{
  "annotation_id": "5f67539f-074c-49e1-b583-c1272cfc6c2a",
  "date_created": "2026-03-02T18:02:41.038000Z",
  "date_modified": "2026-03-02T18:02:41.038000Z",
  "file_hash": "c37d10c0286f1b96e6d6a938901a7e95c72b576b73f1a6b855845211766b53ef",
  "private": false,
  "record": {
    "abstract": "A measuring apparatus is described by quantum mechanics while it interacts\nwith the quantum system under observation, and then it must be given a\nclassical description so that the result of the measurement appears as\nobjective reality. Alternatively, the apparatus may always be treated by\nquantum mechanics, and be measured by a second apparatus which has such a dual\ndescription. This article examines whether these two different descriptions are\nmutually consistent. It is shown that if the dynamical variable used in the\nfirst apparatus is represented by an operator of the Weyl-Wigner type (for\nexample, if it is a linear coordinate), then the conversion from quantum to\nclassical terminology does not affect the final result. However, if the first\napparatus encodes the measurement in a different type of operator (e.g., the\nphase operator), the two methods of calculation may give different results.",
    "arxiv_id": "quant-ph/9712044",
    "authors": [
      "Ori Hay",
      "Asher Peres"
    ],
    "categories": [
      "quant-ph"
    ],
    "doi": "10.1103/PhysRevA.58.116",
    "journal_ref": "Phys.Rev. A58 (1998) 116",
    "title": "Quantum and classical descriptions of a measuring apparatus",
    "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9712044"
  },
  "schema_id": "dorsal/arxiv",
  "source": {
    "execution_id": "e2e5ba16-10f4-4250-ae32-f4590c6be856",
    "id": "arXiv Dataset IDs",
    "type": "Model",
    "variant": "snapshot-2026-03-01",
    "version": "0.1.0"
  },
  "user_id": 1000002
}