pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.03166 · v4 · submitted 2025-09-03 · 🪐 quant-ph

Assessing the dynamical assumptions in Tsirelson inequality tests of non-classicality in harmonic oscillators

Arush Garg , Jonathan Halliwell , Taejas Venkataraman This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 19:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords Tsirelson inequalityharmonic oscillatormacrorealismLeggett-Garg inequalitiesuniform precessionquantum interferencenon-classicality
0
0 comments X

The pith

Quantum analysis shows uniform precession holds closely enough in harmonic oscillators that Tsirelson violations require quantum interference terms.

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

The paper examines Tsirelson inequality violations in a harmonic oscillator to determine whether they could arise from a classical macrorealistic system that simply fails to precess uniformly. The Tsirelson inequality follows from the dynamical assumption of uniform precession plus single-time measurements, avoiding the clumsiness loophole of sequential tests. A quantum-mechanical protocol is developed to check generalized uniform precession conditions, including some related to Leggett-Garg quantities. These conditions turn out to be satisfied sufficiently well that any violations must involve quantum interference. The work also derives results on dwell times, crossing numbers, probability currents, and a group-theoretic view of the Tsirelson operator.

Core claim

By carrying out a quantum-mechanical analysis of the Tsirelson inequality in the harmonic oscillator, the authors develop a protocol to assess generalised conditions of uniform precession. They show that various measures of uniform precession, some of which are related to Leggett-Garg quantities, are satisfied well enough that the presence of quantum-mechanical interference terms must be implied.

What carries the argument

Generalised conditions of uniform precession, checked via single-time measurements and linked to dwell time, crossing number and probability currents for states that violate the Tsirelson inequality.

If this is right

  • Tsirelson violations in the harmonic oscillator cannot be explained by classical macrorealism that breaks only the uniform-precession assumption.
  • The protocol implies that quantum interference terms are necessary to produce violations once the precession measures are taken into account.
  • Dwell-time and crossing-number results constrain the properties of any state that achieves a Tsirelson violation.
  • A group-theoretic treatment of the Tsirelson operator supplies additional structure for analysing violating states.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same precession-assessment method could be applied to other bounded or unbounded quantum systems to strengthen non-classicality tests.
  • Combining the Tsirelson approach with direct Leggett-Garg measurements might close remaining loopholes in tests of macroscopic coherence.
  • The incidental results on probability currents suggest new observables for detecting interference without sequential measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen measures of generalised uniform precession are sufficient to rule out classical explanations for Tsirelson inequality violations in the harmonic oscillator model.

What would settle it

A harmonic-oscillator state that violates the Tsirelson inequality while showing substantial deviations in the uniform-precession measures such as dwell time or crossing number.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03166 by Arush Garg, Jonathan Halliwell, Taejas Venkataraman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A classical particle oscillating in a quadratic poten [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Unlike the blue classical trajectory, which follows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Representation of all states in the subspace described by Eq. 2.11, where the axes represent the (real) coefficients. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Tsirelson operator in the energy eigenbasis with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plot of the average crossing number, ⟨n|Nˆc(2π)|n⟩ (see Eq. 4.10), over a full period for the first 21 energy eigen￾states. We see that the even eigenstates converge much more rapidly to the classical value of 2. such as two crossings during a third of a period, are very small indeed. A potential issue is that measuring the crossing num￾ber requires a two-time measurement, which could raise concerns of inv… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A histogram of the spectrum of eigenvalues of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The computed maximal eigenvalue of A in an increasingly large subspace, tending towards a finite maximal violation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Plot of the probability density current for the Zaw-Scarani state at the origin over a period compared to the classical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

"Macrorealism" posits that a system possesses definite properties at all times and that we can discover these properties, in principle, without disturbing the system's subsequent behaviour. The Leggett-Garg inequalities are derived under these assumptions and are readily violated by standard quantum mechanics, thereby providing a scheme to test whether demonstrably macroscopic systems can exhibit quantum coherence. Unfortunately, Leggett-Garg tests suffer from the difficult to avoid clumsiness loophole - the difficulty of proving that sequential measurements have not inadvertently disturbed the system. The recently uncovered Tsirelson inequality is derived from the simple dynamical assumption of uniform precession, obeyed by many classical systems, and requires only single-time measurements. However, Tsirelson inequality violations could be explained by a macrorealistic system that merely breaks the dynamical assumption, rather than genuine quantum behaviour. By carrying out a quantum-mechanical analysis of the Tsirelson inequality in the harmonic oscillator, we develop a protocol to rule out this possibility by assessing generalised conditions of uniform precession. We show that various measures of uniform precession, some of which are related to Leggett-Garg quantities, are satisfied well enough that the presence of quantum-mechanical interference terms must be implied. We derive several incidental mathematical results relating to violating states of Tsirelson's inequality, concerning dwell time, crossing number and probability currents, and also consider a group theoretic analysis of the Tsirelson operator.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the Tsirelson inequality in the quantum harmonic oscillator to address the loophole that violations could arise from breaking the uniform-precession dynamical assumption rather than from genuine non-classicality. It develops generalized measures of uniform precession (including Leggett-Garg-related quantities, dwell time, crossing number, and probability currents), performs a quantum-mechanical evaluation showing these measures are satisfied to a sufficient degree, and concludes that this implies the presence of interference terms. Incidental results include mathematical relations for violating states and a group-theoretic analysis of the Tsirelson operator.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work provides a concrete protocol for closing a key loophole in Tsirelson-based tests of macrorealism for systems like the harmonic oscillator, strengthening their use as witnesses of quantum coherence in macroscopic regimes. The derivation of dwell-time, crossing-number, and current relations, together with the group-theoretic treatment, constitutes reusable mathematical contributions. The paper supplies explicit derivations that can be checked independently.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4] §4 (numerical evaluation of measures): the statement that the measures 'are satisfied well enough' to imply interference lacks explicit quantitative thresholds, confidence intervals, or comparison against the maximum violation achievable by a classical stochastic process that satisfies exactly the same generalized precession conditions while violating the Tsirelson bound; without these, the sufficiency claim for ruling out all classical explanations remains unestablished.
  2. [§3.1] §3.1, definition of generalized uniform precession: the measures (including those related to Leggett-Garg) are shown to hold in the quantum case, but the manuscript does not demonstrate that satisfaction of these specific quantities is incompatible with any classical hidden-variable or stochastic dynamics that could still produce a Tsirelson violation; a counter-example construction or completeness argument is required to support the implication.
  3. [§5] §5 (post-selection handling): the protocol involves post-selection on measurement outcomes, yet the text does not quantify or bound the resulting bias on the precession measures; this directly affects whether the observed satisfaction can be taken as evidence against classical explanations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] Notation for the Tsirelson operator in §2 is introduced without an explicit comparison table to the standard Leggett-Garg form; adding one would improve readability.
  2. [Figure 3] Figure 3 caption does not state the exact parameter values or Hilbert-space truncation used for the numerical curves.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments raise important points about the quantitative rigor and the logical implications of our generalized uniform precession measures. We respond to each major comment in turn and outline the revisions we intend to make to address them.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] the statement that the measures 'are satisfied well enough' to imply interference lacks explicit quantitative thresholds, confidence intervals, or comparison against the maximum violation achievable by a classical stochastic process that satisfies exactly the same generalized precession conditions while violating the Tsirelson bound; without these, the sufficiency claim for ruling out all classical explanations remains unestablished.

    Authors: We agree that more quantitative detail is needed. In the revised manuscript, we will add explicit thresholds for each precession measure, derived from the numerical data, along with statistical confidence intervals. Regarding comparison to classical stochastic processes, we note that our analysis focuses on verifying the conditions in the quantum case. We will include a discussion of how the observed values compare to the boundary for classical violation, but a full optimization over all possible classical models satisfying the conditions exactly is a substantial extension that we will flag as future work. This will make the sufficiency claim more precise without overclaiming. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§3.1] the measures (including those related to Leggett-Garg) are shown to hold in the quantum case, but the manuscript does not demonstrate that satisfaction of these specific quantities is incompatible with any classical hidden-variable or stochastic dynamics that could still produce a Tsirelson violation; a counter-example construction or completeness argument is required to support the implication.

    Authors: The measures are designed to capture the essential aspects of the uniform precession assumption underlying the Tsirelson inequality. By showing they hold in the quantum harmonic oscillator, we argue that violations cannot be attributed to breaking these conditions. However, we acknowledge that demonstrating incompatibility with all possible classical dynamics would require a completeness result showing that any classical model satisfying these measures cannot violate Tsirelson. This is not provided in the current work, as our focus is on the quantum evaluation. We will revise the text to clarify the scope of the implication and avoid suggesting a full closure of all classical loopholes. We believe this addresses the core of the comment while maintaining the paper's contribution. revision: no

  3. Referee: [§5] the protocol involves post-selection on measurement outcomes, yet the text does not quantify or bound the resulting bias on the precession measures; this directly affects whether the observed satisfaction can be taken as evidence against classical explanations.

    Authors: This is a valid concern. We will add a new subsection in §5 that quantifies the post-selection bias. Specifically, we will derive bounds on how post-selection affects the dwell time, crossing number, and current measures, using the known post-selection probabilities in the harmonic oscillator model. This will show that the bias is negligible for the parameters considered and does not undermine the conclusion that the precession conditions are satisfied. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Demonstrating that the generalized uniform precession measures are incompatible with classical models capable of violating the Tsirelson inequality.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation self-contained via direct quantum computation of precession measures

full rationale

The paper computes generalized uniform precession measures (dwell time, crossing number, probability currents, and Leggett-Garg-related quantities) directly from the quantum harmonic oscillator dynamics and compares them to the Tsirelson inequality. These quantities are obtained from the Schrödinger evolution and operator algebra without fitting any parameters to the target violation data or redefining the conclusion as an input. The claim that satisfaction of the measures implies interference terms follows from explicit evaluation rather than from any self-definitional loop, fitted-input prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain. The analysis therefore remains independent of its final inference and does not reduce the result to its own assumptions by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of uniform precession as a classical dynamical assumption and on the sufficiency of the chosen measures to detect deviations from it.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Uniform precession is a dynamical assumption obeyed by many classical systems and used to derive the Tsirelson inequality.
    Invoked in the abstract as the basis for the inequality that the quantum analysis then tests.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5792 in / 1248 out tokens · 28647 ms · 2026-05-18T19:49:18.103890+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Comparing quantum and classical finite state generators

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Classical finite state generators can exceed the Tsirelson bound of 2√2 in temporal correlations, but quantum generators maintain stronger correlations longer under time delays and scrambling operations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 95 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Declare a data set, comprising measurements of⟨A⟩ (the Tsirelson test itself) as well as subsidiary quan- tities to gauge the dynamical assumption of uni- form precession (UP)

    work page

  2. [2]

    Write the Tsirelson quantity in the following form: 1 2(1 +⟨A⟩) = (Positive term) + (UP violating term) + (Quantum interference term),(3.1) where the scaled Tsirelson quantity 1 2(1 +⟨A⟩) is 8 bounded between 0 and 1 classically and hence de- scribes a probability

    work page

  3. [3]

    three-headed cat state

    Establish whether or not the UP violating term is capable of dominating the quantum interference terms in terms of explaining the Tsirelson inequal- ity violation. In other words, whether or not a classical model with no quantum-mechanical inter- ferences could account for the violation. If not, the failure of macrorealism per se must also be implied. B. ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    By this measure, a classical and quantum oscillator are indistinguishable

    Therefore, ⟨ ˆTD(2π)⟩= 1 2 .(4.3) We see that the dwell time, integrated over a full period, is exactly the classical value. By this measure, a classical and quantum oscillator are indistinguishable. The dwell time operator is diagonal over a full period (and in fact is proportional to the identity)—which can be understood as due to the fact that ˆTD is T...

    work page

  5. [5]

    This in turn is related to the fact that the Wigner function, for a class of potentials, has approximately classical evolution

    and references therein). This in turn is related to the fact that the Wigner function, for a class of potentials, has approximately classical evolution. This behaviour can be affected by monitoring (e.g. with projection oper- ators onto ranges of position at intermittent times), but this effect is not large unless the projections are onto very small regio...

    work page

  6. [6]

    accumulation points

    Therefore, we find Qnk = 2Fnk, Q nn = 0.(C6) To evaluate Equation C5, we use the closed form expressions for the eigenstates of the harmonic oscillator in terms of the Hermite polynomialsH n(x), Ψn(x) = π− 1 4 √ 2nn! exp −1 2 x2 Hn(x).(C7) Consequently, using the following identities for the derivatives of Hermite polynomials, H ′ 0(0) = 0, H ′ n(0) = 2n ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Proof Strategy We aim to show that the magnitude of⟨A⟩is less than 1 for the state |ψ2⟩=α|n⟩+β|k⟩,(E1) where|α| 2 +|β| 2 = 1. The expectation value of ˆAfor|ψ 2⟩is ⟨A⟩=|α| 2 ⟨n| ˆA|n⟩| {z } 0 +|β|2 ⟨k| ˆA|k⟩| {z } 0 +2 Re(α∗β)⟨n| ˆA|k⟩.(E2) Expanding out⟨A⟩in terms ofQ nk yields ⟨A⟩= 2 Re(α ∗β)Qnk 1 +e 2πi 3 (n−k) +e 4πi 3 (n−k) .(E3) The sum of exponenti...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Then Re(α∗β) =cscos(ϕ−θ)

    To be precise, consider the following short proof: Letα=ce iθ andβ=se iϕ. Then Re(α∗β) =cscos(ϕ−θ). cos(ϕ−θ) is maximised ifϕ=θ. Thus we can chooseα=candβ=s, up to a global phase. Then, the constraintc 2 +s 2 = 1 means we can parametrisecandsasc= cos(ξ) ands= sin(ξ). Therefore, cs= 1 2 sin(2ξ), which is maximised if sin(2ξ) = 1. Hence, max(cs) = max (Re(α...

    work page

  9. [9]

    One might conjecture that theQ 03 matrix element will be the largest in magnitude that meets thek−n= 3mcondition

    Thus,⟨A⟩for an equal 18 superposition of|ψ 2⟩= 1√ 2(|n⟩+|k⟩) withn−k= 0 mod 3 is ⟨A⟩= 2 1 2 Qnk(3) = 3Qnk.(E4) We see that the problem of showing that|⟨A⟩|<1 reduces to showing that |Qnk|< 1 3 ∀n, ks.tk−n= 3m,form∈N,(E5) where we only need to considerm≥0 becauseQ nk is symmetric. One might conjecture that theQ 03 matrix element will be the largest in magn...

    work page

  10. [10]

    Qnk =   0 Q01 0Q 03 · · · Q10 0 Q12 0· · · 0Q 21 0 Q23 · · · Q30 0Q 32 0· · ·

    The largest matrix element, in magnitude, on a diagonal i.e for fixedm,|Q n,n+2m+1|is|Q 0,2m+1|. Qnk =   0 Q01 0Q 03 · · · Q10 0 Q12 0· · · 0Q 21 0 Q23 · · · Q30 0Q 32 0· · · ... ... ... ... ...   .(E6)

    work page

  11. [11]

    Qnk =   0 Q01 0 Q03 · · · Q10 0Q 12 0· · · 0Q 21 0Q 23 · · · Q30 0Q 32 0· · ·

    The non-zero matrix elements decrease in magnitude across the 0th row i.e|Q 0,2m+1|is a decreasing function inm. Qnk =   0 Q01 0 Q03 · · · Q10 0Q 12 0· · · 0Q 21 0Q 23 · · · Q30 0Q 32 0· · · ... ... ... ... ...   .(E7) We already have established that the only non-zero matrix elements of theQ nk are those with opposite parity, and we...

    work page

  12. [12]

    Diagonals of theQ nk matrix Showing the first statement is slightly complicated by the fact that the evennand oddnmatrix elements have different formulas. Whennis even (and hencekis odd) the relevant formula (obtained using Equations C9 and C11) is |Qeven nk |= r 2 π (n−1)!!√ n! ! (k+ 1)! (k−n) √ k!2 k+1 2 k+1 2 ! .(E8) Whennis odd (and hencekis even) the...

    work page

  13. [13]

    weak measurement

    0th Row of theQ nk Matrix is Decreasing The second thing to show is thatQ 0,2m+1 is a decreasing function inm. To accomplish this, consider the fraction |Q0,2m+3/Q0,2m+1|and show it is less than 1. Q0,2m+3 = r 2 π (−1)!!√ 0! ! (2m+ 4)! (2m+ 3) p (2m+ 3)!2 m+2 (m+ 2)! (E22) Q0,2m+1 = r 2 π (−1)!!√ 0! ! (2m+ 2)! (2m+ 1) p (2m+ 1)!2 m+1 (m+ 1)! (E23) where (...

    work page

  14. [14]

    To show this claim, one simply needs to show two statements hold true

    Outline and Preliminaries This appendix is devoted to proving that if Tsirelson’s inequality is violated by a given quantum state, with support entirely inH k, then that state will satisfy all four LG3s (Eqs 1.12-1.15) if the measurement timest 1, t2, t3 are the same as in the Tsirelson scheme. To show this claim, one simply needs to show two statements h...

    work page

  15. [15]

    We straightforwardly show this in Section I 2

    A Tsirelson violation implies satisfaction of the first LG3 i.eL 1 >0. We straightforwardly show this in Section I 2. In fact, this result holds for arbitrary quantum states

    work page

  16. [16]

    Conse- quently, all four LG3s are positive

    For quantum states inH 0,H 1,H 2, the first Leggett–Garg quantity is always the smallest of the four. Conse- quently, all four LG3s are positive

    work page

  17. [17]

    Tsirelson Violation=⇒L 1 >0 Consider a state that violates Tsirelson’s inequality such that ⟨Q1 +Q 2 +Q 3⟩>1 (I1) or in fact⟨Q 1 +Q 2 +Q 3⟩<−1 (this doesn’t change the argument at all). Now, consider the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality applied to the left hand side of Equation I1 ⟨(Q1 +Q 2 +Q 3)2⟩ ≥(⟨Q 1 +Q 2 +Q 3⟩)2.(I2) Using Equations I1 and I2 we can write ...

    work page

  18. [18]

    The equality certainly holds for someε∈R

    Relating the Tsirelson quantity to the quantum current Consider the limit definition of the integral to write⟨ ˆTD⟩as a Riemann sum, ⟨ ˆTD⟩= 1 2π " lim N→∞ 2π N+ 1 NX n=0 θ 2πn N+ 1 # ,(K1) = 1 3 2X n=0 θ 2πn 3 + ε 2π ,(K2) whereεrefers to an error term. The equality certainly holds for someε∈R. Assuming⟨θ(t)⟩is analytic int, then⟨θ(t)⟩has a well-defined ...

    work page

  19. [19]

    A Tsirelson satisfaction condition onH 0 We will refer to the dwell time over 2/3 of a period asT 2/3. Consider the following integral approximation: T2/3 = 1 6   3X j=1 ⟨θj⟩+⟨θ 1⟩   + 1 2π 3X j=1 Ej (K16) = 1 12 ⟨A⟩+ 1 12 ⟨Q1⟩+ 1 3 + 1 2π 3X j=1 Ej.(K17) Therefore, ⟨A⟩= 12T 2/3 −4− ⟨Q 1⟩ − 6 π 3X j=1 Ej (K18) where bothE 1 andE 2 are left end point e...

    work page

  20. [20]

    How often is the coordinate of a harmonic oscillator positive?

    B. Tsirelson, How often is the coordinate of a harmonic oscillator positive?, arXiv:quant-ph/0611147

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    Pl´ avala, T

    M. Pl´ avala, T. Heinosaari, S. Nimmrichter, and O. G¨ uhne, Tsirelson inequalities: Detecting cheating and quantumness in a single framework, Phys. Rev. A109, 062216 (2024)

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Wigner, On the quantum correction for thermody- namic equilibrium, Phys

    E. Wigner, On the quantum correction for thermody- namic equilibrium, Phys. Rev.40, 749 (1932)

    work page 1932

  23. [24]

    Jayachandran, L

    P. Jayachandran, L. H. Zaw, and V. Scarani, Dynamics- based entanglement witnesses for non-gaussian states of harmonic oscillators, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 160201 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [25]

    L. H. Zaw and V. Scarani, Dynamics-based quantum- ness certification of continuous variables using time- independent hamiltonians with one degree of freedom, Phys. Rev. A108, 022211 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [26]

    Huynh-Vu, L

    K.-N. Huynh-Vu, L. H. Zaw, and V. Scarani, Certification of genuine multipartite entanglement in spin ensembles with measurements of total angular momentum, Phys. Rev. A109, 042402 (2024)

    work page 2024

  26. [27]

    J. Chen, J. Tiong, L. H. Zaw, and V. Scarani, Even-parity precession protocol for detecting nonclassicality and en- tanglement, Phys. Rev. A110, 062408 (2024)

    work page 2024

  27. [28]

    L. H. Zaw and V. Scarani, All three-angle variants of Tsirelson’s precession protocol, and improved bounds for wedge integrals of Wigner functions, arXiv:2411.03132

    work page arXiv

  28. [29]

    L. H. Zaw, M. Weilenmann, and V. Scarani, Tsirelson’s inequality for the precession protocol is maximally vio- lated by quantum theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 190201 (2025)

    work page 2025

  29. [30]

    Vaartjes, M

    A. Vaartjes, M. Nurizzo, L. H. Zaw, B. Wilhelm, X. Yu, D. Holmes, D. Schwienbacher, A. Kringhøj, M. R. van Blankenstein, A. M. Jakob, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, R. J. Murray, R. Blume-Kohout, N. Anand, A. S. Dzu- rak, D. N. Jamieson, V. Scarani, and A. Morello, Certi- fying the quantumness of a nuclear spin qudit through its uniform precession, Newton1, 10...

    work page 2025

  30. [31]

    S. Bose, D. Home, and S. Mal, Nonclassicality of the harmonic-oscillator coherent state persisting up to the macroscopic domain, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 210402 (2018)

    work page 2018

  31. [32]

    L. H. Zaw, C. C. Aw, Z. Lasmar, and V. Scarani, De- tecting quantumness in uniform precessions, Phys. Rev. A106, 032222 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [33]

    Pauli, General principles of quantum mechanics, in Handbuch der Physik, Vol

    W. Pauli, General principles of quantum mechanics, in Handbuch der Physik, Vol. 5 (Springer, Berlin, 1958) pp. 1–168, Pauli’s objection to a time operator appears in a footnote

    work page 1958

  33. [34]

    J. J. Halliwell and J. M. Yearsley, Arrival times, complex potentials, and decoherent histories, Phys. Rev. A79, 062101 (2009)

    work page 2009

  34. [35]

    J. G. Muga, R. S. Mayato, and I. L. Egusquiza, eds., Time in Quantum Mechanics, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 734 (Springer, Berlin, 2008)

    work page 2008

  35. [36]

    J. J. Halliwell, H. Beck, B. K. B. Lee, and S. O’Brien, Quasiprobability for the arrival-time problem with links to backflow and the Leggett-Garg inequalities, Phys. Rev. A99, 012124 (2019)

    work page 2019

  36. [37]

    M. M. Nieto, Quantum phase and quantum phase oper- ators: some physics and some history, Physica Scripta 1993, 5 (1993)

    work page 1993

  37. [38]

    C. K. Zachos, D. B. Fairlie, and T. L. Curtright,Quantum Mechanics in Phase Space: An Overview with Selected Papers(World Scientific, Singapore, 2005)

    work page 2005

  38. [39]

    Hillery, R

    M. Hillery, R. F. O’Connell, M. O. Scully, and E. P. Wigner, Distribution functions in physics: Fundamen- tals, Physics Reports106, 121 (1984)

    work page 1984

  39. [40]

    V. I. Tatarskii, The wigner representation of quantum mechanics, Soviet Physics Uspekhi26, 311 (1983)

    work page 1983

  40. [41]

    W. B. Case, Wigner functions and weyl transforms for pedestrians, American Journal of Physics76, 937 (2008)

    work page 2008

  41. [42]

    J. J. Halliwell, A review of the decoherent histories ap- proach to quantum mechanics, Physical Review D48, 2739 (1993)

    work page 1993

  42. [43]

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

    work page 1985

  43. [44]

    A. J. Leggett, Realism and the physical world, Reports on Progress in Physics71, 022001 (2008)

    work page 2008

  44. [45]

    J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Physics Physique Fizika1, 195 (1964)

    work page 1964

  45. [46]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theo- ries, Phys. Rev. Lett.23, 880 (1969)

    work page 1969

  46. [47]

    Majidy, J

    S. Majidy, J. J. Halliwell, and R. Laflamme, Detecting vi- olations of macrorealism when the original Leggett–Garg inequalities are satisfied, Phys. Rev. A103, 062212 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [48]

    J. J. Halliwell and J. M. Yearsley, Negative probabilities, Fine’s theorem, and linear positivity, Phys. Rev. A87, 022114 (2013)

    work page 2013

  48. [49]

    D. N. Klyshko, The Bell theorem and the problem of moments, Physics Letters A218, 119 (1996)

    work page 1996

  49. [50]

    J. J. Halliwell, Comparing conditions for macrorealism: Leggett–Garg inequalities versus no-signaling in time, Phys. Rev. A96, 012121 (2017)

    work page 2017

  50. [51]

    J. J. Halliwell, Necessary and sufficient conditions for macrorealism using two- and three-time Leggett–Garg inequalities, Journal of Physics: Conference Series1275, 012008 (2019)

    work page 2019

  51. [52]

    J. J. Halliwell and C. Mawby, Fine’s theorem for Leggett–Garg tests with an arbitrary number of mea- surement times, Phys. Rev. A100, 042103 (2019)

    work page 2019

  52. [53]

    Emary, N

    C. Emary, N. Lambert, and F. Nori, Leggett–Garg in- equalities, Reports on Progress in Physics77, 016001 (2013)

    work page 2013

  53. [54]

    Budroni and C

    C. Budroni and C. Emary, Temporal quantum correla- tions and leggett–garg inequalities in multilevel systems, Physical review letters113, 050401 (2014)

    work page 2014

  54. [55]

    Palacios-Laloy, F

    A. Palacios-Laloy, F. Mallet, F. Nguyen, P. Bertet, D. Vion, D. Esteve, and A. N. Korotkov, Experimental violation of a Bell’s inequality in time with weak mea- surement, Nature Physics6, 10.1038 (2010)

    work page 2010

  55. [56]

    J. P. Groen, D. Rist` e, L. Tornberg, J. Cramer, P. C. de Groot, T. Picot, G. Johansson, and L. DiCarlo, Partial-measurement backaction and nonclassical weak values in a superconducting circuit, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 090506 (2013)

    work page 2013

  56. [57]

    Athalye, S

    V. Athalye, S. S. Roy, and T. S. Mahesh, Investigation of the Leggett–Garg inequality for precessing nuclear spins, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 130402 (2011)

    work page 2011

  57. [58]

    A. M. Souza, I. S. Oliveira, and R. S. Sarthour, A scatter- ing quantum circuit for measuring Bell’s time inequality: a nuclear magnetic resonance demonstration using max- imally mixed states, New Journal of Physics13, 053023 (2011)

    work page 2011

  58. [59]

    Katiyar, A

    H. Katiyar, A. Shukla, K. R. K. Rao, and T. S. Mahesh, Violation of entropic Leggett–Garg inequality in nuclear spins, Phys. Rev. A87, 052102 (2013)

    work page 2013

  59. [60]

    Z.-Q. Zhou, S. F. Huelga, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Experimental detection of quantum coherent evolution through the violation of Leggett–Garg-type inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 113002 (2015)

    work page 2015

  60. [61]

    M. E. Goggin, M. P. Almeida, M. Barbieri, B. P. Lanyon, J. L. O’Brien, A. G. White, and G. J. Pryde, Violation of the Leggett–Garg inequality with weak measurements of photons, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences108, 1256–1261 (2011)

    work page 2011

  61. [62]

    Kreuzgruber, R

    E. Kreuzgruber, R. Wagner, N. Geerits, H. Lemmel, and S. Sponar, Violation of a Leggett–Garg inequality using ideal negative measurements in neutron interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 260201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  62. [63]

    J. J. Halliwell, A. Bhatnagar, E. Ireland, H. Nadeem, and V. Wimalaweera, Leggett–Garg tests for macroreal- ism: Interference experiments and the simple harmonic oscillator, Phys. Rev. A103, 032218 (2021)

    work page 2021

  63. [64]

    Morikoshi, Information-theoretic temporal Bell in- equality and quantum computation, Phys

    F. Morikoshi, Information-theoretic temporal Bell in- equality and quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A73, 052308 (2006)

    work page 2006

  64. [65]

    Temporal Leggett-Garg-Bell inequalities for sequential multi-time actions in quantum information processing, and a re-definition of Macroscopic Realism

    M. Zukowski, Temporal Leggett–Garg-Bell inequalities for sequential multi-time actions in quantum information processing, and a re-definition of macroscopic realism, arXiv:1009.1749

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  65. [66]

    Matsumura, Y

    A. Matsumura, Y. Nambu, and K. Yamamoto, Leggett–Garg inequalities for testing quantumness of gravity, Phys. Rev. A106, 012214 (2022)

    work page 2022

  66. [67]

    M. M. Wilde, J. M. McCracken, and A. Mizel, Could light harvesting complexes exhibit non-classical effects at room temperature?, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences466, 1347 (2010)

    work page 2010

  67. [68]

    C.-M. Li, N. Lambert, Y.-N. Chen, G.-Y. Chen, and F. Nori, Witnessing quantum coherence: from solid-state to biological systems, Scientific Reports2, 885 (2012)

    work page 2012

  68. [69]

    Vitagliano and C

    G. Vitagliano and C. Budroni, Leggett–Garg macroreal- 30 ism and temporal correlations, Physical Review A107, 040101 (2023)

    work page 2023

  69. [70]

    M. M. Wilde and A. Mizel, Addressing the clumsiness loophole in a Leggett–Garg test of macrorealism, Foun- dations of Physics42, 256 (2012)

    work page 2012

  70. [71]

    Montina, Dynamics of a qubit as a classical stochas- tic process with time-correlated noise: Minimal measure- ment invasiveness, Phys

    A. Montina, Dynamics of a qubit as a classical stochas- tic process with time-correlated noise: Minimal measure- ment invasiveness, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 160501 (2012)

    work page 2012

  71. [72]

    Dicke, Interaction-free quantum measurements: A paradox?, Am

    R. Dicke, Interaction-free quantum measurements: A paradox?, Am. J. Phys49, 925 (1981)

    work page 1981

  72. [73]

    G. C. Knee, S. Simmons, E. M. Gauger, J. J. Mor- ton, H. Riemann, N. V. Abrosimov, P. Becker, H.-J. Pohl, K. M. Itoh, M. L. Thewalt,et al., Violation of a Leggett–Garg inequality with ideal non-invasive mea- surements, Nature communications3, 606 (2012)

    work page 2012

  73. [74]

    J. J. Halliwell, Leggett-Garg tests of macrorealism: Checks for noninvasiveness and generalizations to higher- order correlators, Phys. Rev. A99, 022119 (2019)

    work page 2019

  74. [75]

    J. J. Halliwell, Leggett–Garg correlation functions from a noninvasive velocity measurement continuous in time, Phys. Rev. A94, 052114 (2016)

    work page 2016

  75. [76]

    Majidy, H

    S.-S. Majidy, H. Katiyar, G. Anikeeva, J. Halli- well, and R. Laflamme, Exploration of an augmented set of Leggett-Garg inequalities using a noninvasive continuous-in-time velocity measurement, Phys. Rev. A 100, 042325 (2019)

    work page 2019

  76. [77]

    Mawby, Tests of macrorealism in discrete and contin- uous variable systems (2024), arXiv:2402.16537

    C. Mawby, Tests of macrorealism in discrete and contin- uous variable systems (2024), arXiv:2402.16537

    work page arXiv 2024

  77. [78]

    Hermens and O

    R. Hermens and O. J. E. Maroney, Constraints on macro- scopic realism without assuming non-invasive measura- bility, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 63, 50 (2018)

    work page 2018

  78. [79]

    Giacosa and G

    F. Giacosa and G. Pagliara, Leggett–Garg inequalities and decays of unstable systems, Phys. Rev. A104, 052225 (2021)

    work page 2021

  79. [80]

    Waldherr, P

    G. Waldherr, P. Neumann, S. F. Huelga, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, Violation of a temporal Bell inequality for single spins in a diamond defect center, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 090401 (2011)

    work page 2011

  80. [81]

    S. F. Huelga, T. W. Marshall, and E. Santos, Proposed test for realist theories using Rydberg atoms coupled to a high-Qresonator, Phys. Rev. A52, R2497 (1995)

    work page 1995

Showing first 80 references.