Talk:Quantum noise

Badly put characterization
''Generally, quantum noise can be considered as the error of the description of any physical system within classical (not quantum) theory.

"Quantum noise" means "error of the description of a classically described system"? This can't be right. It has to have something to do with quantum mechanics. But this sentence specifically excludes quantum mechanics, while admitting any other kind of noise source. 178.38.100.30 (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed.


 * ''It is reasonable to include consideration of quanta appearing or disappearing spontaneously in spacetime due to the most basic laws of conservation, hence, no area in spacetime is devoid of potential addition or subtraction of a least common denominator quanta element, causing "noise" in a given experiment.


 * Pretty noisy sentence.


 * ''This could manifest as quantum decoherence in an entangled system, normally attributed to thermal differences in the conditions surrounding each entangled particle considered to be part of an entangled set.


 * Why "considered"? Or is it just bad writing?


 * ''Because entanglement is studied intensely in simple pairs of entangled photons, for example, decoherence observed in these experiments could well be synonymous with "quantum noise" as to the source of the decoherence.


 * "Could well be"? Weasel words for what's really your own research?


 * ''If it were possible for a quanta of energy to spontaneously appear in a given field, a region of spacetime, then thermal differences must be associated with this event, hence, it would cause decoherence in an entangled system in proximity of the event.


 * Sounds like argumentation instead of exposition. Plus, it's dubious. Or would be, if it weren't so cryptic.


 * ''In an electric circuit, the random fluctuations of a signal due to the discrete character of electrons can be called quantum noise.


 * ''The random error of interferometric measurements of position, due to the discrete character of photons registered during measurement, can be attributed to quantum noise.


 * "Attributed to"? Are we in a courtroom here? Why the weasely way of talking? You're allowed to say "is" when it applies.


 * ''Even the uncertainty of position of a probe in probe microscopy may be partly attributable to quantum noise, although this is not the dominant mechanism that determines the resolution of such a device.


 * Might be true. No way to tell. Private opinion? Citation?


 * ''In most cases, quantum noise refers to the fluctuations of signal in extremely precise optical systems with stabilized lasers and efficient detector


 * Thanks for finally saying something coherent.


 * The whole paragraph looks like original research -- or it's just badly written. Not even wrong 178.39.122.125 (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

General grooming by a non-specialist
Overall, I found the article fairly far afield of many recommendations from the MOS. I did what I could to format the article to appear more like most other articles in this subject area: sentence caps in section headings, removal of impromptu bold markup to designate a section title, spelling fixes, fixes to punctuation marks, and restructuring the lead to put the subject matter in the first sentence.

It remains rather technical in most of its specific passages, and beyond the level of what I was willing to digest on this pass.

The entire article would likely benefit from a review by a subject matter expert familiar with Wikipedia conventions. &mdash; MaxEnt 03:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Flagged for expert quantum mechanics
Please don't take my addition of expert-needed flag as evidence that past contributions are unappreciated. It often takes a wide range of skillsets to achieve a good article. Based on long experience, my judgement is that this article has not yet achieved the sweet spot in technical content and Wikipedia structure. I have no concerns about past editors not acting in good faith or not making valued contributions. &mdash; MaxEnt 04:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * As an expert in the field I must unfortunately say that the technical correctness of the article is often questionable at best. Misleading to erroneous statement in this article:
 * 'Typical engineered consideration of quantum noise is for quantum nondemolition measurement and quantum point contact.'
 * Now looking into the introduction of Ref [1]:
 * 'For the most part, these notes draw extensively from material presented in our recent review article (Clerk et al., 2010), but do not attempt to be as exhaustive as that work. I have slightly reworked the discussion of several key points to hopefully add clarity. I also include in these notes a few topics not found in the review article. These include a discussion of the quantum shot noise of a quantum point contact QPC (Sec. 2.3) [...].'
 * While the QPC features in both, one of the statements is an example of an additional topic in a lecture, the other as a consequence makes a faulty assertion about what 'quantum noise' is typically used in.
 * This continues throughout the article. 138.232.68.221 (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The article at least does refer to some respectable sources, which provide in my view much better and more understandable information even for a non-expert. But it would really be best to be completely rewritten by an expert on quantum noise. However, as such an expert, I would personally feel very uncomfortable writing within the Wikipedia concept, where all contributors may subsequently alter the article. Pazindack (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)