   [**Classical**]{}. The $a^\dagger_\k$ are stochastic [*parameters*]{}, which obey the following statistical properties: a\^\_a\_[’]{}\_c = (-’) = a\_[’]{} a\^\_\_c, as an ensemble average. Notice that the second equality is only valid for classical fluctuations, since it implies that the stochastic parameters commute.

Although produced by different mechanisms, both the classical and quantum-vacuum fluctuations are normalized to give rise to the same equal-time correlation function, \_() \_[’]{}() = (1+k\^2 \^2) (2 )\^3 (+’), in the absence of interactions. Therefore, measurements of the power spectrum alone are not sufficient to distinguish between them. On the other hand, for unequal times the quantum and classical two-point functions do not agree, reflecting the non-zero commutator, $[\zeta(\x,\tau),\dot \zeta(\x,\tau)]\neq 0$, in the quantum theory. This distinction plays a key role when interactions are present.

We will illustrate the main difference explicitly in the next section. However, we can also understand the root of the discrepancy as follows. Let us introduce the real and imaginary parts of $\zeta$, such that \[eq:sines\] (,) = e\^[i ]{}  , with $a_\k = \frac{1}{2} [a_{R,\k} + i a_{I,\k}]$. In these variables, the classical statistics obey a\_[R, ]{} a\_[R,’]{} \_c = (+’) = a\_[I, ]{} a\_[I,’]{} \_c, which implies that the independent fluctuations are sines and cosines. On the other hand, in relativistic quantum mechanics — due to locality/causality — we speak instead of positive [*and*]{} negative frequency (energy) modes. The former are [*annihilated*]{} (by definition) in the vacuum state, while virtual particles can be produced. This textbook observation is the key that allows us to demonstrate how non-linear interactions can discern between classical and quantum correlations.

Non-Gaussianity {#non-gaussianity.unnumbered}
---------------

In order to gain intuition, we will consider an illustrative example with the interaction Hamiltonian $H_{\rm int} = -\frac{\lambda}{3!} \dot \zeta^3$. This choice will allow us to perform explicit computations without losing generality.[^3] As we shall see,
[ * * Classical * * ] { }. The $ a^\dagger_\k$ are stochastic [ * parameters * ] { }, which obey the following statistical properties: a\^\_a\_[’]{}\_c = (- ’) = a\ _ [ ’ ] { } a\^\_\_c, as an ensemble average. detect that the second equality is merely valid for classical fluctuations, since it implies that the stochastic parameter commute. 

 Although produced by unlike mechanisms, both the classical and quantum - vacuum fluctuation are normalized to give lift to the same equal - fourth dimension correlation coefficient function, \ _ () \ _ [ ’ ] { } () = (1+k\^2 \^2) (2) \^3 (+ ’), in the absence of interactions. consequently, measurements of the office spectrum alone are not sufficient to distinguish between them. On the other hand, for inadequate times the quantum and classical two - period functions do not match, reflecting the non - zero commutator, $ [ \zeta(\x,\tau),\dot \zeta(\x,\tau)]\neq 0 $, in the quantum theory. This distinction plays a key function when interactions are present. 

 We will illustrate the main difference explicitly in the next section. However, we can also understand the root of the discrepancy as follows. Let us introduce the real and imaginary parts of $ \zeta$, such that \[eq: sines\ ] (,) = e\^[i ] { }  , with $ a_\k = \frac{1}{2 } [ a_{R,\k } + i a_{I,\k}]$. In these variables, the classical statistic obey a\_[R, ] { } a\_[R, ’ ] { } \_c = (+ ’) = a\_[I, ] { } a\_[I, ’ ] { } \_c, which imply that the independent fluctuation are sines and cosines. On the other hand, in relativistic quantum automobile mechanic — due to locality / causality — we speak instead of cocksure [ * and * ] { } negative frequency (energy) modes. The former are [ * eliminate * ] { } (by definition) in the vacuum state, while virtual particles can be produced. This textbook observation is the key that allows us to show how non - linear interactions can discern between classical and quantum correlations. 

 Non - Gaussianity { # non-gaussianity.unnumbered } 
 --------------- 

 In holy order to gain intuition, we will consider an illustrative example with the interaction Hamiltonian $ H_{\rm int } = -\frac{\lambda}{3! } \dot \zeta^3$. This choice will allow us to perform explicit calculation without losing generality.[^3 ] As we shall examine,
   [**Flassical**]{}. The $a^\dagger_\k$ ave stochastic [*pataneters*]{}, which obey thd following statistical propxrtiws: a\^\_a\_[’]{}\_x = (-’) = a\_[’]{} a\^\_\_c, as an ensembue averagv. Notice rhat rhe second equalitn is kkly vclmd for classicak fluctuathons, since it hmolnes that the stochastic parameters cjmmute.

Aktjough produced by cyffedvnu mechanisms, both the classical ahd quanuum-vacuum fluctuatoons are normalized to givf ride to the same equwl-time corrgmatyin function, \_() \_[’]{}() = (1+k\^2 \^2) (2 )\^3 (+’), in the absencg of interactions. Therefore, measjremeuts of the koseg spectrum aoone wre not sufflbient tm distimguish between thxm. Ob the other hand, for nnequal times the quwntum and cmassical two-point fynctimns go nur aeret, rxflscting thx non-zero ckmmutator, $[\zwta(\x,\tau),\dot \zeta(\x,\tau)]\mez 0$, in the quanfum thqowy. This distinction plays a key role whtn inferactions are present.

Ww will illustrate the main difserence explicitly in the next section. However, we can elro bkqdeshand the root of the discrepancy as follows. Lqf is introduce the real and ikahimwry parts of $\eeta$, sueg fhat \[eq:sines\] (,) = e\^[i ]{}  , with $w_\k = \feac{1}{2} [a_{R,\k} + y a_{I,\l}]$. In these variables, the clqssical statpstixs obey a\_[R, ]{} a\_[R,’]{} \_c = (+’) = a\_[I, ]{} a\_[I,’]{} \_c, chich omplirs that the independent fludtuations age sines zvd cosines. On thd onher hand, in relativistic quaneum mechaiics — due to locslity/cwusality — ae spcdk instead of posihive [*cnd*]{} nagative frfquency (energy) modes. The former are [*annihilatgd*]{} (ty gefinitijn) in the vacuum seate, while virjual partncles zan be prosuced. Tiis textbook observation hd the key thet allows us ro dwmonstrxge how non-linesr interabtnons can eiscern between clessizzl and quantum euteelations.

Non-Gaisskanytj {#npn-ddussianity.untumbdrea}
---------------

On oraer to gain kntuotion, we will considar ah illustrative exakpje with jhe interwction Hamiltpnian $H_{\rm int} = -\fraf{\lambva}{3!} \dot \zeta^3$. Thys choice will allow us to perrorm expllcib computationf wibhouj losing geuerality.[^3] As we shall see,
[**Classical**]{}. The $a^\dagger_\k$ are stochastic [*parameters*]{}, which following properties: a\^\_a\_[’]{}\_c (-’) = a\_[’]{} Notice the second equality only valid for fluctuations, since it implies that the parameters commute. Although produced by different mechanisms, both the classical and quantum-vacuum fluctuations normalized to give rise to the same equal-time correlation function, \_() \_[’]{}() = \^2) )\^3 in absence of interactions. Therefore, measurements of the power spectrum alone are not sufficient to distinguish between On the other hand, for unequal times the and classical two-point functions not agree, reflecting the non-zero $[\zeta(\x,\tau),\dot 0$, in quantum This plays a key when interactions are present. We will illustrate the main difference explicitly in the next section. However, we also understand of the as Let introduce the real parts of $\zeta$, such that \[eq:sines\] ]{} , with $a_\k = \frac{1}{2} [a_{R,\k} + a_{I,\k}]$. In variables, the classical statistics obey a\_[R, a\_[R,’]{} \_c = (+’) = a\_[I, ]{} a\_[I,’]{} which implies that the independent fluctuations are sines and cosines. On the other hand, in mechanics — due to — we speak of [*and*]{} frequency modes. The are [*annihilated*]{} (by definition) in the vacuum state, while virtual particles be produced. This textbook observation is the key that allows demonstrate non-linear interactions can between classical and quantum Non-Gaussianity --------------- In order to we consider with interaction $H_{\rm int} = -\frac{\lambda}{3!} \zeta^3$. This choice will allow to perform explicit computations shall see,
   [**Classical**]{}. The $a^\dagger_\k$ are stOchastic [*paRametErs*]{}, WhiCh Obey The fOllowing statisTIcal Properties: a\^\_a\_[’]{}\_c = (-’) = a\_[’]{} a\^\_\_c, as an enSemblE aVEragE. noTice tHat the sECoND EquAlItY is OnLY vAlid fOr cLassicaL fluctuatiOns, SiNce it implies THaT the stochaStiC parameters cOmmUte.

AltHoUgh PRoducEd bY diffErent mEChanisMs, both the ClASsical ANd quantUM-VaCuum Fluctuations are noRMaLIzed to give rise To the sAmE EqUAL-tiMe cOrrelation FuNctioN, \_() \_[’]{}() = (1+K\^2 \^2) (2 )\^3 (+’), in the aBSeNCE Of iNTeractions. TheRefore, measuREmeNts of tHe PowER spectRum alOnE Are Not sufficieNt to DistinguiSh betwEEn them. ON The otheR hand, fOr uNeqUal tIMeS tHe qUaNTum ANd ClaSSicAl two-poiNt FuNctioNs do NOT AGree, RefLectIng thE non-zero commuTatOr, $[\zeTA(\x,\tAu),\dot \Zeta(\x,\Tau)]\nEq 0$, In the QuantuM theoRy. this distinction PlayS a key role WheN iNteRaCtionS Are preSenT.

We Will illUstrate THe mAiN DIFfErence explicitly in ThE NExT section. howeveR, We CaN Also undeRsTanD the ROOt of tHe diSCrEpancy as FollowS. leT uS introdUcE the reAl And ImaGinarY PartS of $\zetA$, such thaT \[eq:siNEs\] (,) = e\^[i ]{}  , with $a_\k = \frac{1}{2} [A_{r,\k} + i a_{I,\k}]$. In these VArIABlES, the ClaSsical statiSticS Obey A\_[R, ]{} a\_[R,’]{} \_C = (+’) = A\_[I, ]{} A\_[I,’]{} \_c, WHich iMplieS tHAt THe independent fluctuAtIons arE sineS and cosines. On The other haND, IN relativIstiC QuANtum mechanics — dUe to lOcality/cauSAlity — we sPeak iNstead of Positive [*aND*]{} Negative FreQueNcy (EneRGY) mOdes. The former ARE [*annIhIlated*]{} (bY deFinitioN) in The VacUum StAte, while vIrtual paRtIcLeS cAn bE prodUCed. This tExTboOk ObsErvatIOn is thE key tHat aLlOwS Us tO demonsTRaTE How nOn-LiNear IntErActioNs caN DisCern betWeen classIcaL And qUaNtUm correLations.

Non-GauSsIanity {#non-gAuSsiAnity.uNNUmbered}
---------------

IN order to gain intuition, we WIll consIdeR an ilLustRative exaMplE with tHe iNTeractIon HamIltonIaN $H_{\rM INt} = -\fraC{\LAmBda}{3!} \DoT \zeta^3$. This cHOIce Will aLlOw us To perfoRm explicit computatIOns Without losing GenEralITY.[^3] AS we SHaLL seE,
   [**Classical**]{}. The$a^\dagger _\k$are  st oc hast ic [ *parameters*]{ } , wh ich obey the following  stat is t ical pr opert ies: a\ ^ \_ a \ _[’ ]{ }\ _c=( -’ ) = a \_[ ’]{} a\ ^\_\_c, as  an  e nsemble aver a ge . Notice t hat  the secondequ alityis  on l y val idfor c lassic a l fluc tuations,  s i nce it implies t ha t th e stochastic para m et e rs commute.

A lthoug hp ro d u ced  by  different  m echan i sms, bo t ht h e  cl a ssical and qu antum-vacuu m  fl uctuat io nsa re nor maliz ed togive rise t o th e same eq ual-ti m e corre l ation f unctio n,\_( ) \_ [ ’] {} ()=( 1+k \ ^2  \^ 2 ) ( 2 )\^3 ( +’ ),  in t he a b s e n ce o f i nter actio ns. Therefore , m easu r eme nts o f the  pow er  spec trum a lonear e not sufficien t to  distingu ish  b etw ee n the m . On t heoth er hand , for u n equ al t i me s the quantum andcl a s si cal two- pointf un ct i ons do n ot  ag ree, r eflec ting th e non-ze ro com m ut at or, $[\ ze ta(\x, \t au) ,\d ot \z e ta(\ x,\tau )]\neq 0 $, in the quantum th e ory. This dis t in c t io n  pla ysa key rolewhen inte ract i on s a r e pre sent. 
W ew ill illustrate thema in dif feren ce explicitly  in the ne x t section.  How e ve r , we can alsounder stand ther oot of t he di screpanc y as foll o w s. Let u s i ntr odu cet h ereal and imag i n arypa rts of$\z eta$, s uch  th at\[e q: sines\] ( ,) = e\^ [i  ] {}  , w ith $ a _\k = \f ra c{1 }{ 2}[a_{R , \k} +i a_{ I,\k }] $. Inthese v a ri a b les,  t he  cla ssi ca l sta tist i csobey a\ _[R, ]{}a\_ [ R,’] {}  \ _c = (+ ’) = a\_[I, ] {}  a\_[I,’]{ }\_c , whic h impliesthat the independent fl u ctuatio nsare s ines  and cosi nes . On t heo ther h and, i n rel at ivi s t ic qu a n tu m m ec hanics — d u e  to  loca li ty/c ausalit y — we speak inste a d o f positive [* and *]{} n eg ati v ef req ue n cy( e nergy) modes. T he formerar e  [ *annihilat e d*] {}  (by de finitio n) in the vac uum state , while v ir tual p art icles canbe produ ced. This textb o ok  obse rva tion i sthe  keythat a l low s usto dem on strate  howno n-linear  interactions can disce rn bet weencla ssical an d q u ant um correl atio ns.

Non-G aus sia nity{#n o n-gau ssia n it y.u n numbe red} --------- - -- --- In  order to g a i n  in tuiti on, we wil l co nsider an illustr a tive example w itht h e i nte r acti on  Hamiltonian $ H_{ \r m int} = - \f rac{\lambda }{3!} \d ot \zeta ^3$. T his ch oice wi l l  a l low us  toper form expl ici tc omputat io ns withou t lo si ng gen eralit y .[^3 ] As we shall see, 
 _ [**Classical**]{}._The $a^\dagger_\k$ are stochastic_[*parameters*]{}, which_obey_the following_statistical_properties: a\^\_a\_[’]{}\_c =_(-’) = a\_[’]{}_a\^\_\_c, as an ensemble_average. Notice that_the_second equality is only valid for classical fluctuations, since it implies that the stochastic_parameters_commute.

Although produced_by_different_mechanisms, both the classical and_quantum-vacuum fluctuations are normalized to_give rise_to the same equal-time correlation function, \_() \_[’]{}()_=_(1+k\^2 \^2) (2_)\^3 (+’), in the absence of interactions. Therefore, measurements_of the power spectrum alone are_not sufficient to_distinguish_between_them. On the other_hand, for unequal times the quantum_and classical two-point functions do not_agree, reflecting the non-zero commutator, $[\zeta(\x,\tau),\dot \zeta(\x,\tau)]\neq_0$, in the quantum theory. This_distinction plays a key role_when interactions_are present.

We will illustrate the_main difference explicitly_in the_next section. However,_we can also understand the root_of the discrepancy_as follows. Let us introduce the_real_and imaginary parts_of_$\zeta$,_such that_\[eq:sines\] (,) =_e\^[i_]{}  ,_with_$a_\k = \frac{1}{2} [a_{R,\k} + i_a_{I,\k}]$._In these variables, the classical statistics obey_a\_[R, ]{} a\_[R,’]{} \_c_=_(+’) = a\_[I, ]{}_a\_[I,’]{} \_c, which implies that_the independent fluctuations are sines and_cosines. On_the other_hand, in relativistic quantum mechanics — due to locality/causality — we_speak instead of positive [*and*]{} negative_frequency (energy) modes. The_former are_[*annihilated*]{}_(by definition) in_the_vacuum state,_while virtual particles can be produced. This_textbook observation_is the key that allows us_to demonstrate how non-linear_interactions_can discern between classical and quantum_correlations.

Non-Gaussianity {#non-gaussianity.unnumbered}
---------------

In order to gain intuition,_we will consider an illustrative_example_with_the interaction Hamiltonian $H_{\rm int}_= -\frac{\lambda}{3!} \dot \zeta^3$. This choice_will allow us_to perform explicit computations without losing generality.[^3]_As_we shall see,