Quantum Errors and Disturbances: Response to Busch, Lahti and Werner
Busch, Lahti and Werner (BLW) have recently criticized the operator approach to the description of quantum errors and disturbances. Their criticisms are justified to the extent that the physical meaning of the operator definitions has not hitherto been adequately explained. We rectify that omission....
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | arXiv.org 2016-02 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | |
container_title | arXiv.org |
container_volume | |
creator | Appleby, D M |
description | Busch, Lahti and Werner (BLW) have recently criticized the operator approach to the description of quantum errors and disturbances. Their criticisms are justified to the extent that the physical meaning of the operator definitions has not hitherto been adequately explained. We rectify that omission. We then examine BLW's criticisms in the light of our analysis. We argue that, although the approach BLW favour (based on the Wasserstein 2-deviation) has its uses, there are important physical situations where an operator approach is preferable. We also discuss the reason why the error-disturbance relation is still giving rise to controversies almost a century after Heisenberg first stated his microscope argument. We argue that the source of the difficulties is the problem of interpretation, which is not so wholly disconnected from experimental practicalities as is sometimes supposed. |
doi_str_mv | 10.48550/arxiv.1602.09002 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_arxiv</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_arxiv_primary_1602_09002</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2079971846</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a526-28fd1d0764d662837a7bc44f791dc63624edbf49245a5f15a577120c819a423d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotj11LwzAUhoMgOOZ-gFcGvLUzOfn2Trf5AQVRBl6WtElZh2tr0oj-e2vnzXnh8PDyPghdULLkWghyY8N387WkksCSGELgBM2AMZppDnCGFjHuyfiVCoRgM7R-TbYd0gFvQuhCxLZ1eN3EIYXStpWPt_jNx75ro8dDh-9TrHbXOLe7oZnQdx9aH87RaW0_ol_85xxtHzbb1VOWvzw-r-7yzAqQGejaUUeU5E5K0ExZVVac18pQV0kmgXtX1twAF1bUdDxKUSCVpsZyYI7N0eWxdlIs-tAcbPgp_lSLSXUkro5EH7rP5ONQ7LsU2nFTAUQZo6jmkv0CqTNUrw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2079971846</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Quantum Errors and Disturbances: Response to Busch, Lahti and Werner</title><source>arXiv.org</source><source>Free E- Journals</source><creator>Appleby, D M</creator><creatorcontrib>Appleby, D M</creatorcontrib><description>Busch, Lahti and Werner (BLW) have recently criticized the operator approach to the description of quantum errors and disturbances. Their criticisms are justified to the extent that the physical meaning of the operator definitions has not hitherto been adequately explained. We rectify that omission. We then examine BLW's criticisms in the light of our analysis. We argue that, although the approach BLW favour (based on the Wasserstein 2-deviation) has its uses, there are important physical situations where an operator approach is preferable. We also discuss the reason why the error-disturbance relation is still giving rise to controversies almost a century after Heisenberg first stated his microscope argument. We argue that the source of the difficulties is the problem of interpretation, which is not so wholly disconnected from experimental practicalities as is sometimes supposed.</description><identifier>EISSN: 2331-8422</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1602.09002</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ithaca: Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</publisher><subject>Disturbances ; Physics - Quantum Physics</subject><ispartof>arXiv.org, 2016-02</ispartof><rights>2016. This work is published under http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>228,230,776,780,881,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1602.09002$$DView paper in arXiv$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://doi.org/10.3390/e18050174$$DView published paper (Access to full text may be restricted)$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Appleby, D M</creatorcontrib><title>Quantum Errors and Disturbances: Response to Busch, Lahti and Werner</title><title>arXiv.org</title><description>Busch, Lahti and Werner (BLW) have recently criticized the operator approach to the description of quantum errors and disturbances. Their criticisms are justified to the extent that the physical meaning of the operator definitions has not hitherto been adequately explained. We rectify that omission. We then examine BLW's criticisms in the light of our analysis. We argue that, although the approach BLW favour (based on the Wasserstein 2-deviation) has its uses, there are important physical situations where an operator approach is preferable. We also discuss the reason why the error-disturbance relation is still giving rise to controversies almost a century after Heisenberg first stated his microscope argument. We argue that the source of the difficulties is the problem of interpretation, which is not so wholly disconnected from experimental practicalities as is sometimes supposed.</description><subject>Disturbances</subject><subject>Physics - Quantum Physics</subject><issn>2331-8422</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GOX</sourceid><recordid>eNotj11LwzAUhoMgOOZ-gFcGvLUzOfn2Trf5AQVRBl6WtElZh2tr0oj-e2vnzXnh8PDyPghdULLkWghyY8N387WkksCSGELgBM2AMZppDnCGFjHuyfiVCoRgM7R-TbYd0gFvQuhCxLZ1eN3EIYXStpWPt_jNx75ro8dDh-9TrHbXOLe7oZnQdx9aH87RaW0_ol_85xxtHzbb1VOWvzw-r-7yzAqQGejaUUeU5E5K0ExZVVac18pQV0kmgXtX1twAF1bUdDxKUSCVpsZyYI7N0eWxdlIs-tAcbPgp_lSLSXUkro5EH7rP5ONQ7LsU2nFTAUQZo6jmkv0CqTNUrw</recordid><startdate>20160229</startdate><enddate>20160229</enddate><creator>Appleby, D M</creator><general>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</general><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>GOX</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160229</creationdate><title>Quantum Errors and Disturbances: Response to Busch, Lahti and Werner</title><author>Appleby, D M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a526-28fd1d0764d662837a7bc44f791dc63624edbf49245a5f15a577120c819a423d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Disturbances</topic><topic>Physics - Quantum Physics</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Appleby, D M</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>arXiv.org</collection><jtitle>arXiv.org</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Appleby, D M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Quantum Errors and Disturbances: Response to Busch, Lahti and Werner</atitle><jtitle>arXiv.org</jtitle><date>2016-02-29</date><risdate>2016</risdate><eissn>2331-8422</eissn><abstract>Busch, Lahti and Werner (BLW) have recently criticized the operator approach to the description of quantum errors and disturbances. Their criticisms are justified to the extent that the physical meaning of the operator definitions has not hitherto been adequately explained. We rectify that omission. We then examine BLW's criticisms in the light of our analysis. We argue that, although the approach BLW favour (based on the Wasserstein 2-deviation) has its uses, there are important physical situations where an operator approach is preferable. We also discuss the reason why the error-disturbance relation is still giving rise to controversies almost a century after Heisenberg first stated his microscope argument. We argue that the source of the difficulties is the problem of interpretation, which is not so wholly disconnected from experimental practicalities as is sometimes supposed.</abstract><cop>Ithaca</cop><pub>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</pub><doi>10.48550/arxiv.1602.09002</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | EISSN: 2331-8422 |
ispartof | arXiv.org, 2016-02 |
issn | 2331-8422 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_arxiv_primary_1602_09002 |
source | arXiv.org; Free E- Journals |
subjects | Disturbances Physics - Quantum Physics |
title | Quantum Errors and Disturbances: Response to Busch, Lahti and Werner |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T20%3A12%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_arxiv&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Quantum%20Errors%20and%20Disturbances:%20Response%20to%20Busch,%20Lahti%20and%20Werner&rft.jtitle=arXiv.org&rft.au=Appleby,%20D%20M&rft.date=2016-02-29&rft.eissn=2331-8422&rft_id=info:doi/10.48550/arxiv.1602.09002&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_arxiv%3E2079971846%3C/proquest_arxiv%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2079971846&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |