Quantum Errors and Disturbances: Response to Busch, Lahti and Werner
AbstractBusch, 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 BLW approach favour (based on the Wasserstein two-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. View Full-Text
Scifeed alert for new publicationsNever miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
- Get alerts for new papers matching your research
- Find out the new papers from selected authors
- Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
- Define your Scifeed now
Appleby, D.M. Quantum Errors and Disturbances: Response to Busch, Lahti and Werner. Entropy 2016, 18, 174.
Appleby DM. Quantum Errors and Disturbances: Response to Busch, Lahti and Werner. Entropy. 2016; 18(5):174.Chicago/Turabian Style
Appleby, David M. 2016. "Quantum Errors and Disturbances: Response to Busch, Lahti and Werner." Entropy 18, no. 5: 174.
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.