Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-18T03:25:15.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘Decoherence’ Approach to the Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Andrew Elby
Andrew Elby*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The decoherence approach to the measurement problem invokes dissipative interactions between a measuring apparatus and its environment to explain, within the context of ‘pure’ quantum mechanics (QM), why such devices appear to possess definite pointer readings. By ‘pure’ QM, I mean Schrödinger evolution with no wavefunction collapse. Several classes of interpretations of pure QM can rely on decoherence. One class is the ‘modal’ interpretations of van Fraassen (1979), Dieks (1989), Healey (1989), and others. Another class is the relative-state and many-world interpretations.

I will argue that decoherence cannot help these interpretations address the general metaphysical challenges raised against them. But decoherence can help pick out a ‘special’ basis that determines which observables receive definite values. I'll explore to what extent decoherence rescues the modal (biorthogonal) basis-selection rule, and Zurek's (environmental interaction) basis-selection rule, from the basis degeneracy problem and the imperfect measurement problem.

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. 355 - 365
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

I'd like to thank David Albert, Guido Bacciagaluppi, Dennis Dieks, and Martin Jones for wonderful discussions and correspondence about these issues.

References

Albert, D. and Loewer, B. (1990), “Wanted Dead or Alive: Two Attempts to Solve Schrödinger's Paradox”, in Fine, A., Forbes, M., and Wessels, L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 1990 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume I. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 277–285.Google Scholar
D'Espagnat, B. (1976), Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley-Benjamin-Cummings.Google Scholar
deWitt, B.S. and Graham, R. N., (eds.), The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieks, D. (1989), “Quantum Mechanics without the Projection Postulate and its Realistic Interpretation”, Foundations of Physics 19: 1395–1423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieks, D. (forthcoming), “Objectification, Measurement, and Classical Limit according to the Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, in Busch, P., Lahti, P., and Mittelstaedt, P. (eds.), Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics 1993. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Elby, A. (1993), “Why ‘Modal’ Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics Don't Solve the Measurement Problem”, Foundation of Physics Letters 6: 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elby, A. and Bub, J. (forthcoming), “The Tri-orthogonal Uniqueness Theorem and its Relevance to the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, Physical Review A..Google Scholar
Elby, A. and Bub, J. (1994, unpublished), ‘Modal Interpretations do not Explain Why we Acquire Definite Beliefs about Pointer Readings.”Google Scholar
Healey, R.A. (1989), The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: An Interactive Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healey, R.A. (1993), “Why Nonideal Quantum Measurements Have Outcomes”, Foundations of Physics Letters 6: 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1979), “Hidden Variables and the Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, Synthese 42: 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joos, E. and Zeh, H.D. (1985), “The Emergence of Classical Properties Through Interaction with the Environment”, Zeitschrift fur Physik B 59: 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zurek, W.H. (1991), “Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical”, Physics Today 46 no. 10: 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zurek, W.H. (1993), “Negotiating the Tricky Border Between Quantum and Classical: Zurek Replies”, Physics Today 46 no. 4: 84–90.Google Scholar