seeing a quantum effect , and even making practical use of it , does not necessarily imply recognising it as such .
magnetic compasses have been around for millenia , but quantum nature of ferromagnetism could not be understood till the discovery of the electron spin and the pauli principle .
more than forty years elapsed between stewart s and kirchhoff s experiments with thermal radiation and planck s dissertation .
already in the 20th century , it took three years for einstein to come up with a quantum explanation of lenard s experiments .
clearly there must exist certain _ mathematical patterns _ in quantum equations of motion allowing one to look at the quantum without recognising it .
an immediate reservation is in place here .
this paper concerns , and is limited to , phase - space formulation of quantum electrodynamics based on the time - normal operator ordering @xcite .
this is only one example in the multitude of analogies existing between the quantum and classical mechanics ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) .
our work should be kept distinct from attempts to modify quantum electrodynamics  by making arbitrary physically motivated assumptions about properties of matter ( cf .
@xcite ) , as well as from attempts to imitate quantum behaviour in classical stochastic electrodynamics  ( cf .  @xcite ) .
another well established tradition is applying methods of quantum field theory  to classical statistical mechanics @xcite .
worth mentioning are also attempts to implement classical mechanics in the hilbert space , see @xcite and references therein .
the result of this paper in a nutshell is that _ quantum electrodynamics  and classical stochastic electrodynamics  share their macroscopic dynamical structure . _ more specifically , all relations for generalised phase - space quasi - distributions @xcite we obtain in this paper lack planck s constant and , _ ipso facto _ , coincide with the corresponding relations of the classical stochastic electrodynamics  for probability distributions .
this lack of planck s constant is exactly the aforementioned mathematical pattern .
one way of formulating our results is that truly quantum dynamics is limited to microscopic conditions of indistinguishability and/or equations of motion of matter
.    for purposes of this paper , _ macroscopic _ refers to electromagnetic interactions under conditions of distinguishability .
etymologies aside , we associate `` macroscopic '' and `` microscopic '' with `` distinguishable '' and `` indistinguishable '' , and not with `` large '' and `` small '' .
`` distinguishability '' has its standard meaning ( formalised as commutativity of relevant dynamical variables in the interaction picture ) . on the commonly used term _ mesoscopic _
see endnote @xcite ; we treat macroscopic and mesoscopic as synonyms .
the logic of the paper revolves around two concepts : `` obscured macroscopic view '' and `` doing quantum electrodynamics  while thinking classically '' .
the former refers to a closed  albeit , strictly speaking , phenomenological
quantum dynamical framework confined to the electromagnetic  field and current operators .
the latter expresses the critical property of such framework : on rewriting it in the so - called _ response picture _ @xcite , planck s constant drops out .
this is another manifestation of the said mathematical pattern .
any relation within `` obscured macroscopic view '' may therefore be obtained by formal quantisation of its classical counterpart .
we stress that `` obscured macroscopic view '' is not an approximation , nor is it a modification of conventional quantum mechanics .
it is a _ voluntary limit _ we impose on information extracted from a microscopic theory . it does not impose any restrictions on the theory itself , except that it be consistent with conventional quantum electrodynamics .
implications of these results , with a multitude of specifications and reservations , are discussed at length in the paper . here
we allow ourselves only a brief comment so as to clarify our motivation .
particulars aside , quantum measurement is interaction of classical apparata with a quantum system .
nice as it may sound , this definition has two obvious problems .
classical apparata in the strict meaning of the term do not exist in nature , and it is not at all clear which laws  quantum or classical  should govern such interaction .
both problems disappear if we limit `` measurement '' to electromagnetic interaction  of an observer  e.g . , a human being  with the rest of the world .
`` obscured macroscopic view '' is a formal expression of limitations of such `` electromagnetic  observer '' .
the difference between the classical and the quantum for such observer is _ only _ in whether currents he / she sees may or may not be _ phenomenologically _ interpteted as stochastic c - numbers .
if such interpretation happens to be possible for some macroscopic quantum system , the latter becomes phenomenologically indistinguishable from a classical system .
we term such systems classically behaving .
`` classical apparata '' are classically behaving quantum systems , i.e. , _ inherently quantum _ systems which _ appear classical _ to the observer .
their interaction with other quantum systems is governed by laws of quantum electrodynamics , which in this case are structurally identical with classical electrodynamics .
if all devices involved behave classically , the whole situation reverts to classical electrodynamics . in particular
, the classical world we perceive in everyday life is a collection of classically behaving quantum systems .
as we demonstrate in this paper , these leading considerations are fully justified by the formal structure of quantum electrodynamics .
the goal of this paper is twofold .
firstly , we extend the earlier analyses @xcite to distinguishable matter subsystems . we show that the _ formal _ response characterisation of a solitary electromagnetic  device @xcite becomes its _ physical _ characterisation as a radiation scatterer were this device interacting electromagneticaly with other macroscopic devices .
this proves overall physical consistency of the response viewpoint .
secondly , we establish the connection between our approach and the conventional phase - space techniques , making all results , the old as well as the new , intuitive .
to this end we reformulate everything in terms of _ conditional p - functionals _
@xcite ; these quantities generalise both _
conditional probability distributions _ of classical stochastics and _ quasiprobability distributions _ of the conventional phase - space techniques , to arbitrary nonlinear non - markovian bosonic quantum systems .
our analyses imply generalisation of the conventional phase - space techniques , firstly , beyond the resonance , or rotating wave , approximation ( rwa ) , and , secondly , to quantum response problems .
coherent states of the harmonic oscillator , which traditionally serve as an entry point to phase - space approaches , were introduced by schrdinger as early as 1926 @xcite . that quantum dynamics of free bosonic systems maps to classical dynamics irrespective of the quantum state was firstly noticed by feynman in his review on path integrals @xcite .
this understanding was instrumental in developing quantum theory of photodetection by glauber @xcite .
glauber s theory was initially formulated for free electromagnetic fields , then extended to interacting fields by kelley and kleiner @xcite . however , de haan @xcite and later bykov and tatarskii @xcite pointed out that kelley - kleiner s results are limited to the rwa . taking them outside
the rwa leads to causality violations ( we associate causality with retardation , cf .
also endnote @xcite ) .
lifting this restriction by amending the glauber - kelley - kleiner  definition is one of the key results of .
the critical generalisation is inclusion of response .
it establishes a link to a host of powerful ideas , notably , to the real - time quantum field theory   , schwinger - perel - keldysh s closed - time - loop  formalism @xcite , and , last but not least , to relativistic quantum field theory  @xcite .
( this link was a subject of @xcite . ) from a physical perspective , it allows one to make propagation of quantum signals in space - time the guiding principle of the whole investigation .
in particular , propagation of the electromagnetic field  underlies the aforementioned amendment of the concept of time - normal ordering .
it also reveals the inherent link between operator noncommutativity and response @xcite .
the pivotal formal point of these analyses is that the description of a quantum system in terms of time - normal averages of heisenberg operators conditional on external sources turns out to be equivalent to the closed - time - loop  framework .
this kind of description was termed in @xcite _ response formulation _ of a quantum system ( also _ response picture _ , _ response viewpoint _ , or _
response characterisation _ ) .
the said equivalence was proven in @xcite for interacting bosons and in @xcite for interacting fermions ( see also endnote @xcite ) .
the closed - time - loop  formulation is the most general formal framework known in quantum field theory . _
ipso facto _ , our approach may be seen as an ultimate generalisation of the phase - space techniques in quantum electrodynamics  ( cf .
endnote @xcite ) .
its ability to tackle relativistic problems with renormalisations was demonstrated in @xcite .
the way the paper is structured reflects our wish to make the results intuitive .
`` obscured macroscopic view '' as a formal viewpoint is mostly relegated to appendices .
in the main body of the paper , we proceed by `` doing quantum electrodynamics  while thinking classically '' .
we start from a brief overview of the results in . in
, we develop the `` classical yardstick '' : a collection of general formulae , describing properties of devices and their interactions in classical stochastic electrodynamics .
quantum mechanics starts in , which summarises formal definitions .
conditional p - functionals are introduced in . the conjecture that classical formulae of are in fact _ exact _ relations for p - functionals is verified in and [ ch:91rj ] . in , we review the formal approach , concentrating on the interplay of the formal viewpoint and approximations .
the results are discussed in . in appendix
[ ch : reg ] we briefly touch upon the role of causality and regularisations in the classical electromagnetic  self - action problem . appendix [ ch : qr ] summarises the results `` imported '' from earlier papers . in appendix [ ch : lm ] , we outline redefinitions allowing one to exclude passive linear devices ( mirrors etc . ) from explicit consideration .
appendices [ ch:2dc ] and [ ch : phdet ] provide formal support to `` pictorial derivations '' in .
in this paper we concern ourselves with the _ formal structure _ of quantum electrodynamics . rather than attempting to calculate something measurable , we look at restrictions measurable quantities must obey , assuming the only means of accessing the world is the electromagnetic interaction .
moreover , we are only interested in relations which are independent of any particulars of nonelectromagnetic  nature .
this greatly limits the kind of question we are able to ask .
consider for instance electromagnetic  interaction of two devices depicted schematically in .
for the time being , ignore hats and think about the devices as classical electromagnetic  scatterers . in any real problem
, there must exist microscopic dynamical models allowing one to calculate properties of the devices .
these models necessarily rely on information about properties of matter , which is by itself nonelectromagnetic  ( e.g. , the dirac equation in spinor qed , or various models in solid state theory ) . within `` obscured macroscopic view ''
, we are not inquiring about such details .
we assume that properties of individual devices are known ( a ) , and ask how they should be formally combined to determine properties of the pair ( b ) .    this way
, our investigation is to a large extent a highly formalised electronic - engineering viewpoint .
when planning an experiment , an engineer is only interested in properties of a photodiod ( say ) such as frequency range , efficiency , dark count , dead time , saturation limit , and so on . from our perspective , all these are _ response properties _ of the photodiod .
we mention features such as dark count and saturation limit to emphasise that proper formalisation of the engineering viewpoint can not be too simple .
it should include , e.g. , such nastiness as _ nonlinear non - markovian self - noise_. this is the minimal level of theoretical sophistication accommodating for shot noise , dark count , dead time , and saturation .    at the same time , the problem we face is largely pedagogical .
we need a formal framework which would not impose any restrictions on models of devices .
this implies a relatively high level of abstraction .
physically , all we can say about the arrangements in a , b is that ,    * in `` obscured macroscopic view '' , each device is characterised by a c - number random current ; * statistics of this current is dependent ( conditional ) on the incoming field radiated by some external sources and affecting the device ; * when characterising a particular device , the incoming field should be regarded given ; * for each device in the pair , the incoming field is the external field plus radiation of the other device ; * the current characterising the pair is a sum of currents in the devices ; * the field emitted by the pair is a sum of fields emitted by the devices .    in , we take these trivialities in classical electrodynamics  to a high level of formal abstraction . in the following sections , we demonstrate that quantum - electrodynamical relations in the `` obscured macroscopic view '' express nothing but the same set of trivialities .
it is this fact_and not the trivialities themselves_that constitutes the result of this paper .
in this section we construct a `` classical yardstick '' for future quantum analyses . we develop a formal response characterisation of a device in classical stochastic electrodynamics , including the formal solution to the self - action problem ( cf .
a ; ignore hats ) , then derive formulae reducing properties of an interacting pair to its components ( cf .
we employ an intuitive characterisation of radiation scatterers in terms of probability distributions conditional on external sources , making all our derivations next to trivial .        from the point of view of an `` electromagnetic observer '' ,
the world is a maze of electromagnetic  currents .
these currents are mostly stochastic ( we do not need quantum mechanics  to arrive at this conclusion , experimental evidence is aplenty ) .
thinking of a device as a macroscopic radiation scatterer ( a ) , we characterise it by a probability distribution over a random current conditional on the incoming ( external ) field . for simplicity ,
we suppress all arguments of the fields and currents except time ; for a generalisation beyond single mode see below .    in a general nonlinear non - markovian case ,
is a nontrivial _ functional _ of two variables .
its full name is _ conditional functional probability distribution . _ in classical stochastic electrodynamics , @xmath0}\geq 0 ,   % } { % \label{eq:35at}\end{aligned}\]]but we never use this in our reasoning  otherwise `` doing quantum electrodynamics  while thinking classically '' would certainly fail .
viewed literally , all formulae in this paper are written for a one - mode case . to adapt them to more complicated situations it suffices to `` expand '' the time variable .
a multi - mode case is recovered replacing , @xmath1where @xmath2 is the mode index .
( here and hereafter , omitted integration limits indicate the maximal possible area of integration . )
a nonrelativistic 3d formulation emerges on replacing , @xmath3where is now the 3d index .
this covers all cases of interest in macroscopic optics .
relativistic reformulation takes changing a few signs and factors , see @xcite and appendix [ ch : gz ] .
averages of the random current may be written as functional ( path ) integrals , @xmath4\ , p\protect { [ \mathcal{j}| a_{\mathrm{e } } ] } \mathcal{j}(t ) ,   \\
\protect \langle \mathcal{j}(t)\mathcal{j}(t ' ) \rangle & = \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}]\ , p \protect { [ \mathcal{j}| a_{\mathrm{e } } ] } \mathcal{j}(t ) \mathcal{j}(t ' ) ,   \end{aligned }   \label{eq:27ak}\end{aligned}\]]etc .
averages ( [ eq:27ak ] ) are by definition conditional on the source . we stress that we have not invented anything new , but simply explained what the innocuous symbol of classical averaging actually means .
we think about a path integral as a multidimensional integral in discretised time , @xmath5 = \prod_t    \bigg [ \int d\mathcal{j}(t ) \bigg ] , % } { % \label{eq:28al}\end{aligned}\]]cf .
the remark on omitted integration limits after . to generalise ( [ eq:28al ] ) beyond a single mode , use formulae of .
such definition makes all manipulations straightforward .
a mathematically sound limit of continuous time is outside the scope of this paper .
the minimal requirement for any physical model is _
nonrelativistic causality_. namely , the external field at time @xmath6 may only influence the current for times ( cf .
endnote @xcite ) . varying for times
should have no effect on .
formally , this is expressed by the zero variational ( functional ) derivative , @xmath7for the averages , @xmath8and similarly for higher - order averages .
it should not be missed that neither nor ( [ eq:54nf ] ) assume setting to zero after differentiation .
the latter is characteristic of the definition of generalised susceptibilities , @xmath9from ( [ eq:54nf ] ) we obtain , @xmath10however , afford a stronger result , @xmath11unlike ( [ eq:89nh ] ) , this condition , as well as the underlying conditions ( [ eq:86nd ] ) and ( [ eq:54nf ] ) , remain physically meaningful also in a vicinity of a phase transition .
the scattered field is the field radiated by the random current , @xmath12where is the transfer function of the linear medium ( or vacuum ) in which the device is immersed .
response of the linear medium should be causal , @xmath13we do not assume the linear medium to be stationary ( nor homogeneous
subject to generalisations as per ) .
we however do assume it to be passive : its radiation ( e.g. , thermal ) must be negligible .    for simplicity , we assume that is not affected by the presence of devices .
this assumption is utterly impractical . in a laser theory ( say ) , it means that the mirrors and the active medium are introduced on an equal basis .
it is much more common to reassign linear susceptibilies of devices to the `` free '' field .
all passive linear devices ( mirrors , beam - splitters and _ tutti quanti _ ) are then eliminated from explicit consideration , being accounted for in . for purposes of this paper , practicality is the least of concerns , so we stick with simplicity .
we return to this assumption in ; a formal way of lifting it is outlined in appendix [ ch : lm ] .    whether a particular physical entity is regarded `` linear medium '' or `` device '' depends on the degree of insight .
for instance , in nonrelativistic theories , vacuum is `` linear medium '' . in relativistic qed
, vacuum is rather a `` nonlinear device '' , of which the _ low frequency limit of linear response _ is separated from `` vacuum corrections '' .
this low frequency limit is that what one calls `` the free electromagnetic field  in vacuum '' .
the whole procedure is highly nontrivial because of divergences and renormalisations . for details , see textbooks @xcite and papers @xcite .
mixed averages of the field and current reduce to current averages , @xmath14and similarly for higher - order averages .
formally , these averages imply existence of a joint conditional probability functional over the current and field , @xmath15 \mathcal{d } [ \mathcal{a}]\ , p \protect { [ \mathcal{j},\mathcal{a}| a_{\mathrm{e } } ] } \mathcal{j}(t ) \mathcal{a}(t ' ) ,   % } { % \label{eq:29am}\end{aligned}\]]etc .
the radiation law ( [ eq:95rn ] ) reduces to , @xmath16}= \delta    [ \mathcal{a}-g_{\text{r } } \mathcal{j } ] p\protect {
[ \mathcal{j}| a_{\mathrm{e } } ] } ,   % } { % \label{eq:30an}\end{aligned}\]]where we use a condensed notation , @xmath17the @xmath18-functional is defined as a multidimensional @xmath18-function , @xmath19 = \prod_t \delta ( f(t ) ) .
% } { % \label{eq:31ap}\end{aligned}\]]this matches , making all algebraic manipulations straightforward .
distribution provides a macroscopic characterisation of a device in terms of statistics of a random current , conditional on radiation of _ other devices_. in a microscopic model of a device , evolution of matter depends on the local ( microscopic ) field rather than on the external field .
the local field includes self - radiation of matter , i.e. , @xmath20where we used condensed notation ( [ eq:77nv ] ) .
the microscopic model allows one to calculate statistics of the current conditional on the local field .
formally , it is described by the probability distribution , which we assume to be known ( here is a given quantity ; is disregarded ) .
the self - action problem is then solved by the `` stohastic dressing formula '' , @xmath21}=   p^{\mathrm{i}}\protect { [ \mathcal{j}| a_{\mathrm{e}}+g_{\text{r } } \mathcal{j}]}.   % } { % \label{eq:38aw}\end{aligned}\]]the apparent simplicity of this relation is extremely deceptive .
its consistency is subject to causality and suppression of instantaneous self - action . for a brief discussion
consider now a pair of devices , labeled @xmath22 and @xmath23 ( cf .
b ; again ignore hats ) .
each is characterised by a pair of distributions connected by , macroscopically by , and microscopically by .
extends to individual devices , @xmath24}=   p_{a , b}^{\mathrm{i}}\protect { [ \mathcal{j}| a_{\mathrm{e}}+g_{\text{r } } \mathcal{j}]}.   % } { % \label{eq:77lh}\end{aligned}\]]as a compound device , the pair is characterised by and .
now , what does it mean that the devices are distinguishable ?
since indistinguishability in the true meaning of the term does not occur in classical mechanics , the only assumption we have to make is that their models do not contain correlated noise sources . in other words , the currents @xmath25 and @xmath26 should be statisticaly independent if considered conditional on the local field . in formal terms ,
the corresponding joint probability distribution should factorise , @xmath27 = p^{\mathrm{i}}_{a } [   \mathcal{j}_a | a_{\mathrm{loc } }   ] p^{\mathrm{i}}_{b } [   \mathcal{j}_b | a_{\mathrm{loc } }   ] .
\end{aligned }   \label{eq:4kr}\end{aligned}\]]this realised , solution to the interaction problem in terms of the microscopic distributions is trivial .
the total random current characterising the composite device is a sum of the currents in devices , @xmath28integrating ( [ eq:4kr ] ) over the redundant information we find the probability distribution over the full current , @xmath29 & = \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_a ] \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_b]\delta [ \mathcal{j}-\mathcal{j}_a-\mathcal{j}_b ]   \nonumber\\&\quad \times p^{\mathrm{i}}_a[\mathcal{j}_a | a_{\mathrm{loc}}]p^{\mathrm{i}}_b[\mathcal{j}_b | a_{\mathrm{loc } } ]   .
% } { % \label{eq:5ks}\end{aligned}\]]we refrain from integration over or to maintain symmetry of formulae .
the expression for the macroscopic functional by and also follows with ease . applying the stochastic dressing formula ( [ eq:38aw ] ) to ( [ eq:5ks ] ) we obtain , @xmath30 & = \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_a ] \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_b]\delta [ \mathcal{j}-\mathcal{j}_a-\mathcal{j}_b ]   \nonumber\\&\quad \times p^{\mathrm{i}}_a[\mathcal{j}_a | a_{\mathrm{e}}+g_{\text{r } } \mathcal{j}]p^{\mathrm{i}}_b[\mathcal{j}_b | a_{\mathrm{e}}+g_{\text{r } } \mathcal{j } ]   .
% } { % \label{eq:6kt}\end{aligned}\]]we then `` dress '' the components of the device by making use of , @xmath31 & =   p^{\mathrm{i}}_a[\mathcal{j}_a | a_{\mathrm{e}}+g_{\text{r } } ( \mathcal{j}_a+\mathcal{j}_b ) ]   \\ & = p_a[\mathcal{j}_a | a_{\mathrm{e}}+g_{\text{r } } \mathcal{j}_b ]   , \\
p^{\mathrm{i}}_b[\mathcal{j}_b | a_{\mathrm{e}}+g_{\text{r } } \mathcal{j } ] & =   p^{\mathrm{i}}_b[\mathcal{j}_b | a_{\mathrm{e}}+g_{\text{r } } ( \mathcal{j}_a+\mathcal{j}_b ) ]   \\ & = p_b[\mathcal{j}_b | a_{\mathrm{e}}+g_{\text{r } } \mathcal{j}_a ]   .   \end{aligned }   \label{eq:7ku}\end{aligned}\]]finally , @xmath32 & = \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_a ] \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_b]\delta [ \mathcal{j}-\mathcal{j}_a-\mathcal{j}_b ]   \\&\quad \times p_a[\mathcal{j}_a | a_{\mathrm{e}}+g_{\text{r } } \mathcal{j}_b]p_b[\mathcal{j}_b | a_{\mathrm{e}}+g_{\text{r } } \mathcal{j}_a ]   .   \end{aligned }   \label{eq:8kv}\end{aligned}\]]apart from , this formula expresses the simple fact that external field affecting either device is plus radiation of the other device ( cf .  the list of `` trivialities '' in ) .
in this section we reiterate formal definitions , allowing us to embed our analyses in a conventional quantum framework .
we start with a brief overview of the general formal viewpoint and terminology .    _ distinguishable subsystems _ in quantum mechanics  `` inhabit '' orthogonal subspaces of the hilbert space . as a mathematical requirement
, this definition applies in the interaction picture .
all models in this paper comprise the _ electromagnetic - field _ subsystem and one or more _ matter _ subsystems . for brevity ,
we call matter subsystems _ devices_. the term _ bare device
_ applies to characterisation of a matter subsystem in the interaction picture .
a _ ( solitary ) dressed device _ refers to a model where one of the matter subsystems is made to interact with the field subsystem .
_ interacting devices _
emerge by coupling more than one device to the field .
direct nonelectromagnetic  interaction of devices is not allowed .
dressed solitary and interacting devices are characterised by the corresponding heisenberg  field and current operators ( which are interaction - dependent , unlike the interaction - picture operators ) . of main interest to us is how properties of interacting devices are related to those of the solitary ones . in formal terms , we look at relations between heisenberg  operators defined according to different interaction hamiltonians . this point ought to be well noted : _ we compare models _ , rather than work with a single model .
majority of the formal concepts we rely upon are standard , or at least well known . to the standard ones belong quantisation of the electromagnetic  field , the electromagnetic  hamiltonian as a sum of matter , field and interaction hamiltonians , the interaction _ vs _ heisenberg  picture , free and heisenberg  operators , and the initial ( heisenberg ) state of the system specified in remote past .
the latter gives rise to quantum averaging .
we do not use the schrdinger  picture .
implicit in our techniques are also the evolution operator and the @xmath33-matrix ( they underlie the results `` imported '' from @xcite ; cf .  appendix [ ch : qr ] ) .
all these concepts are amply covered in textbooks @xcite . among the well - known concepts
are the time - normal ordering  of operators , introduced by kelley and kleiner and glauber in the context of photodetection theory @xcite , and placing c - number sources into hamiltonians , which we borrow from kubo @xcite .
it should not be missed that , unlike kubo , we do not limit our analyses to the linear response .
`` proprietary '' formal concepts we use are the _ response transformation _ of quantum mechanics @xcite , and the redefinition of the conventional time - normal  operator ordering this transformation prompts @xcite .
the latter takes care of causality violations @xcite plagueing the conventional definition ; this assures strict causality in our approach @xcite .
key points of the `` proprietary '' concepts will be reiterated where required .
for details see the quoted papers .        throughout the paper
we assume the standard electromagnetic  hamiltonian , @xmath34hereinafter m , f and i stand for _ matter _ , _ field _ and _ interaction_. quantum averaging is defined with respect to the factorised heisenberg  @xmath35-matrix , @xmath36where and describe the initial states of field and matter . the same symbol ( angle brackets ) is used for the classical and quantum averages ; what we have in mind should be clear in the context .    for simplicity we write the electromagnetic  interaction in a single - mode form , @xmath37 ,   \label{eq:36mm}\end{aligned}\]]where and are the current and the electromagnetic  field operators in the interaction picture , and is the aforementioned kubo - style source . this hamiltonian may be understood literally , or as a shorthand notation according to .
the latter implies summation over all field labels except time .
e.g. , in the multimode case , @xmath38 = \sum_{k } \hat j_k(t ) [ \hat a_k(t)+a_{\mathrm{e}k}(t ) ] ,   % } { % \label{eq:61px}\end{aligned}\]]in the nonrelativistic 3d case , @xmath39 \nonumber\\&\quad = \int d^3{\mbox{\rm\boldmath$r$}}\sum_{k=1}^3 \hat j_k({\mbox{\rm\boldmath$r$}},t ) [ \hat a_k({\mbox{\rm\boldmath$r$}},t)+a_{\mathrm{e}k}({\mbox{\rm\boldmath$r$}},t ) ] ,   % } { % \label{eq:18zz}\end{aligned}\]]etc .
irrespective of all other formal details , and commute for arbitrary @xmath6 and @xmath40 , and all their mixed quantum averages factorise ( cf .  the remarks on the `` overall viewpoint '' in above ) .
that this does not extend to the heisenberg  operators  denoted and is due solely to the interaction .
the heisenberg operators and their quantum averages are by construction dependent ( conditional ) on the external source .
it should not be overlooked that interaction ( [ eq:36 mm ] ) is nonresonant : and are hermitian operators , not broken into their frequency - positive and frequency - negative  parts .
we adhere to certain notational conventions .
italics are consistently used for interaction - picture operators ; this concerns hamiltonians ( [ eq:37mn ] ) and ( [ eq:36 mm ] ) , as well as all other hamiltonians in the paper .
calligraphic letters are equally consistently used for heisenberg  operators .
apart from the minimal assumptions of hermiticity of all operators and positivity of -matrices , the matter hamiltonian @xmath41 , the current operator @xmath42 and the state of the device @xmath43 may be arbitrary .
consistency of the response formulation @xcite hinges on two properties of : that it is a free hermitian bosonic operator , of which the two - point commutator is a c - number , and that its frequency - positive  part annihilates vacuum .
we assume that the field is in a vacuum state , @xmath44physically , assumptions ( [ eq:40bj ] ) and ( [ eq:42bl ] ) matter little , because the system is allowed infinite time to develop .
_ in no way
do we assume that a closed system of microscopic equations of motion may be written solely in terms of the mesoscopic variables and .
_ some underlying dynamical variables must exist , bosonic or fermionic , by which all matter variables are expressed , and for which closed equations of motion may be written . however , apart from the assumption that it may in principle be consistenly formulated , microscopic dynamics plays no role in our analyses .
macroscopic dynamics is observed , but in general does not allow one to construct a closed theory .
microscopic dynamics specifies the system completely , but may only be inferred from what is observed ( cf .
however ) .
it is worthy of stressing that _ the possibility of separation of the mesoscopic from microscopic dynamics is not an assumption_. it is a structural property of conventional quantum field theory  ( specifically , of the feynman - dyson approach ) @xcite , cf .
@xcite and appendix [ ch : qr ] in this paper .
all parallels between classical and quantum electrodynamics  are ultimately rooted on the _ wave quantisation relation _ @xcite .
it introduces the concept of running electromagnetic  wave in quantum electrodynamics : @xmath45 = -i\hbar    [ g_{\text{r } } ( t , t')-g_{\text{r } } ( t',t ) ] .
% } { % \label{eq:40mr}\end{aligned}\]]the linear response function ( a.k.a .
transfer function or retarded propagator ) of the electromagnetic field  is found replacing the quantum current in ( [ eq:36 mm ] ) by a c - number source and considering the linear response of the free field : @xmath46 .
% } { % \label{eq:41ms}\end{aligned}\]]the first formula here is the definition of and the last one is kubo s relation for it @xcite ; we dropped quantum averaging of the commutator which is a c - number anyway .
the wave quantisation formula follows trivially by inverting kubo s one .
it is not associated with any approximation , but its implications are much more profound under conditions of distinguishability .
note that the causality condition ( [ eq:92nl ] ) is inherent to kubo s response .    in the main body of the paper ,
we assume that is not affected by the presence of devices .
this assumption was discussed in .
apart from simplicity , the reason we stick to it is that it can not be lifted in a hamilton formulation .
the corresponding formal redefinitions are summarised in appendix [ ch : lm ] .
( caveat : this appendix relies on definitions yet to be given in . )      a pair of interacting distinguishable devices are introduced postulating , @xmath47 , and commute for arbitrary @xmath6 , @xmath40 and @xmath48 , and all their mixed averages factorise ( cf .  the remarks on hilbert - space factorisation in ) .
we shall also need models of solitary devices , @xmath49for device @xmath22 , and @xmath50for device @xmath23 .
majority of the above definitions are formal .
they serve to embed our analyses in a conventional dynamical quantum approach , and to perform its response transformation ( cf .  ) ; with that their role ends .
assumptions `` making it '' into the discussion are as follows :    * the field is fully characterised by its response properties , reflected by .
* matter is fully characterised by quantum averages of products of the bare current operator , @xmath51 * for interacting devices , averages ( [ eq:31ta ] ) factorise into products of the corresponding averages for devices , e.g. , @xmath52 [ \hat j_a(t ' ) + \hat j_b(t ' ) ] \rangle \nonumber\\ & =   \protect \langle \hat j_a(t)\hat j_a(t ' ) \rangle + \protect \langle \hat j_a(t ) \rangle \protect \langle \hat j_b(t ' )
\rangle \nonumber\\&\quad +    \ { a\leftrightarrow b \ } .
% } { % \label{eq:84vj}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    that these assumptions suffice is a formal expression of consistency of `` obscured macroscopic view '' in quantum electrodynamics .
the time - normal ordering  was introduced by kelley and kleiner and glauber in the context of quantum photodetection theory @xcite ( for a pedagogical discussion see , e.g. , mandel and wolf @xcite ) .
there are well - known causality violations associated with taking the glauber - kelley - kleiner  definition beyond the rotating wave approximation ( rwa ) @xcite , so that the idea that some amendments are in order should come naturally to the reader .
these amendments were suggested by l.p .  and s.s .  in @xcite
, see also @xcite .    as an example , consider the time - normally ordered product of two current operators , .
the notation for the time - normal ordering  is borrowed from mandel and wolf @xcite .
we assume that the reader is familiar with the concept of separation of the frequency - positive and frequency - negative  parts of functions .
the latter is conveniently expressed as an integral transformation , ( with being an arbitrary function ) @xmath53for more on this operation see , e.g. , appendix a in @xcite .
the beyond - the - rwa expression for follows in two steps .
firstly , expand operators into the frequency - positive and frequency - negative  parts , @xmath54and apply the kelley - kleiner  definition , @xmath55 in this formula , stand for the forward and reverse time orderings ( often denoted by @xmath56 and @xmath57 ) .
secondly , change the order of time orderings and the operations , @xmath58time - normal products of many bosonic operators follow similarly .
note that @xmath59 in ( [ eq:19sn ] ) , we moved the operations from under the averaging also in the second and third terms , where this does not matter .
this serves to emphasise that the rhs of ( [ eq:19sn ] ) is expressed by `` entire '' operators , not broken in their frequency - positive and frequency - negative  parts ( cf .
sec .  3.2 in @xcite ) .
the reader familiar with the schwinger - perel - keldysh closed - time - loop approach of quantum field theory  @xcite should have recoginised operator structures typical for this framework . indeed , formally , and the like follow if using the wave quantisation formula to replace the matrix propagator in the closed - time - loop approach by the retarded propagator @xcite .
this association with quantum field theory  assures a solid formal ground for our analyses .
it is straightforward to show that the time - normally ordered product of hermitian operators is hermitian ; quantum averages of time - normally ordered products of hermitian operators ( time - normal averages , for short ) are real .
causality is a subtler property .
the following `` no - peep - into - the - future theorem '' was proven in @xcite : _ a time - normally ordered product depends on operators it comprises only for times not larger than its largest time argument_. for a relativistic extension of this theorem see @xcite ; cf .
also endnote @xcite .
in addition to , we introduce three more cases of condensed notation : @xmath60where @xmath61 and @xmath62 are c - number or q - number functions .
the `` products '' @xmath63 and @xmath64 denote scalars , while @xmath65 and @xmath66functions .
the effect of condensed notation is twofold : it diminishes the bulk of formulae and reduces them visually to a scalar case . the latter
much simplifies all calculations ( we borrowed this trick from vasilev @xcite ) .
in this section we introduce the formal concepts , allowing one , so to speak , to implement in quantum electrodynamics .
we also use this opportunity to acquaint the reader with the key results of papers @xcite .
the quantum counterpart of the classical averages ( [ eq:27ak ] ) are time - normal averages of the heisenberg  current operator , @xmath67etc .
the classical averages were dependent ( conditional ) on an external field by definition .
the quantum average exhibits this dependence by construction , due to the external field in the interaction ( [ eq:36 mm ] ) .
introduces _ response formulation _
@xcite ( also response picture , response viewpoint , or response characterisation ) of an electromagnetic  device .
specifications beyond the rwa aside , one borrows the concepts of the photodetection theory to characterise the _ output _ of a device , while using kubo - style sources to define the _ input _ ( cf .  also endnote @xcite ) . as remarked in above ,
the beyond - the - rwa time - normal ordering  emerges in fact within the closed - time - loop formalism of quantum field theory  @xcite .
moreover , the response formulation was shown to be formally equivalent to this formalism @xcite .
for details see the quoted papers and appendix [ ch : qr ] .
an immediate word of caution is in place here . in our approach
external sources are used as functional arguments .
this implies that they are _
arbitrary_. informally speaking , we allow c - number sources to be placed inside atomic nuclei .
this extent of control is certainly impossible with real light sources . _
arbitrary external sources in quantum mechanics  are unphysical quantities .
_    this controversy is resolved by the so - called _ consistency condition _ @xcite . for an electromagnetic  system ,
it is expressed by and ( [ eq:38fv ] ) in appendix [ ch : qr ] .
it stipulates that ,    * response properties of a system are formally expressed in terms of heisenberg  operators defined with zero sources ( cf .
kubo s ) .
* these properties are `` encoded '' in commutators of these operators ( again , cf .  ) .
these facts hold with given sources . with arbitrary sources
, the consistency condition also shows that ,    * the information lost due to fixing the time - normal order of operators is exactly that re - entering through the dependence of the ordered operator products on the sources .
all these facts warrant the formal consistency of the response formulation , hence the term .
since arbitrary sources are unphysical , response formulation should be regarded an _ intuitive interpretation _ of a conventional quantum approach not relying on sources ( specifically , of the aforementioned closed - time - loop  formalism ) .
this interpretation enables `` doing quantum electrodynamics  while thinking classically '' , making it extremely useful ; nonetheless it is only formal .
the interplay of the formal and the physical in response formulation will be further discussed in .
being of fundamental importance for introduction of the response formulation , the consistency condition is of little  if any  relevance to analyses within it .
for all practical purposes only its existence matters .      the critical property making the analogy ( [ eq:53ne ] ) meaningful is _ causality_. the no - peep - into - the - future theorem mentioned in assures validity of the quantum counterparts of , @xmath68etc .
apart from the said theorem , they rely on the quantum counterpart of , @xmath69conditions ( [ eq:55nh ] ) may be verified without making any assumptions about the quantum matter @xcite . in other words , they constitute in essence a kinematical property of quantum mechanics .
relativistic extention of ( [ eq:55nh ] ) takes a minimal assumption of commutativity of operators at space - like intervals .
this is one of wightman s axioms of quantum field theory @xcite .
for details see @xcite and endnote @xcite .
generalised to quantum mechanics , define the _ functional conditional quasiprobability distribition _ , or _
conditional p - functional _ , , @xmath70\ , p\protect { [ \mathcal{j}| a_{\mathrm{e } } ] } \mathcal{j}(t ) ,   \\   \protect \langle { \mathcal t}{\mbox{\rm\boldmath$:$}}\protect{\hat{\mathcal j}}(t)\protect{\hat{\mathcal j}}(t'){\mbox{\rm\boldmath$:$}}\rangle & = \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}]\ , p \protect { [ \mathcal{j}| a_{\mathrm{e } } ] } \mathcal{j}(t ) \mathcal{j}(t ' ) ,   \end{aligned }   \label{eq:33ar}\end{aligned}\]]etc .
these quantities generalise both _
conditional probability distributions _ of classical stochastics and _ quasiprobability distributions _ of the conventional phase - space techniques to arbitrary nonlinear non - markovian quantum systems .
we do not notationally distinguish the quasidistributions from probability distributions , assuming that , in classical mechanics , they are positive , while in quantum mechanics  may become nonpositive .
the term p - functional was introduced by w.  vogel @xcite for a functional generalisation of the conventional p - distribution @xcite .
our definition generalises vogel s , firstly , beyond rwa , and , secondly , to response .      in classical mechanics
, the conditional probability distribution is a primary quantity , while averages are defined in its terms . in quantum mechanics ,
all dynamical relations are derived for averages , and the corresponding p - functionals are to be defined in terms of the latter .
we follow the association between probability distributions and characteristic functionals . for example , for the classical we have , @xmath71\ , p\protect { [ \mathcal{j}| a_{\mathrm{e } } ] } \exp(i\zeta \mathcal{j } ) .
% } { % \label{eq:43tp}\end{aligned}\]]we use condensed notation ( [ eq:3vs ] ) .
the quantum counterpart of ( [ eq:43tp ] ) reads , @xmath72 } & =   \protect \langle { \mathcal t}{\mbox{\rm\boldmath$:$}}\exp   ( i\zeta \protect{\hat{\mathcal j } } ) { \mbox{\rm\boldmath$:$}}\rangle \label{eq:20sp}\\ & = \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}]\ , p\protect { [ \mathcal{j}| a_{\mathrm{e } } ] } \exp   ( i\zeta \mathcal{j } ) .
\label{eq:41az}\end{aligned}\]]apart from defining the conditional p - functional , we have also introduced notation for the corresponding characteristic one .
we also need a quantum definition of the joint quasiprobability distribution , @xmath73 } & =   \protect \langle { \mathcal t}{\mbox{\rm\boldmath$:$}}\exp   ( i\eta \protect{\hat{\mathcal a}}+i\zeta \protect{\hat{\mathcal j } } ) { \mbox{\rm\boldmath$:$}}\rangle \label{eq:44tq}\\ & = \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{a}]\mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j } ] \ , p[\mathcal{a},\mathcal{j}|a_{\mathrm{e}}]\exp   ( i\eta \mathcal{a}+i\zeta \mathcal{j } ) .
% } { % \label{eq:45tr}\end{aligned}\]]cf .
the classical .
now , how should we define ?
to start with , here is a given quantity ; should be disregarded .
fixing means that self - radiation is somehow prevented from affecting the device .
this is achieved by suppressing interaction of the device with the quantised field , i.e. , replacing interaction ( [ eq:36 mm ] ) by , @xmath74this way , @xmath75 & =   \protect \langle { \mathcal t}{\mbox{\rm\boldmath$:$}}\exp   ( i\zeta \hat j_{\mathrm{loc } } ) { \mbox{\rm\boldmath$:$}}\rangle ,   \label{eq:21sq}\\ & = \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}]\ , p^{\mathrm{i}}\protect { [ \mathcal{j}| a_{\mathrm{loc } } ] } \exp   ( i\zeta \mathcal{j } ) .
\label{eq:24st}\end{aligned}\]]where is the heisenberg  current operator with respect to ( [ eq:47bf ] ) .
an immediate reservation is in place here .
definitions ( [ eq:20sp])([eq:24st ] ) are a rare occasion when the consistency condition ( see ) must be at least acknowledged . as explained there ,
([eq:24st ] ) constitute an intuitive interpretation of all functionals involved , while their rigorous definitions can not rely on external sources .
such definitions may be found in appendices [ ch : upc ] and [ ch:25su ] .
for the time being , awareness of their existence suffices .
this reservation is especially important for .
it is in fact a primary quantity , with everything else expressed by it .
that it can be _ directly _ expressed by averages of is critical for consistency of our approach , cf .
and comments thereon .
as an example of working with functionals we prove . substituting it into ( [ eq:45tr ] ) results in the following relation between and , @xmath73}= \phi_{\mathrm{m}}\protect { [ \eta g_{\text{r } } + \zeta | a_{\mathrm{e } } ] } .
% } { % \label{eq:47tt}\end{aligned}\]]we use notation ( [ eq:78nw ] ) . is a special case of the general formula ( [ eq:53ze ] ) in appendix [ ch : upd ] , verified in @xcite .
has thus been proven as a quantum formula for p - functionals .    differentiating ( [ eq:47tt ] ) and using the chain rule for functional derivatives we obtain quantum counterparts of , @xmath76etc .
a detailed parallelism between classical and quantum response characterisations of a solitary device is evident .
it is worthy of a remark that , while and ( [ eq:47tt ] ) are equivalent , physical transparency of the former compares favourably to obscure formality of the latter .
consider now the self - action problem for a solitary device . in quantum electrodynamics , it is expressed by the _ dressing formula _
@xcite , relating averages of the heisenberg  operator to those of the `` free '' current , @xmath77 % %
\\   =   \exp \bigg ( -i\frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{e}}}g_{\text{r } } \frac{\delta } { \delta \zeta }   \bigg ) % \\ \times   \phi_{\mathrm{m}}^{\mathrm{i } } \big [ \zeta \big| a_{\mathrm{e } }   \big ] .
\label{eq:54zf}\end{aligned}\]]we use condensed notation ( [ eq:76nu ] ) . substituting ( [ eq:24st ] ) into the dressing formula we find , @xmath78 } \nonumber\\&\quad = \exp   \big ( -i\frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{e}}}g_{\text{r } } \frac{\delta } { \delta \zeta } \big ) \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j } ] \,p^{\mathrm{i}}\protect { [ \mathcal{j}| a_{\mathrm{e } } ] } \exp   ( i\zeta \mathcal{j } ) \nonumber\\&\quad = \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j } ] \exp   \big ( \frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{e}}}g_{\text{r } } \mathcal{j}\big ) p^{\mathrm{i}}\protect { [ \mathcal{j}| a_{\mathrm{e } } ] } \exp   ( i\zeta \mathcal{j } ) \nonumber\\&\quad = \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}]\ , p^{\mathrm{i}}\protect { [ \mathcal{j}| a_{\mathrm{e}}+g_{\text{r } } \mathcal{j}]}\exp   ( i\zeta \mathcal{j } ) .
% } { % \label{eq:43bb}\end{aligned}\]]the last transformation here is an application of a functional shift operator , @xmath79}= p^{\mathrm{i}}\protect { [ \mathcal{j}| a_{\mathrm{e}}+g_{\text{r } } \mathcal{j}]}.   % } { % \label{eq:44bc}\end{aligned}\]]the dressing formula ( [ eq:54zf ] ) is thus equivalent to the _ quasistochastic dressing formula _ , which is the stochastic dressing formula ( [ eq:38aw ] ) regarded as a relation for p - functionals .
two remarks are in order here .
firstly , the dressing formula expresses the nontrivial part of perturbative calculations . in full - space problems ,
this is associated with suppression of infinities , which in turn are due to instantaneous self - actions .
further discussion of this issue may be found in appendix [ ch : reg ] . secondly , the very possibility to introduce quasidistribution as a characterisation of a bare device is yet another manifestation of the concept of obscured macroscopic view in the formal structure of quantum electrodynamics .
microscopic dynamics is screened from the `` electromagnetic  observer '' from the start , by mere assumption that interaction with the quantised electromagnetic  field is facilitated by the current .
this happens _ before _
the field and interaction are actually introduced .
the critical step to physics is from a solitary device to an interacting pair ( b ) .
allow one to confine the discussion to the quantum current .
the `` dressed '' and `` bare '' p - functionals for devices @xmath22 and @xmath23 and the corresponding characteristic functionals are introduced extending definitions ( [ eq:20sp ] ) , ( [ eq:41az ] ) and ( [ eq:21sq ] ) , ( [ eq:24st ] ) to the models of devices ( [ eq:47my ] ) and ( [ eq:48mz ] ) . in practice , this boils down to assigning labels @xmath22 and @xmath23 to everything , e.g. , @xmath80 } & =   \protect \langle { \mathcal t}{\mbox{\rm\boldmath$:$}}\exp   ( i\zeta \protect{\hat{\mathcal j } } ) { \mbox{\rm\boldmath$:$}}\rangle _ a   % \eqlabel{20sp } % % \nonumber % % \z    \nonumber\\ & = \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}]\ , p_a[\mathcal{j}|a_{\mathrm{e}}]\exp   ( i\zeta \mathcal{j } ) .
% } { % \label{eq:27sw}\end{aligned}\]]the symbol denotes averages defined in the model of solitary device @xmath22 , cf .  .
similar definitions apply to other `` labeled '' quantities .      as the first step to verification of and ( [ eq:8kv ] ) as quantum relations for p - functionals we rewrite them in terms of the corresponding characteristic functionals . substituting the former into ( [ eq:24st ] )
we get , @xmath81 } & = \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_a ] \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_b ]   \exp[i\zeta ( \mathcal{j}_a+\mathcal{j}_b ) ]    \nonumber\\&\quad \times p^{\mathrm{i}}_a[\mathcal{j}_a | a_{\mathrm{loc}}]p^{\mathrm{i}}_b[\mathcal{j}_b | a_{\mathrm{loc } } ]   .
% } { % \label{eq:9kw}\end{aligned}\]]the integral factorises , and we arrive at , @xmath82 =   \phi_{\mathrm{m}a } ^{\mathrm{i } } [   \zeta | a_{\mathrm{loc } }   ] \phi_{\mathrm{m}b } ^{\mathrm{i } } [   \zeta | a_{\mathrm{loc } }   ] .   \end{aligned }   \label{eq:63bf}\end{aligned}\ ] ] takes more work .
substituting it into ( [ eq:41az ] ) yields , @xmath83 & = \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_a ] \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_b ]   \exp[i\zeta ( \mathcal{j}_a+\mathcal{j}_b ) ]    \\&\quad \times   p_{a } [   \mathcal{j}_a \big| a_{\mathrm{e } } + g_{\text{r } } \mathcal{j}_b   ] p_{b } [   \mathcal{j}_b \big| a_{\mathrm{e } } + g_{\text{r } } \mathcal{j}_a   ] .
\end{aligned }   \label{eq:10kx}\end{aligned}\]]we then take the route as in , but in reverse .
we start from writing , @xmath84 % % \np   = \exp \bigg (   \frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{e } } } g_{\text{r } } \mathcal{j}_b   \bigg ) p_{a } [   \mathcal{j}_a \big| a_{\mathrm{e } }   ] ,   % } { % \label{eq:11ky}\end{aligned}\]]then pull the exponential differential operator out of the integral .
similar manipulations are applied to . as a result
we find , @xmath85 & = \exp \bigg (   -i\frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{e } } ' } g_{\text{r } } \frac{\delta } { \delta \zeta }   -i\frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{e } } } g_{\text{r } } \frac{\delta } { \delta \zeta ' }   \bigg ) \nonumber\\&\quad \times   \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_a ] \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_b ]   \exp (   i\zeta \mathcal{j}_a + i\zeta ' \mathcal{j}_b   ) \nonumber\\&\qquad \times   p_{a } [   \mathcal{j}_a \big| a_{\mathrm{e } }   ] p_{b } [   \mathcal{j}_b \big| a_{\mathrm{e } } '   ] |_{\zeta ' = \zeta , a_{\mathrm{e}}'=a_{\mathrm{e } } } .
% } { % \label{eq:14lb}\end{aligned}\]]introducing pairs of variables @xmath86 and @xmath87 allows all differentiations to hit the right targets .
the integral in ( [ eq:14 lb ] ) is factorised . recalling ( [ eq:27sw ] ) we arrive at the relation sought , @xmath85 & = \exp \bigg (   -i\frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{e } } ' } g_{\text{r } } \frac{\delta } { \delta \zeta }   -i\frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{e } } } g_{\text{r } } \frac{\delta } { \delta \zeta ' }   \bigg ) \nonumber\\&\quad \times   \phi_{\mathrm{m}a } [   \zeta   \big |   a_{\mathrm{e } }    ] \phi_{\mathrm{m}b } [   \zeta '   \big |   a_{\mathrm{e } } '   ] \settoheight{\auxlv}{$ |$}% \raisebox{-0.3\auxlv}{$ |_{\zeta ' = \zeta , a_{\mathrm{e}}'=a_{\mathrm{e}}}$}.   % } { % \label{eq:66bk}\end{aligned}\ ] ]      follows from factorisation of quantum averages for two distinguishable noninteracting subsystems , cf .  . to prove it ,
use the definition of by , and the factorisation assumption ( [ eq:84vj ] ) .
we regard verified . in turn , this proves as a formula for p - functionals .    substituting ( [ eq:63bf ] ) into the dressing formula ( [ eq:54zf ] )
we obtain , @xmath88 & =   \exp \bigg (   -i\frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{e } } } g_{\text{r } } \frac{\delta } { \delta \zeta }   \bigg ) \nonumber\\&\quad \times   \phi_{\mathrm{m}a } ^{\mathrm{i } } [   \zeta \big| a_{\mathrm{e } }   ] \phi_{\mathrm{m}b } ^{\mathrm{i } } [   \zeta \big| a_{\mathrm{e } }   ] .
% } { % \label{eq:95fm}\end{aligned}\]]we now apply the relation @xcite , @xmath89 \mathcal{f}_3 [   f   ] = \mathcal{f}_1 \bigg (   \frac{\delta } { \delta f}+ \frac{\delta } { \delta f ' }   \bigg ) \mathcal{f}_2 [   f   ] \mathcal{f}_3 [   f '   ] |_{f'=f } ,   % } { % \label{eq:96fn}\end{aligned}\]]where @xmath90 $ ] , @xmath91 $ ] , @xmath91 $ ] are arbitrary functionals and @xmath92 are auxiliary functional variables . equation ( [ eq:96fn ] ) is a compact way of formulating general rules of product differentiation .
it may be verified expanding @xmath90 $ ] , @xmath91 $ ] , @xmath91 $ ] in functional taylor series . using ( [ eq:96fn ] )
we rewrite ( [ eq:95fm ] ) as , @xmath88 & =   \exp \bigg [ -i    \bigg (   \frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{e } } } +   \frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{e } } ' }    \bigg ) g_{\text{r } } \bigg (   \frac{\delta } { \delta \zeta } +   \frac{\delta } { \delta \zeta ' }   \bigg ) \bigg ] \nonumber\\&\quad \times   \phi_{\mathrm{m}a } ^{\mathrm{i } } [   \zeta \big| a_{\mathrm{e } }   ] \phi_{\mathrm{m}b } ^{\mathrm{i } } [   \zeta ' \big| a_{\mathrm{e } } '   ] \settoheight{\auxlv}{$\big|$}% \raisebox{-0.3\auxlv}{$\big|_{\zeta ' = \zeta ,   a_{\mathrm{e}}'= a_{\mathrm{e}}}$}.   % } { % \label{eq:97fp}\end{aligned}\]]expanding the bilinear form in the exponent we have , @xmath93 \nonumber\\&\quad =   \exp \bigg (   -i\frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{e } } ' } g_{\text{r } } \frac{\delta } { \delta \zeta }   \bigg ) \exp \bigg (   -i\frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{e } } } g_{\text{r } } \frac{\delta } { \delta \zeta ' }   \bigg ) \nonumber\\&\qquad \times   \exp \bigg (   -i\frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{e } } } g_{\text{r } } \frac{\delta } { \delta \zeta }   \bigg ) \exp \bigg (   -i\frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{e } } ' } g_{\text{r } } \frac{\delta } { \delta \zeta ' }   \bigg ) .
% } { % \label{eq:98fq}\end{aligned}\]]the last two factors here `` dress '' the devices , @xmath94 & =   \phi_{\mathrm{m}a } [   \zeta \big | a_{\mathrm{e } }   ] , \\   \exp \bigg (   -i\frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{e } } ' } g_{\text{r } } \frac{\delta } { \delta \zeta ' }   \bigg ) \phi_{\mathrm{m}b}^{\mathrm{i } } [   \zeta ' \big | a_{\mathrm{e } } '   ] & =   \phi_{\mathrm{m}b } [   \zeta ' \big | a_{\mathrm{e } } '   ] ,   \end{aligned }   \label{eq:65bj}\end{aligned}\]]cf .  , and we arrive at . in turn , this proves as a formula for p - functionals .
extension to many devices is achieved by applying and ( [ eq:8kv ] ) recursively .
so , for a set - up of @xmath95 devices , labeled by their number in place of @xmath22 and @xmath23 , we obtain , @xmath29 & = \int \prod_{k=1}^n    \big \ { \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_k ] \,p^{\mathrm{i}}_k[\mathcal{j}_k | a_{\mathrm{loc } } ] \big \ } \nonumber\\&\quad \times   \delta[\mathcal{j}_1+\cdots+\mathcal{j}_n -\mathcal{j } ] ,   % } { % \label{eq:51tx}\end{aligned}\]]and @xmath30 & = \int \prod_{k=1}^n    \big \ { \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_k ]
\,p_k[\mathcal{j}_k | a_{\mathrm{e}}+g_{\text{r } } ( \mathcal{j}-\mathcal{j}_k ) ] \big \ } \nonumber\\&\quad \times   \delta [ \mathcal{j}_1+\cdots+\mathcal{j}_n -\mathcal{j } ] ,   % } { % \label{eq:52ty}\end{aligned}\]]for the corresponding characteristic functionals we have , @xmath96 = \prod_{k=1}^n \phi_{\mathrm{m}k } ^{\mathrm{i } } [   \zeta | a_{\mathrm{loc } }   ] ,   % } { % \label{eq:54ua}\end{aligned}\]]and @xmath85 & =    \bigg \ { \exp \bigg (   -i\sum_{l\neq n}\frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{e}l } } g_{\text{r } } \frac{\delta } { \delta \zeta_n }   \bigg ) \nonumber\\&\quad \times   \prod_{k=1}^n \phi_{\mathrm{m}k } [   \zeta_k | a_{\mathrm{e}k }   ] \bigg \ } \big| _ {   \ { \zeta , a_{\mathrm{e } } \ } } ,   % } { % \label{eq:55ub}\end{aligned}\]]where stands for the substitution , @xmath97these formulae generalise and ( [ eq:66bk ] ) .
they may be verified either applying them recursively , or adapting the method of to @xmath95 devices .
recursive nature of ([eq:48bh ] ) reflects design of real macroscopic ( e.g. , electronic ) devices .
the latter are made of a large number of components , which , in our terms , are themselves electromagnetic  devices ( cf .
the `` engineering viewpoint '' in ) .
true quantum mechanics only starts when this kind of subdivisibility stops .
* * *    ([eq:48bh ] ) give a formal expression to the statement made in the intro , that , _ under macroscopic conditions , quantum electrodynamics  and classical stochastic electrodynamics  have identical dynamical structure .
_ one may also say that _ flow of quantum information in a macroscopic setup is governed by laws of classical stochastic electrodynamics_. truly quantum dynamics is limited to microscopic conditions of indistinguishability and/or equations of motion of matter .
as was explained in , the way external c - number sources are employed in the response formulation is unphysical .
this raises two questions : whether one can introduce response formulation without relying on sources , and whether one can reintroduce sources as a consistent macroscopic approximation .
both questions are answered in affirmative in this section .
we also take this opportunity to reiterate the key technical points of our approach , with the emphasis on their interplay with the approximations .
the actual calculations underlying our resuts utilize the functional aprroach to the schwinger - perel - keldysh  closed - time - loop  techniques of quantum field theory  @xcite ( for a recent review see @xcite ) .
this is the minimal framework that allows one to include such concepts as _ arbitrary macroscopic electromagnetic  device _ in a dynamical approach .
the aforementioned key technical points of our approach are ,    * _ response transformation _ of the closed - time - loop  techniques @xcite , prompted by the wave quantisation formula ( [ eq:40mr ] ) . * _ wick s theorem _ in its functional ( hori s ) form @xcite .
both `` key technical points '' are exact and formally independent , but even a cursory inspection reveals that they are deeply connected . indeed , consider the problem with the hamiltonian ( cf .
@xcite ) , @xmath98it is easily solved , @xmath99cf .  .
the no - backaction nature of a c - number source automatically makes the electromagnetic interaction  directed .
the question whether directedness may also be introduced in nonlinear problems is answered in the affirmative by the wave quantisation formula ( [ eq:40mr ] ) . in turn
, applying response transformation to wick s theorem reveals its profound association with response properties of free quantised fields @xcite .
is the simplest example of strict causality in the response of a quantum system to sources @xcite .
`` strict causality '' means that it holds on all scales , macroscopic as well as microscopic .
it is the``strict causality '' that makes the response formulation intuitive .
paradoxical as it may sound , it is also the `` strict causality '' that makes it unphysical , because it implies one s ability to vary sorces arbitrarily on microscopic scales .
application of the responce formulation to a solitary electromagnetic  device @xcite and its extention to electromagnetic interactions of distinguishable devices ( of this paper ) preserve both its advantages ( causality and intuitiveness ) and its main drawback ( unphysical nature of c - number souces ) .    ) .
the `` electromagnetic  arrows '' are directional as in . ]
can one rederive the results in a manner preserving the advantages but without the drawbacks ?
such alternative derivation is the subject of this section . in the main body of the paper , we resort to a `` pictorial argument '' .
all calculations are relegated to the appendices .
the starting point of the alternative derivation is the two - device model ( [ eq:46mx ] ) without sources , @xmath100one also has to change the order in which the `` key technical points '' ( cf .  ) are applied to the two - device problem .
firstly , construct a perturbative solution to this problem in the closed - time - loop  framework with wick s theorem in its conventional form , secondly , impose the two - device approximation , and only in the very end perform the response transformation .
the first step of this schedule may be borrowed from preprint @xcite , by dropping sources in the closed perturbative formula ( 56 ) .
the other two steps are outlined in appendix [ ch:2dc ] .
dressed devices as scattering entities emerge in such model due to an interplay of distinguishability with the wave quantisation formula ( [ eq:40mr ] ) .
indeed , consider the formal structure of electromagnetic interaction  _ before _ the response transformation ( fig .  [ fig : birdseye10]a ) .
this picture is a schematic representation of in the appendix .
assumed distinguishability of the devices leads to separation of the electromagnetic self - action problems for the devices from the problem of their electromagnetic interaction .
`` separation '' means that the self - action problems for the devices may be formulated within models ( [ eq:47my ] ) and ( [ eq:48mz ] ) without any reference to the two - device model .
neither fig .
[ fig : birdseye10]a nor the underlying `` know '' anything about directedness of the electromagnetic interaction .
graphically , this is emphasized by making dashed arrows symbolising the electromagnetic interaction  bidirectional .
the concept of `` dressed macroscopic device '' relies only _ on the assumption of distinguishability and on the formal structure of quantum electrodynamics_. it is not limited to any kind of response characterisation of a quantum system .    the structure of electromagnetic interactions _
after _ the response transformation is illustrated in fig .
[ fig : birdseye10]b .
this picture is a schematic representation of . in response picture ,
free electromagnetic field  is characterised by the retarded propagator . consequently all `` electromagnetic  arrows '' in fig .
[ fig : birdseye10]b are directional as in .
the way fig .
[ fig : birdseye10]b is drawn emphasises that the wave quantisation formula gives rise to characterisation of the individual devices as _ dressed response entities_. this happens _ irrespective of c - number sources_which , we remind , are absent in the approach illustrated in .    field entity , operating independently of the detector .
formally , this entity is characterised by functional ( [ eq:70qh ] ) in appendix [ ch : phdet ] .
( b ) the four - device arrangement , to which response characterisation of the two - device model ( cf .
b ) is an approximation .
neglected macroscopic actions and back - actions are shown as dotted arrows . ]
the central formal result of this paper is that the dressed response entities in b are identical with those emerging in formal models of the solitary devices with sources ( a ) . as formal concepts ,
these models were discussed in .
the formal expression of this identity is the consistency condition .    reintroducing sources in this approach starts from recognising the drastically different roles of single - directedness in the self - action and in the interaction problems .
in the case of self - action , both ends of @xmath101 are attached , so to speak , to the same electron .
there is no way to control microscopic actions and back - actions associated with emitting and reabsorbing the field by matter at a truly microscopic level .
whereas in case of interaction , the signals travelling from device @xmath22 to device @xmath23 may be _ experimentally distinguished _ from those travelling from device @xmath23 to device @xmath22 .    consider , e.g. , the generalised photodetection problem ( a ) .
calculations underlying this figure are relegated to appendix [ ch : phdet ] ( cf .  also endnote @xcite ) .
one starts from two scattering entities depicted in b. the physical assumption turning them into _ source _ and _ detector _ is that the macroscopic electromagnetic  backaction ( shown in a as a dotted arrow ) can be neglected .
this does not interfere with self - action problems for the source and detector , nor with the accuracy with which their properties may be accounted for .
neglecting macroscopic backaction gives rise to the concept of detected field .
the corresponding formal entity is enclosed in a in the dashed oval .
formally , the detected field is the radiated field in the model of the solitary device @xmath22 .
it is described by the time - normal  field averages , @xmath102the additional
subscript 0 reminds that all c - number sources should be put to zero .
in general , averages ( [ eq:13sf ] ) can not be mimicked by any classical phenomenology ( quantum states of detected radiation ) .
the semiclassical photodetection theory is recoved by assuming that such phenomenology ( the _ classical doppelganger _ of the source , see below ) does exist . in this phenomenology
one introduces a random classical field , such that , @xmath103etc .
this defines sources of radiation in a classical state . for coherent sources , averages ( [ eq:13sf ] ) factorise , @xmath104etc .
as far as the detection process is concerned , a coherent source is fully accounted for by the interaction with the external field in the hamiltonian .
similar arguments apply to other arrangements with external sources . in particular , response characterisation of a two - device model ( b ) is physically an approximation to the four - device arrangement ( b ) , where some of the macroscopic actions and backactions ( shown as dotted arrows ) have been neglected .
external sources introduced in this manner are `` coarse - grained '' quantities limited to macroscopic scales and conditions of distinguishability .
they suffice for a macroscopic characterisation of response properties of devices . upgrading this characterisation to a response formulation
requires external sources placed inside atoms and electrons .
this _ physically unjustified _ leap of logic recovers response formulation as a formal viewpoint , while also making it unphysical . in particular , theoretical response characterisation of a device is more detailed than anything one can measure in a real experiment .
recovering the former from the latter is always a matter of inference .
two remarks are in place here .
firstly , we called the photodetection arrangement in a _ generalised _ because we did not require classicality of the output current of the detector .
such classicality is an additional assumption , distinguishing real photodetectors in the true meaning of the term ( cf .
below ) . on the other hand , that this classicality is not needed allows one to easily generalise a to _ cascaded systems _ @xcite . secondly , in practice , control of macroscopic electromagnetic  actions and back - actions is very much a matter of engineering .
examples are control of stray currents and fields in electronics and prevention of reflection of light toward laser sources in optics ( to name just two ) .
we take the liberty of starting this section with a somewhat lengthy quotation from w.  lamb s renowned paper on operational approach to quantum mechanics @xcite : + `` a discussion of the interpretation of quantum mechanics on any level beyond [ regarding it a set of rules for calculating physical properties of matter ] almost inevitably becomes rather vague .
the major difficulty involves the concept of measurement .
i have taught graduate courses in quantum mechanics for over 20 years , and for almost all of them have dealt with measurement in the following manner .
on beginning of lectures i told the students , ` you must first learn the rules of calculation in quantum mechanics , and then i will tell you about the theory of measurement and discuss the meaning of the subject . ' my attitude towards such problems has no doubt been influenced by contact with some research in experimental physics in which atomic states are `` manipulated '' by microwave and radiofrequency fields . in discussion of measurement of some dynamical variable of a physical system
i want to know what apparatus is necessary for the task and how to use it , at least in principle . ''
this paper follows lamb s remarks , albeit more in spirit than to the letter . to begin with
, it does not seem to be possible to introduce quantum measurement as a primary concept .
the reason is the indistinguishability of microscopic objects ( elementary particles ) .
it is difficult to imagine how measurement could be discussed if one can not tell the measured system from the measurement apparatus and from the observer .
_ measurement is limited to macroscopic interactions under conditions of distinguishability .
_ quantum measurement as a formal concept may therefore only emerge as an _ approximation _ within a fully developed theory of microscopic interactions``rules of calculation '' first , `` measurement '' second .    furthermore , quantum measurement is much more dependent on fundamental interactions available in nature , and on limitations of the human observer , than it is commonly acknowleged . the only kind of interaction available to human beings without use of auxiliary quantum systems as measurement apparata is the electromagnetic  one .
it is a long - range interaction , which acts at distances where all short - range interactions may be neglected .
the latter remain hidden inside macroscopic devices , being responsible for their observable properties .
it is the chierarchy of characteristic interaction lengths in nature that is ultimately responsible for the very existence of the macroscopic world , as perceived by a human observer .
the critical distinction to be made in a quantum measurement theory is between _ the observed _ and _ the inferred_. no particular macroscopic experiment gives full access to the underlying quantum dynamics ( nor is this access necessary  think of quarks and gluons in quantum optics ) .
one should therefore distinguish the directly _ measured _ mesoscopic quantities , and the microscopic ones , the properties of which may only be _ inferred _ from the experimental data ( we remind that we treat `` mesoscopic '' and `` macroscopic '' as synonyms , cf .
endnote @xcite ) .
we call measurable quantities _ mesoscopic coordinates _ of the quantum system in question .
real macroscopic experiments give access to properties of mesoscopic coordinates , thus allowing one only a fairly obscured and limited view of microscopic quantum dynamics .
it is therefore not surprising that certain properties of mesoscopic coordinates ( notably , those associated with propagation of quantum information in macroscopic experiments ) turn out to be classical no matter what .
given the actual set of fundamental interactions in nature , mesoscopic coordinates of real devices may only be electromagnetic .
however , the idea of separation of the macroscopic and microscopic levels of insight is not confined to quantum mechanics , nor to electrodynamics , nor is it anything new .
it underlies thermodynamics , whether classical or quantum .
it may also be found in any case where some kind of `` coarse - grained '' description is introduced ( e.g. , in hydrodynamics ) .
sometimes our view of a particular quantum system is obscured to the extent that its quantum properties become fully hidden , and what we see looks perfectly classical .
this was exactly the situation before first experimental indications of the underlying quantum world  properties of the black - body radiation and of the photoelectric effect  emerged in the experiment .
we then say that the _ seemingly _ classical entity we are observing is the _ classical doppelganger _ of the quantum system in question . by definition ,
such classicality is limited to properties of mesoscopic coordinates : an electron can not look classical while an electron current can .
a _ classically behaving quantum system _ is a system that has a classical doppelganger ; in other words , it is a system that _ appears _ classical in some experiment .
a system that does not behave classically is said to exhibit quantum behaviour ( _ quantum - behaved systems _ ) .
an immediate word of caution is in place here .
as mentioned in the introduction , we associate `` macroscopic '' and `` microscopic '' with `` distinguishable '' and `` indistinguishable '' , and not with `` large '' and `` small '' . for example , electrons in an epr pair remain indistinguishable until environmental influences , such as collisions with backgroud gas , destroy their entanglement .
the epr pair must be regarded a microscopic object , irrespective of how large it becomes over its lifetime ( there is more to this than mere terminology , see below ) . on the other hand , in a hydrogen atom ,
the electron and proton are distinguishable unless pair creation needs to be taken into account .
this allows one to go as far in the theory as the leading ( bethe ) contribution to the lamb shift @xcite ( cf .
also endnote @xcite ) .
this example also shows that observable quantum effects have two origins : properties of individual quantum particles and their indistinguishability .    in this paper
, we do not include collisions of distinguishable matter subsystems .
`` collision '' is any situation where conditions of distinguishability in a setup vary with time .
collisions of elementary particles are obviously covered by this definition . whether one regards the epr pair `` microscopic '' or `` macroscopic '' depends on whether collisions are explicitly accounted for . for purposes of this paper ,
collisions belong to microscopic dynamics .
integration of the latter into our approach remains subject to further work ( there does not seem to be any formal obstacle to that , cf .
@xcite ) .
one more reservation is in order here . that only the electromagnetic  current is observed in real experiments is a limitation of humans , and not a property of quantum mechanics .
a creature with the sixth sense of strong interaction would see the world very differently , and require a very different measurement theory .      in
, we defined a classically behaving quantum system  as a system that has a classical doppelganger . in quantum electrodynamics , this implies nonnegativity of the relevant quasiprobability distribution , allowing one to formally interpret it as a probability distribution .
so , device @xmath22 in is classically behaving , if the p - functional characterising it is nonnegative , @xmath105 \geq 0 .
% } { % \label{eq:57ud}\end{aligned}\]]this does not change the fact that this device is a quantum system , nor does it in any way affect validity of the general quantum formula for p - functionals ( [ eq:52ty ] ) . classically behaving devices
interact with the world according to laws of quantum , not classical , electrodynamics .
that under macroscopic conditions these two in essence coincide is a _ property _ of the conventional quantum electrodynamics .    continuing this logic ,
`` classical world '' emerges when all devices within reach of the observer are classically behaving .
the whole world looked classical to the human observer before first experimental indications of the underlying quantum world  properties of the black - body radiation and of the photoelectric effect  emerged in the experiment .
the above definition of a classically behaving device  calls for an extensive comment .
this definition obviously depends on what we term `` quantum '' .
formal techniques naturally puts the boundary at what we can / cannot _ describe _ in terms of classical stochastic electrodynamics ; this is all what is about .
according to such definition , a thermal source of radiation behaves classically ( unlike , e.g. , a kdp crystal ) .
this is in agreement with the general distinction between the observed and the inferred . indeed , quantum nature of the thermal radiation is recognised only so far as one attempts to _ explain _ it in some sort of classical dynamical model , and realises futility of all such attempts due to the equidistribution theorem .
an important reservation is that the same real system may behave classically in some experiments and exhibit quantum behaviour in others .
so , in quantum optics , the output current of a photodetector is commonly treated as a classical stochastic process .
a deeper insight reveals that macroscopic currents are antibunched @xcite .
the classical doppelganger  of a classically behaving device  is a classical system introduced regarding ( say ) a conditional probability distribution .
this definition is strictly phenomenological ; a dynamical classical model of a classically behaving device  is not bound to exist .
an example is again the black - body radiation . in certain cases
such model may be constructed ; this mostly depends on the degree of insight .
so , an ideal mirror may be introduced by postulating boundary conditions for maxwell equations , but an attempt to fully explain properties of real mirrors in classical terms is doomed .    as a rule , taking the limit of a classically behaving device  does not recover its classical doppelganger .
indeed , such limit turns a quantum hamilton evolution into a classical hamilton one .
the latter is not stochastic .
thus all dynamical noises ( such as shot noise ) will be lost .
the noises associated with quantum averaging ( e.g. , thermal noise ) may survive such limit but get distortet ( cf .  the thermal p - function of the harmonic oscillator _ versus _ thermal distribution of the classical oscillator @xcite ) .
worse still , such limit may not exist , as , for instance , for the black - body radiation . while interpreting planck s curve as a probability distribution makes perfect phenomenological sense .
actually , it is not even guarantied that a particular classically behaving device  is subject to a semiclassical model .
this again depends on the degree of insight . as a nontrivial example we point to the linear response theory of the dirac vacuum in @xcite . in the first nonvanishing approximation ,
vacuum polarisation may be calculated , with the necessary regularisation and renormalisation , solely as a property of free fermions .
corrections of higher order would involve quantised electromagnetic field  as part of the dynamical model .    ) , `` intermediate '' ( @xmath106 ) , and `` strict '' ( @xmath107 ) . ]      equations ( [ eq:51tx])([eq:55ub ] ) allow one to mix classically and nonclassically behaving devices at will .
however , not every such mix is a `` measurement '' .
the latter implies existence of a `` classical observer '' , who is only capable of interacting with `` classical measurement apparata '' ( cf .  ) . in physical terms
, these are classically behaving devices , but this is not enough . for a set - up to become a measurement , it should exhibit the _ quantum - classical boundary _ and contain _ macroscopic detectors .
_ indeed , consider the flow of information in .
the observer interacts with a computer , which controls the laser source , and processes infomation coming from the photodetector .
the latter detects radiation of the quantum system pumped by the laser .
devices encircled by solid lines are classically behaving ; similarly , electromagnetic  radiation in a classical state is depicted schematically by solid lines with arrows .
the quantum system is encircled by dashed line ; its radiation , which may be in a quantum state , is shown as dashed arrow .
possible positions of the quantum - classical boundary  in this set - up are shown by thick dotted lines .
the `` minimal '' boundary separates the observer from the rest of the world , the `` intermediate '' one separates the observer and computer from the laser , detector and quantum system .
the `` strict '' quantum - classical boundary  separates the system and the detector from the rest the world  which in this case includes the observer .
what is shared by all three is that the observer is always on one side of the boundary , while the system _ and the detector_on the other .    for a classically behaving device  to be a detector
, its output radiation must be in a classical state irrespective of the state of the detected radiation .
this is only possible if the detector adds noise of its own , such as shot noise of real photodetectors .
the same requirement may be put as that the _ compound device _ comprising the quantum system and the detector be a classically behaving  one . treating the quantum system and the detector as an entity turns the measurement setup into a `` classical world '' .
positioning of possible quantum - classical  boundaries in depends on assumptions about the devices .
if the laser radiation were in a quantum state , the strict quantum - classical boundary  would shift to the `` intermediate '' one . in the future where the controlling device may be a quantum computer ,
the only possible choice of the quantum - classical boundary  may become the `` minimal '' one .
however , even in this future the observer will interact with what he perceives as a classically behaving device .
in conclusion , quantum theory of the electromagnetic  interaction under macroscopic conditions of distinguishability of devices and of controlled actions and back - actions between them is constructed .
this theory is shown to be subject to `` doing quantum electrodynamics  while thinking classically '' , allowing one to substitute essentally classical considerations for quantum ones without any loss in generality .
implications of these results for the quantum measurement theory are discussed .
as we have already mentioned , eq .
( [ eq:38aw ] ) is consistent only due to causality properties of the p - functionals .
here is a simple example .
assume that all quantities in ( [ eq:38aw ] ) do not depend on time .
the external field shifts the gaussian distribution of the current , @xmath108 ,   \end{aligned}}}% \label{eq:3zz}\end{aligned}\]]where @xmath109 and @xmath110 are real constants . in place of ( [ eq:37av ] )
we postulate a scalar formula , @xmath111where @xmath112 is one more real constant . for the `` dressed current ''
we find , @xmath113 .
\end{aligned}}}% \label{eq:5ab}\end{aligned}\]]this function is not normalised , @xmath114and can not be a probability distribution for anything .    to see how causality breaks this vicious circle of same - time interactions consider another simple example .
we generalise ( [ eq:3zz ] ) to two currents , @xmath115 .
\hspace{0.4\columnwidth}\hspace{-0.4\twocolumnwidth }   \label{eq:7ad}\end{gathered}\]]the primed current preceds the unprimed one in time ; therefore it may affect the latter but not _
vice versa_. same - time interactions are not allowed either .
the simplest case of such interaction is , @xmath116for the dressed currents we then have , @xmath117 .
\hspace{0.4\columnwidth}\hspace{-0.4\twocolumnwidth }   \label{eq:8ae}\end{gathered}\]]unlike ( [ eq:5ab ] ) , this function is normalised , @xmath118it is therefore a genuine two - dimensional conditional probability distribution for a correlated pair of currents .
the order of integrations in ( [ eq:9af ] ) is chosen so as to make the result obvious . indeed , ( [ eq:8ae ] ) has the structure , @xmath119where @xmath120 , \\
p ' \big (   j ' \big | a_{\mathrm{e } } '    \big ) & = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\ , j_0 } % \\
\times \exp \bigg [ -\frac {   \big ( j ' - \chi a_{\mathrm{e } } ' \big)^2   } { 2 j_0 ^ 2 } \bigg ] .
\end{aligned}}}% \label{eq:13al}\end{aligned}\]]the later current is conditional on the earlier one and the external field .
the earlier current is conditional only on the external field .
similar structures should emerge for any time sequence of currents irrespective of any detals of the interaction .
the only requirement is that each current depends only on those preceding it in time , and not on itself .    in real problems with continuous time ,
critical for cancellation of same - time interactions are _
regularisations_. so , in , _ causal regularisation _ was applied to the retarded green function of the emerging equation for phase - space amplitudes .
this made noise sources present in the said equation independent of the amplitudes at the same time , resulting in the ito calculus being chosen .
the effect of causal regularisation is thus twofold : to introduce an infinitesimal delay into the phase - space equation , which is in essence time discretisation , and to prevent same - time interactions .
a conceptual connection between the above simple examples and the causal regularisation is obvious .
an example of causal regularisation applied to a relativistic problem is the linear response theory of the dirac vacuum in @xcite , see also @xcite .
further discussion of this issue is outside the scope of this paper .
here we reiterate the relevant results of @xcite . for purposes of this appendix , we assume to be , @xmath121while interaction ( [ eq:36 mm ] ) suffices for all physical purposes , interaction ( [ eq:25ah ] ) leads to a more symmetric formulation .
in paper @xcite a covariant formulation was used .
adapting its results to interaction ( [ eq:25ah ] ) requires a certain amount of care . for simplicity ,
we assume ( anyway @xmath122 must disappear in a nonrelativistic formulation ) .
equally trivial replacements apply to the arguments of functions .
the obvious part of adapting @xcite thus is , @xmath123to identify more subtle replacements we compare formulae for the s - matrix . dropping the sources , the s - matrix associated with interaction ( [ eq:25ah ] ) is , @xmath124the corresponding formula in @xcite reads , ( with ) @xmath125where condensed notation ( [ eq:3vs ] ) is redefined according to the covariant standard , @xmath126 .
% } { % \label{eq:56br}\end{aligned}\]]changed sign of the exponent leads to redefinition of the retarded propagator , @xmath127this implies correspondences ( [ eq:57bs ] ) . for more details on sign and factor conventions in nonrelativistic and relatistic approaches
see appendix c.1 in @xcite .
the simplest way of adapting the formulae of is thus to change the metric signature from to .
this leads to replacements , @xmath128for all occurences of these kinds of condensed notation .
combined with ( [ eq:57bs ] ) , this allows one to adapt any formula in @xcite to interaction ( [ eq:25ah ] ) .
we work in the _ closed - time - loop _ formalism of the quantum field theory @xcite .
the system is described by the double - time - ordered averages of the heisenberg  field and current operators , ( are arbitrary integers ) @xmath129where are the forward and reverse time orderings ( often denoted @xmath56 and @xmath130 ) . by definition ,
bosonic operators commute under all kinds of ordering .
we note in passing that definition ( [ eq:10bu ] ) may cause mathematical problems , see the concluding remark in appendix a1 in @xcite .
averages of quantities ( [ eq:10bu ] ) are conveniently accessed through their characteristic functional , @xmath131    \\&\quad = \langle t_-   \exp ( -i{\eta}_- { \hat{\mathcal e } }   -i{\zeta}_- { \hat{\mathcal d } }   ) t_+   \exp ( i{\eta}_+ { \hat{\mathcal e } }   + i{\zeta}_+ { \hat{\mathcal d } }    ) \rangle    \label{eq:51zc}\end{aligned}\]]where @xmath132 and @xmath133 are auxiliary complex c - number functions , and c.v .
( short for _ causal variables _ ) refers to the set of _ response substitutions _
@xcite , @xmath134the symbols @xmath135 denote separation of the frequency - positive and negative  parts as per eq .
( [ eq:07pa ] ) .
the averaging in ( [ eq:51zc ] ) is over the initial ( heisenberg ) state of the system ( [ eq:40bj ] ) .
we remind that the initial state of the field is vacuum , cf . .
in terms of @xcite , this means that .
the corresponding argument of is redundant and has been omitted .
note also that the choice of signs in ( [ eq:51zc ] ) matches ( [ eq:55bq ] ) .
the critical property of functional ( [ eq:51zc ] ) is that it depends only on sums of the external sources and the corresponding auxiliary variables , and @xcite , @xmath136 % %
\\   =   \phi \big [ \eta , \zeta \big |   0,0   \big |   j_{\mathrm{e}}+j_{\mathrm{e } } , a_{\mathrm{e}}+a_{\mathrm{e } }   \big ]   .
\label{eq:29fl}\end{aligned}\]]alternatively , @xmath136 % % \\
=   \phi \big [ \eta , \zeta \big |   j_{\mathrm{e}}+j_{\mathrm{e } } , a_{\mathrm{e}}+a_{\mathrm{e } } \big |   0,0    \big ]   .
\label{eq:38fv}\end{aligned}\]]these relations are a generalisation of _ consistency conditions _ derived in
.      equations ( [ eq:29fl ] ) and ( [ eq:38fv ] ) express the same functional but much differ in their interpretation .
equation ( [ eq:29fl ] ) introduces the formal _ response viewpoint _ , the one we mostly adhere to in this paper .
equation ( [ eq:38fv ] ) shows that , mathematically , external c - number sources in quantum equations of motion are redundant : information contained in the heisenberg  operators conditional on the sources is already present in the operators defined without the sources .
this allows one to reintroduce response viewpoint without relying on sources .
for a discussion see .    in view of eq .
( [ eq:29fl ] ) we may set the redundant auxiliary variables to zero , @xmath137this does not lead to any loss of generality ( assuming the souces may be arbitrary , cf .  ) .
complete quantum formulae may be recovered replacing , @xmath138under ( [ eq:24fe ] ) , the formal description of the system is given by the reduced characteristic functional , @xmath139   % \\
=   \phi \big [ \eta , \zeta \big |   0,0   \big |   j_{\mathrm{e } } , a_{\mathrm{e } }   \big ]   .
\end{aligned}}}% \label{eq:77jn}\end{aligned}\]]we _ postulate _ this functional to be the characteristic one for the the time - normal averagea of the quantised current and field , @xmath140 =   \protect \langle { \mathcal t}{\mbox{\rm\boldmath$:$}}\exp   ( i\eta \protect{\hat{\mathcal a}}+
i \zeta \protect{\hat{\mathcal j } } ) { \mbox{\rm\boldmath$:$}}\rangle .
% } { % \label{eq:26aj}\end{aligned}\]]the heisenberg  operators depend on the sources by construction .
postulating ( [ eq:26aj ] ) recovers the beyond - the - rwa definition of the time - normal ordering  @xcite ; cf .  .
full electromagnetic properties of the quantum device may be expressed by the properties of the heisenberg  ( `` dressed '' ) current operator . the latter are contained in the functional , @xmath141   = \phi \big [ 0 , \zeta \big |   0 , a_{\mathrm{e } }    \big ] .
\label{eq:52zd}\end{aligned}\]]namely @xcite , @xmath142 % %
\\   = \exp \big ( i\eta g_{\text{r } } j_{\mathrm{e } }    \big )   % \\
\times   \phi_{\mathrm{m } } \big [ \zeta+\eta g_{\text{r } }   \big |   a_{\mathrm{ext } }   \big ] ,   \label{eq:53ze}\end{aligned}\]]where is the natural combinations of the sources , @xmath143with , is nothing but a compact form of .
nontrivial part of perturbative calculations is expressed by the `` dressing formula '' ( [ eq:54zf ] ) .
the no - sources definitions of the functionals and read , @xmath144    & =   \protect \langle   t_-\exp ( -i{\zeta}_- \protect{\hat{\mathcal j } } ) t_+\exp ( i{\zeta}_+ \protect{\hat{\mathcal j } } ) \rangle |_{a_{\mathrm{e}}=0 } ,   \label{eq:22sr}\\ \phi_{\mathrm{m}}^{\mathrm{i } } [ \zeta | a_{\mathrm{e } }   ]    & =   \protect \langle   t_-\exp ( -i{\zeta}_- \hat j ) t_+\exp ( i{\zeta}_+ \hat j ) \rangle ,   \label{eq:62zq}\end{aligned}\]]cf .
the `` immediate reservation '' at the end of .
consequently , rigorous formal definitions of and are given by , ( [ eq:22sr ] ) and ( [ eq:24st ] ) , ( [ eq:62zq ] ) , respectively .
to account for the linear susceptibility of matter in properties of the field , it suffices to replace defining functional by , @xmath145    & =   \protect \langle   t_-\exp ( -i{\zeta}_- \hat j ) t_+\exp ( i{\zeta}_+ \hat j ) \rangle ,   % } { % \label{eq:75uy}\end{aligned}\]]where @xmath146 \rangle .
% } { % \label{eq:76uz}\end{aligned}\ ] ] implies substitution ( [ eq:23ss ] ) .
then , for passive linear media , @xmath147 = 1 .
% } { % \label{eq:77va}\end{aligned}\]]susceptibility may be accounted for by including it in the dyson equation for the retarded propagator , cf .
appendix d.1.2 in @xcite , or by any other method one would care to employ
.    for interacting devices , redefinition ( [ eq:75uy ] ) extends to individual devices , @xmath148    \\&\quad =   \protect \langle   t_-\exp ( -i{\zeta}_- \hat j_a   ) t_+\exp ( i{\zeta}_+ \hat j_a    ) \rangle ,    \\ & \pi _
{ \mathrm{r}a}(t , t ' ) = \frac{i}{\hbar } \theta(t - t ' ) \protect \langle [ \hat j_a(t),\hat j_a(t ' ) ] \rangle ,   \end{aligned }   \label{eq:80vd}\end{aligned}\]]and similarly for device @xmath23 .
the all - important persists , with susceptibility of matter being a sum of those of devices , @xmath149as expected . if a particular device ( say , @xmath23 ) is a linear passive one , it is fully accounted for in and may be excluded from the explicit consideration , @xmath150 = 1 .
% } { % \label{eq:81ve}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    redefinition ( [ eq:75uy ] ) is not compulsory , nor is ( [ eq:80vd ] ) , nor does anything preclude one from applying ( [ eq:80vd ] ) selectively , only to certain devices .
the latter may be a matter of physical clarity .
for example , for a coherent linear quantum amplifier , separates its amplification properties ( expressed by the imaginary part of ) from its noise properties ( accounted for in ) . in quantum mechanics , these two properties are connected @xcite . formally separating them
is not an error , but may obscure the physical picture .
for simplicity we confine the discussion to current . as a starting point
we employ eq .
( 56 ) of preprint @xcite . with dropped sources ,
reduced to current and adapted to the present notation it reads , @xmath151   % \nonumber\\ & & = \exp\bigg ( -\frac{i\hbar}{2}\frac{\delta } { \delta a_+ } g _
{ \mathrm{f } } \frac{\delta } { \delta a_+ }   + \frac{i\hbar}{2}\frac{\delta } { \delta a_- } g_{\mathrm{f}}^ * \frac{\delta } { \delta a_- } \nonumber \\ & \quad   -i\hbar \frac{\delta } { \delta a_- } g^{(+ ) } \frac{\delta } { \delta a_+ } \bigg ) \nonumber\\ & \qquad \times   \phi_{\mathrm{m}}^{\mathrm{i } } \bigg [ \frac { a_+ } { \hbar } + \zeta_+ , \frac { a_- } { \hbar } + \zeta_- \bigg]\big| _ { a_{\pm}=0 } ,   \label{eq:86au } % % \nonumber % % \z \end{aligned}\]]where and are defined by and ( [ eq:62zq ] ) , are auxilliary functions , and the kernels and are the so - called contractions , @xmath152we use an obvious extension of notation ( [ eq:76nu ] )
. originates in wick s theorem . for details
see @xcite .    adapting manipulations ( [ eq:95fm])([eq:65bj ] ) to results in the closed - time - loop  prototype of ,    @xmath151   & = \exp\bigg ( -i\hbar\frac{\delta } { \delta a_+ } g _ { \mathrm{f } }
\frac{\delta } { \delta a_+ ' }   + i\hbar\frac{\delta } { \delta a_- } g_{\mathrm{f}}^ * \frac{\delta } { \delta a_- ' } % \nonumber \\ & \quad   -i\hbar \frac{\delta } { \delta a_- } g^{(+ ) } \frac{\delta } { \delta a_+ ' } -i\hbar \frac{\delta } { \delta a_- ' } g^{(+ ) } \frac{\delta } { \delta a_+ } \bigg ) \nonumber\\ & \quad \times   \phi_{\mathrm{m}a } \bigg [ \frac { a_+ } { \hbar } + \zeta_+ , \frac { a_- } { \hbar } + \zeta_- \bigg ] \phi_{\mathrm{m}b } \bigg [ \frac { a_+ ' } { \hbar } + \zeta_+ , \frac { a_- ' } { \hbar } + \zeta_- \bigg ] \big| _ { a_{\pm}=a_{\pm}'=0 } ,   \label{eq:73uw}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where we also used symmetry of . its structure is illustrated symbolically in a.    to recover ( [ eq:66bk ] ) , ( [ eq:23ss ] ) should be supplemented by two more substitutions @xcite , @xmath153this turns ( [ eq:73uw ] ) into , @xmath154 & = \exp \bigg (   -i\frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{e } } '' } g_{\text{r } } \frac{\delta } { \delta \zeta ' }   -i\frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{e } } ' } g_{\text{r } } \frac{\delta } { \delta \zeta '' }   \bigg ) % % \np \times   \phi_{\mathrm{m}a } [   \zeta + \zeta '    a_{\mathrm{e } } + a_{\mathrm{e } } '   ] % % \np \times   \phi_{\mathrm{m}b } [   \zeta+ \zeta ''    a_{\mathrm{e } } + a_{\mathrm{e } } ''   ] |_{\zeta ' = \zeta''= a_{\mathrm{e}}'=a_{\mathrm{e}}''=0 } ,   % } { % \label{eq:74ux}\end{aligned}\]]which is equivalent to ( [ eq:66bk ] ) .
the generalised photodetection problem ( a ) is the only case in the paper when the single - mode approximation must be lifted .
it suffices to assume that the electromagnetic field  comprises two modes , and , where i , o refer to the _ input _ and _ output _ of the photodetector .
all other quantities are similarly doubled , , etc . ; applies with .
we shall also refer to the input and output modes as the optical and photocurrent ones . at this stage ,
all such terms are conditional .
adapted to two modes , becomes , @xmath155 & = \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{i } } ] \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{o } } ] \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{i } } ] \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_{b\mathrm{o } } ]   \delta [ \mathcal{j}_{\mathrm{i}}-\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{i}}-\mathcal{j}_{b\mathrm{i } } ] \delta [ \mathcal{j}_{\mathrm{o}}-\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{o}}-\mathcal{j}_{b\mathrm{o } } ]   \nonumber\\&\quad \times   p_a[\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{i}},\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{o } } | a_{\mathrm{ei}}+g_{\mathrm{ri}}\mathcal{j}_{b\mathrm{i}},a_{\mathrm{eo}}+g_{\mathrm{ro}}\mathcal{j}_{b\mathrm{o } } ]   p_b[\mathcal{j}_{b\mathrm{i}},\mathcal{j}_{b\mathrm{o } } | a_{\mathrm{ei}}+g_{\mathrm{ri}}\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{i}},a_{\mathrm{eo}}+g_{\mathrm{ro}}\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{o } } ]   ,   % } { % \label{eq:60pw}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where , @xmath156 , \\   g_{\mathrm{r}{\mathrm{o}}}(t - t ' ) & = \frac{i}{\hbar } \theta(t - t ' )    \big [   \hat a_{{\mathrm{o}}}(t),\hat a_{{\mathrm{o}}}(t ' )   \big ] .
\end{aligned }   \label{eq:54at}\end{aligned}\]]the only assumption made when obtaining ( [ eq:60pw ] ) is that and commute    equation ( [ eq:60pw ] ) is not yet a photodetection formula .
it is symmetric with respect to the modes , as well as to the devices ; electromagnetic interaction  in it is bi - directional .
it also contains a lot of irrelevant information , in particular , full quantum response properties of the input and output fields .
it `` knows '' how an attempt to measure the input field would affect the detection , and how simultaneous measurements of the input field and output current would be correlated ( say ) .
subject to valid quantum models of the devices , it is also `` aware '' of all limitations imposed by quantum mechanics on such simultaneous measurements .    to suppress the irrelevant information we limit our attention to the quantity , @xmath157 = \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_{\mathrm{i}}]\,p [   \mathcal{j}_{\mathrm{i}},\mathcal{j}_{\mathrm{o } } | 0 , 0   ] .
% } { % \label{eq:62py}\end{aligned}\]]that is , we do not attempt to measure the `` optical '' current , nor to probe the system by radiation in either mode .
in fact , it would be easy to preserve as an argument , thus covering photodetection with local oscillators , but we are not currently interested in such generalisation .
the critical assumption turning device @xmath22 ( say ) into a source is that it is not sensitive to the incoming field in either mode , @xmath158 \approx p_a[\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{i}},\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{o } } | 0,0 ] .
% } { % \label{eq:63pz}\end{aligned}\]]we shall also assume that its contribution to the photocurrent may be neglected , @xmath159
p_{\mathrm{s}}[\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{i}}]\,\delta [ \mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{o } } ] ,   \label{eq:64qa}\end{gathered}\]]where @xmath160 = \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{o}}]\,p_a[\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{i}},\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{o } } | 0,0 ] .   % } { % \label{eq:66qc}\end{aligned}\]]combining ( [ eq:60pw ] ) , ( [ eq:62py ] ) , ( [ eq:63pz ] ) , and ( [ eq:64qa ] ) we obtain , @xmath161 = \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{i}}]\,p_{\mathrm{s}}[\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{i}}]\,p_{\mathrm{d}}[\mathcal{j}_{\mathrm{o}}|g_{\mathrm{ri}}\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{i } } ] ,   % } { % \label{eq:67qd}\end{aligned}\]]where @xmath162 = \int \mathcal{d}[\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{i}}]\,p_b[\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{i}},\mathcal{j}_{\mathrm{o } } | a_{\mathrm{i}},0 ] .
% } { % \label{eq:68qe}\end{aligned}\]]classical collocations of are unmistakeable .
it could be guessed from the very beginning .
the actual result of this appendix are and ( [ eq:68qe ] ) .
they define properties of the source and detector in strictly quantum terms , including _ quantisation of the photocurrent_.    to establish a closer connection with , we introduce the characteristic functional of averages ( [ eq:13sf ] ) . the operator occuring there should be identified with , defined within the model of solitary device @xmath22 . this way , @xmath163\,p_{\mathrm{s}}[\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{i}}]\,\exp ( i\eta g_{\mathrm{ri}}\mathcal{j}_{a\mathrm{i } } ) .
% } { % \label{eq:70qh}\end{aligned}\]]the additional subscript 0 stands for the condition , @xmath164functional ( [ eq:70qh ] ) is a formal expression of the source@xmath165field entity , encircled in the dashed oval in a. with it , eq .
( [ eq:67qd ] ) may be rewritten as , @xmath157 = \phi _ { \mathrm{s } } \big ( -i\frac{\delta } { \delta a_{\mathrm{ei } } } \big ) p_{\mathrm{d}}[\mathcal{j}_{\mathrm{o}}|a_{\mathrm{ei}}]|_{a_{\mathrm{ei}}=0 } .
% } { % \label{eq:69qf}\end{aligned}\]]that averages ( [ eq:13sf ] ) indeed fully characterise the source is evident .
the term `` mesoscopic '' refers to quantum manifestations under macroscopic conditions .
common as it actually is , this term is confusing .
it implies that there exists something `` else '' that distinguishes macroscopic and mesoscopic conditions .
in fact , there is nothing `` else '' apart from the hard - working experimental physicist , rescuing fragile quantum effects from being destroyed by environmental and measurement noises .
we regard these terms as synonyms , with a tendency to apply `` macroscopic '' to experiment and `` mesoscopic''to theory ( as in `` macroscopic experiments are described by mesoscopic phenomenologies '' ) .
the actual logic in @xcite was as follows .
_ response transformation _ of the closed - time - loop  formalism for bosons was firstly constructed in @xcite for the harmonic oscillator , then postulated for interacting bosons in @xcite following analogies with @xcite .
this resulted , in particular , in the amended definition of the time - normal ordering .
its equivalence to the conventional definition under rwa was then subject to verification . in turn
, extention of the results to fermions in @xcite was based on analogies with bosons .
we talk about _ an _ ultimate generalisation because there exist alternative phase - space mappings , based on orderings other than time - normal @xcite . for a discussion of comparative merits of different mappings
see the quoted paper .
the distinction between the mesoscopic and microscopic coordinates is very much blurred for linear bosonic systems .
this results , we believe , in a lot of confusion , because such systems are commonly used as a testing ground for fundamental concepts .              for pedagogical reasons , we oversimplify the discussion of photodetection in section [ ch:61np ] , brushing under the carpet a number of physically important points .
we therefore strongly recommend the reader to give proper attention to appendix [ ch : phdet ] .
we do not claim that description of the electromagnetic field binding the electron to proton in terms of running waves is _ useful _ , only that it is _ formally possible_. all practical approaches we are aware of depart from such viewpoint .