Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T02:57:32.637Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making Sense of Approximate Decoherence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Guido Bacciagaluppi  and
Meir Hemmo
Guido Bacciagaluppi
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Meir Hemmo
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the main goals of no-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics is to show how results of measurements are objectified, or, in a more poignant terminology, how in a measurement situation facts arise. One needs to show how in their dynamical evolution the measured system and, perhaps more importantly, the measuring apparatus acquire, or at least appear to acquire, the definite properties that are otherwise explained by the collapse of the state. This can be seen as a special case of the problem whether quantum mechanics alone can account for the classical behaviour of macroscopic systems; in particular, the permanent definiteness of at least those properties of macroscopic systems that are directly observable, such as the position of the pointer of a measuring apparatus. In other words, whether quantum mechanics can account for macrofacts of the familiar kind.

Type
Part IX. Quantum Mechanics: Decoherence and Related Matters
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1994 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1994 , 1994 , pp. 344 - 354
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Our special thanks go to Harvey Brown, Dennis Dieks, Michael Redhead and, in particular, Jeremy Butterfield, whose criticism helped us remain coherent. We further wish to thank Joseph Berkowitz, Thomas Breuer, Rob Clifton, Michael Dickson, Andrew Elby, Gordon Fleming, Renata Grassi, Adrian Kent, Larry Landau, Klaas Landsman and Constantine Pagonis for a number of discussions and comments that contributed to the development of the ideas and content of this paper. We thank Constantine Pagonis also for his patience in teaching us how to use Microsoft Word. GB acknowledges financial support from the Arnold Gerstenberg Fund and the British Academy, MH from the Cambridge Overseas Trust, the Overseas Research Scheme and Anglo-Jewish Association.

References

Albert, D. and Loewer, B. (1990), “Wanted Dead or Alive: Two Attempts to Solve Schroedinger's Paradox”, in PSA 1990 volume 1, Fine, A., Forbes, M. and Wessels, L. (eds.). East Lansing, Mi: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 277–285.Google Scholar
Albert, D. and Loewer, B. (1993), “Non-Ideal Measurements”, Foundations of Physics Letters 6: 297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albrecht, A. (1992), “Investigating Decoherence in a Simple System”, Physical Review D 46: 5504–5520.Google Scholar
Bacciagaluppi, G. and Hemmo, M. (1994), “Modal Interpretations of Imperfect Measurements”, submitted to Foundations of Physics.Google Scholar
Dieks, D. (1989), “Resolution of the Measurement Problem Through Decoherence of the Quantum State”, Physics Letters A 142: 439–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieks, D. (1994), “Objectification, Measurement and Classical Limit According to the Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, in Proceedings of the Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics, Busch, P., Lahti, P., and Mittelstaedt, P., (eds.). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Elby, A. (1993), “Why ‘Modal’ Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics Don't Solve the Measurement Problem”, Foundations of Physics Letters 6: 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d'Espagnat, B. (1976), Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edition. Reading, Mass.: Benjamin.Google Scholar
Kochen, S. (1985), “A New Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, in Proceedings of the Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics, Lahti, P. and Mittelstaedt, P., (eds.). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Healey, R. (1989), The Philosophy of Quantum mechanics: An Interactive Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gell-Mann, M. and Hartle, J. (1993), “Classical Equations for Quantum Systems”, Physical Review D 47: 3345–3382.Google ScholarPubMed
Joos, E. and Zeh, H.D. (1985), “The Emergence of Classical Properties Through Interaction with the Environment”, Z. Physik B 59: 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paz, J. P. and Zurek, W. H. (1993), “Environment-Induced Decoherence, Classicality, and Consistency of Quantum Histories”, Physical Review D 48: 2728–2738.Google ScholarPubMed
Zurek, W. H. (1981), “Pointer Basis of Quantum Apparatus: Into What Mixture Does the Wave Packet Collapse?”, Physical Review D 24: 1516–1525.Google Scholar
Zurek, W. H. (1982), “Environment-Induced Superselection Rules”, Physical Review D 26: 1862–1880.Google Scholar
Zurek, W. H. (1993), “Preferred States, Predictability, Classicality, and the Environment-Induced Decoherence”, Progress in Theoretical Physics 89: 281–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar