discussion] The text says 'with N measurements and a p-value of 95%' and then uses N=1/s^2; this is not a p-value but a normal-approximation confidence statement, and the wording should be corrected.
[§7.3, Eq. (31)] The assertion that the interference term is reduced 'approximately by a factor of Λ' ignores the phase-dependent factor cos(φF+φD′)/cos(φD′), which can be large when cos(φD′) is small; the reduction is not guaranteed by Λ>4.6 alone.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The unitary 'prediction' is parameterized by an unmeasured observer-overlap D, and the protocol extracts D' from the same measured probability it is supposed to predict, making the confirmatory step a consistency check.

fitted input called prediction [Section 8, Eq. (31) (extracting D' from the measured p2)]
"Furthermore, using Eq. 31 and utilizing F (r) coefficients, we can compute D′. This will enable us to test Eq. 31 for different scattering arrangements (e.g. varying the distance between the QD and the above-mentioned circle or varying the wavelength of incoming photon). If confirmed, this would decisively demonstrate that quantum evolution in measurement remains strictly unitary, thereby challenging interpretations that predict deviations due to collapse mechanisms."

Eq. 31 is the unitary-evolution prediction under test: p2(↓)=1/2(1+Re[F*F'D']). The protocol proposes to 'compute D′' from this same measured p2(↓) using Eq. 31, with F and F' obtained from Mie theory, and then to 'test Eq. 31' by checking that D′ is consistent across arrangements. Because D′ is a free parameter fitted to the target observable, agreement is not an independent confirmation of unitary evolution: any measured p2 defines a D′ that makes Eq. 31 hold, and the collapse branch (p2=1/2) corresponds merely to D′=0. The 'prediction' is therefore a re-description of the data rather than a first-principles derivation; the confirmatory claim reduces, by the paper's own equations, to a self-consistency check of an ansatz.

full rationale

The paper's core statistical test—comparing the measured p2(↓) against the Copenhagen value 1/2—is not itself circular: observing a significant deviation would falsify the assumption that collapse occurs at the quantum dot, regardless of the value of D. However, the paper goes further and claims that Eq. 31 can be confirmed, and hence that unitary evolution is 'decisively demonstrated', by computing D′ from the measured p2 and checking consistency. That step is circular in the sense of a fitted parameter being extracted from the very quantity the equation is supposed to predict. The unitary prediction p2=1/2(1+Re(D)) is a one-parameter family, and the parameter D is not independently derived or measured; it is effectively calibrated on the target observable. The separate weakness that collapse-based interpretations are not shown to predict collapse at the QD interaction (as opposed to the final readout) is a correctness/soundness concern rather than a circularity, and the threshold Λ0=4.6 is stipulated by hand; neither of these is counted as a circular step under the rubric. No load-bearing self-citation was found. Overall, the central confirmatory claim is partially circular, but the simple falsification test retains some independent content, giving a score of 6 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central prediction depends on the unknown overlap D and on the ad hoc assumption that collapse occurs at the quantum dot. No independent derivation of D is given; Eq. 31 lets D' be inferred from the same observable being tested. The collapse prediction is tied to an undefined criterion for when a device becomes a measurement apparatus, and agreement among objective collapse models is asserted rather than computed.

free parameters (2)

D (overlap of quantum-dot pointer states) = not specified; must be assessed experimentally
Eq. 24 predicts p2=1/2(1+Re(D)); D is not derived from first principles and is identified with the same interference visibility the experiment is meant to test.
Λ0 (discriminability threshold) = 4.6
Arbitrary threshold corresponding to 95%/5% probability split (Eqs. 28-29); controls which events are accepted and therefore the predicted interference suppression.

assumptions (6)

standard math Standard Hilbert space formalism and Born rule
Used throughout for state evolution and probability computation.
ad hoc to paper Copenhagen collapse occurs at the unconscious observer's measurement
Section 4 asserts 'the act of measurement by the unconscious observer collapses the state'; no criterion is given for when a quantum dot counts as a measurement apparatus.
ad hoc to paper All collapse-based interpretations give the same prediction as Copenhagen in this setup
Section 2 claims 'results for most other collapse-based interpretations are expected to be identical'; no calculation of GRW, CSL, or Diosi-Penrose collapse rates for a small quantum dot is provided.
ad hoc to paper The ion's spin-up wavefunction can be approximated by a single eigenstate of the quantum-dot well, so D_i≈Dδ
Section 7.2 makes this approximation and acknowledges that a stationary eigenfunction cannot describe a moving particle, saying the assumption 'should be further evaluated'.
ad hoc to paper The quantum dot returns to the same pre-measurement state after decoherence
Eq. 23 assumes ψ_QD → ψ'_QD → ψ_QD after each measurement; authors state this 'seems reasonable' but 'should be validated during the experiment'.
ad hoc to paper The pointer basis coincides with the computational basis
Appendix A assumes this 'for illustrative purposes' to compute the decohered density matrix and probability.

invented entities (1)

Unconscious observer
purpose: A conceptual category for a measurement apparatus that sets another system's state based on the outcome and allows external inference, without requiring consciousness.
The paper introduces this definition to argue a quantum dot can be treated as an observer, but the concept has no independent physical content; its only operational content is the hand-chosen threshold Λ0.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental Approaches to Distinguishing Quantum Collapse from Unitary Evolution: A Weak Measurement Perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RH672ZCL

@misc{pith2026250519380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental Approaches to Distinguishing Quantum Collapse from Unitary Evolution: A Weak Measurement Perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RH672ZCL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19380}
}

read the original abstract

This paper proposes an experiment designed to distinguish between competing interpretations of quantum mechanics: those that involve wave function collapse and those that assume purely unitary evolution. The experiment tests whether an observer can measure a system without collapsing its wave function. To this end, we introduce the concept of an unconscious observer, defined by two criteria: (1) It measures a quantum system and sets the state of another system based on the result. (2) It allows an external experimentalist to infer the measurement outcome by examining the observer's state. The more distinguishable the observer's resulting states, the more it resembles a conventional measurement apparatus. Using weak measurements, the experimentalist probes these states, thereby testing the second criterion. The interference patterns observed in this setup reveal whether collapse has occurred, allowing experimental discrimination between collapse-based and unitary interpretations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19380 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** An example of an unconscious observer (highlighted in red in Fig. 1), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** A quantum dot (QD) acts as an unconscious observer, determining [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Assessing the state of the QD after its interaction with the first ion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[21]

Quantum coding

Benjamin Schumacher. “Quantum coding”. In: Physical Review A 51.4 (1995), pp. 2738–2747. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.51.2738 . url: https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.51.2738

doi:10.1103/physreva.51.2738 1995
[1]

Quantum circuits of CNOT gates

Marc Bataille. “Quantum circuits of CNOT gates”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.13247 (2020)

work page Pith review arXiv 2020
[2]

A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of

David Bohm. “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ”Hidden” Variables II”. In: Physical Review 85 (1952), pp. 180–

work page 1952
[3]

The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory

Niels Bohr. “The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory”. In: Nature 121 (1928), pp. 580–590. doi: 10 . 1038 / 121580a0

work page 1928
[4]

Bohren and Donald R

Craig F. Bohren and Donald R. Huffman. Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles . New York: Wiley-VCH, 1983. isbn: 978-0-471- 29340-8

work page 1983
[5]

A strong no-go theorem on the existence of objective facts in a relativistic quantum world

Y. Bong et al. “A strong no-go theorem on the existence of objective facts in a relativistic quantum world”. In: Nature Physics 16 (2020), pp. 1199–

work page 2020
[6]

No Information Without Disturbance: Quantum Limitations of Measurement

Paul Busch. “No Information Without Disturbance: Quantum Limitations of Measurement”. In: Quantum Reality, Relativistic Causality, and Closing the Epistemic Circle. Ed. by J. Christian and W. Myrvold. Vol. 73. Invited contribution, ”Quantum Reality, Relativistic Causality, and Closing the Epistemic Circle: An International Conference in Honour of Abner Sh...

work page 2006
[7]

Quantum computational networks

David Deutsch. “Quantum computational networks”. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences425.1868 (1989), pp. 73–90. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1989.0099 . url: https://doi. org/10.1098/rspa.1989.0099

arXiv 1989

Show all 33 references

[8]

Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctu- ations

L. Di´ osi. “Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctu- ations”. In: Physical Review A 40.3 (1989), pp. 1165–1174. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevA.40.1165

1989
[9]

The Theory of the Universal Wave Function

Hugh Everett. “The Theory of the Universal Wave Function”. PhD thesis. Princeton University, 1956. 16

1956
[10]

An In- troduction to QBism with an Application to the Locality of Quantum Mechanics

Christopher A. Fuchs, N. David Mermin, and R¨ udiger Schack. “An In- troduction to QBism with an Application to the Locality of Quantum Mechanics”. In: American Journal of Physics 82.8 (2014), pp. 749–754. doi: 10.1119/1.4874855. url: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4874855

2014 doi
[11]

Unified dynamics for mi- croscopic and macroscopic systems

G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber. “Unified dynamics for mi- croscopic and macroscopic systems”. In: Physical Review D 34.2 (1986), pp. 470–491. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.34.470

1986 doi
[12]

Consistent Histories and the Interpretation of Quan- tum Mechanics

Robert B. Griffiths. “Consistent Histories and the Interpretation of Quan- tum Mechanics”. In: Journal of Statistical Physics 36.1-2 (1984), pp. 219–

1984
[13]

“Relative State

Hugh Everett III. ““Relative State” Formulation of Quantum Mechanics”. In: Reviews of Modern Physics 29 (1957), pp. 454–462. doi: 10.1103/ RevModPhys.29.454

1957
[14]

Architecture for a large- scale ion-trap quantum computer

D. Kielpinski, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland. “Architecture for a large- scale ion-trap quantum computer”. In: Nature 417.6890 (2002), pp. 709– 711

2002
[15]

Pointer states and decoherence in quantum mechanics

Shao-Long Liu, Li Li, and C. P. Sun. “Pointer states and decoherence in quantum mechanics”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016), p. 060401

2016
[16]

Ytterbium ion trap quantum computing: The current state-of-the-art

Gavin N. Nop, Durga Paudyal, and Jonathan D. H. Smith. “Ytterbium ion trap quantum computing: The current state-of-the-art”. In:A VS Quantum Science 3.4 (2021), p. 044101. doi: 10.1116/5.0064079 . url: https: //doi.org/10.1116/5.0064079

2021 doi
[17]

Combining stochastic dynamical state-vector reduction with spontaneous localization

Philip Pearle. “Combining stochastic dynamical state-vector reduction with spontaneous localization”. In: Physical Review A 39.5 (1989), pp. 2277–

1989
[18]

Experimental test of quantum complementarity with an observer in a superposition

M. Proietti et al. “Experimental test of quantum complementarity with an observer in a superposition”. In: Science Advances 5.9 (2019), eaaw9832. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832 . url: https://advances.sciencemag. org/content/5/9/eaaw9832

2019 doi
[19]

Phase measurement in a quan- tum dot via a double-slit interference experiment

M. Heiblum R. Schuster E. Buks et al. “Phase measurement in a quan- tum dot via a double-slit interference experiment”. In: Nature 385 (1997), pp. 417–420

1997
[20]

”Which path

K. Roszak and P. Machnikowski. “”Which path” decoherence in quantum dot experiments”. In: Physics Letters A 351.4-5 (2006), pp. 251–256. doi: 10.1016/j.physleta.2005.11.012

2006 doi
[22]

The Young-Feynman controlled double-slit electron interference experiment

Amir H. Tavabi et al. “The Young-Feynman controlled double-slit electron interference experiment”. In: Scientific Reports 9.10458 (2019), pp. 1–18. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-43323-2 . url: https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-019-43323-2 . 17

2019 doi
[23]

Remarks on the mind-body question

E. P. Wigner. “Remarks on the mind-body question”. In: The Scientist Speculates: An Anthology of Partly-Baked Ideas (1961). Ed. by I. J. Good. Reprinted in Wigner, E. P. (1967). Symmetries and Reflections: Scientific Essays. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, pp. 171–1...

1961
[24]

Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: Into what mix- ture does the wave packet collapse?

Wojciech H. Zurek. “Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: Into what mix- ture does the wave packet collapse?” In: Physical Review D 24.6 (1981), pp. 1516–1525. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.24.1516 . url: https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevD.24.1516

1981 doi
[25]

Quan- tum computing with trapped ions: a beginner’s guide

Francesco Bernardini, Abhijit Chakraborty, and Carlos Ord´ o˜ nez. Quan- tum computing with trapped ions: a beginner’s guide . 2023. arXiv: 2303. 16358 [quant-ph]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.16358. Appendix A. Environment If the interaction with the environment were negli...

2023 arXiv
[30]

|00⟩ with probability p1(0) − perr
[31]

|01⟩ with probability perr
[32]

|11⟩ with probability p1(1) − perr
[33]

|10⟩ with probability perr To get the probability of finding the second qubit in the state |0⟩ post- rotation, we need to replace Eq. 3 with: p2(0)Copenhagen rot = (p1(0) − perr) × 1√ 2 ˆP 0 2 (|00⟩ + |11⟩) 2 + perr × ˆP 0 2 (|01⟩) 2 + (p1(1) − perr) × 1√ 2 ˆP 0 2 (|00⟩ − |11⟩...
[193]

doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.85.180

doi
[272]

1007 / BF01015734

doi: 10 . 1007 / BF01015734. url: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1007 / BF01015734
[1205]

doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-1004-y

doi
[2289]

doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.39.2277

doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [21]

Quantum coding

Benjamin Schumacher. “Quantum coding”. In: Physical Review A 51.4 (1995), pp. 2738–2747. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.51.2738 . url: https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.51.2738

doi:10.1103/physreva.51.2738 1995

[2] [1]

Quantum circuits of CNOT gates

Marc Bataille. “Quantum circuits of CNOT gates”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.13247 (2020)

work page Pith review arXiv 2020

[3] [2]

A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of

David Bohm. “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ”Hidden” Variables II”. In: Physical Review 85 (1952), pp. 180–

work page 1952

[4] [3]

The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory

Niels Bohr. “The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory”. In: Nature 121 (1928), pp. 580–590. doi: 10 . 1038 / 121580a0

work page 1928

[5] [4]

Bohren and Donald R

Craig F. Bohren and Donald R. Huffman. Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles . New York: Wiley-VCH, 1983. isbn: 978-0-471- 29340-8

work page 1983

[6] [5]

A strong no-go theorem on the existence of objective facts in a relativistic quantum world

Y. Bong et al. “A strong no-go theorem on the existence of objective facts in a relativistic quantum world”. In: Nature Physics 16 (2020), pp. 1199–

work page 2020

[7] [6]

No Information Without Disturbance: Quantum Limitations of Measurement

Paul Busch. “No Information Without Disturbance: Quantum Limitations of Measurement”. In: Quantum Reality, Relativistic Causality, and Closing the Epistemic Circle. Ed. by J. Christian and W. Myrvold. Vol. 73. Invited contribution, ”Quantum Reality, Relativistic Causality, and Closing the Epistemic Circle: An International Conference in Honour of Abner Sh...

work page 2006

[8] [7]

Quantum computational networks

David Deutsch. “Quantum computational networks”. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences425.1868 (1989), pp. 73–90. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1989.0099 . url: https://doi. org/10.1098/rspa.1989.0099

arXiv 1989