Can the Quantum Zeno Effect be solely attributed to decoherence?

In summary: Zeno effect.In summary, the quantum zeno effect is a phenomenon where the wavefunction of a particle suddenly collapses, typically due to the interference of the particle's environment with the particle's wavefunction. It is a false paradox created by orthodox quantum theory, and has been largely disproven by recent research. However, it is still an impressive demonstration of the participatory nature of quantum measurements.
  • #1
imiyakawa
262
1
Can the Quantum Zeno Effect be solely attributed to decoherence? In every single case?

Is the consensus on this matter opinion, or rigorously tested fact in which every case can be attributed to decoherence?

On a more well known note, can the supposed wavefunction collapse (which gives rise to the quantum zeno effect) be entirely attributed to decoherence?


Can a wavefunction collapse without any decoherence? (Or maybe there's always some sort of decoherence if the particle exists in the universe?)



Also, doesn't decoherence kind of disprove the many worlds interpretation (obviously it hasn't, or this interpretation wouldn't exist anymore..)? Are we supposed to believe that we have somehow ended up in this universe out of infinite potentials where decoherence exists and continues to exist?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Decoherence is not a physical phonemenon. It's just a descriptive word.

Quantum Zeno Effect only works in a narrow set of systems.
 
  • #3
I thought decoherence was something along the lines of a wavefunction collapsing due to its interaction with the surrounding environment?
An attempt to solve/better understand the measurement problem?

I'm probably missing the point, but if you were able to completely take decoherence out of the picture whilst measuring (I guess some of you will claim this is impossible), would the wavefunction still collapse at the time of measurement? If taking decoherence out of the picture when measuring is impossible, then why does the wavefunction not collapse prior to measurement? It is still entwined with everything, right? Shouldn't this endear a collapse? Why is it only when we introduce a measurement instrument?
 
Last edited:
  • #4
imiyakawa said:
I thought decoherence was something along the lines of a wavefunction collapsing due to its interaction with the surrounding environment?
An attempt to solve/better understand the measurement problem?

Decoherence is nothing to do with collapse. It is a physical phenomenon (hamster143!) involving 'loss of coherence', i.e. diminuition of interference terms between different branches of the wave function (the branches cease overlapping in the course of time). In the context of measurement theory, it is implied that this happens due to the establishment of correlations between the quantum system and its environment. It is nothing fancy - just ordinary Schroedinger evolution of the wave function.

Note that all the branches continue to exist. It requires some appropriate interpretation of the wave function or an addition of 'hidden variables' to say why one branch is what one sees.

The concept was first invented by Bohm in 1952 for his own version of the quantum theory; it was widely adopted by many others in the 1980s and subsequently.

The quantum Zeno effect - or the watched pot never boils effect - is an excellent example of the false paradoxes created by the orthodox interpretation. Nowadays its significance is as an impressive illustration of the participatory nature of quantum measurements. As Bohm himself wrote:

If one supposes that an electron is continually 'watched' by a piece of apparatus, the probability of transition has been shown to be zero. It seems that the electron can undergo transition only if it is not 'watched'. This appears to be paradoxical in the usual interpretation which can only discuss the results of 'watching' and has no room for any notion of the electron existing while it is not being 'watched'. But in [the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation] with its objective ontology, this puzzle does not arise because the system is evolving whether it is watched or not. Indeed, as the theory of measurement that we have outlined shows, the 'watched' system is profoundly affected by its interaction with the measuring apparatus and, so we can understand why, if it is 'watched' too closely, it will be unable to evolve at all.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
zenith8 said:
If one supposes that an electron is continually 'watched' by a piece of apparatus, the probability of transition has been shown to be zero. It seems that the electron can undergo transition only if it is not 'watched'. This appears to be paradoxical in the usual interpretation which can only discuss the results of 'watching' and has no room for any notion of the electron existing while it is not being 'watched'. But in [the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation] with its objective ontology, this puzzle does not arise because the system is evolving whether it is watched or not. Indeed, as the theory of measurement that we have outlined shows, the 'watched' system is profoundly affected by its interaction with the measuring apparatus and, so we can understand why, if it is 'watched' too closely, it will be unable to evolve at all.

So nobody actually knows what causes the quantum zeno effect in some cases? Is it conclusive that it is the measurement apparatus interfering with the electron?
 
  • #6
imiyakawa said:
So nobody actually knows what causes the quantum zeno effect in some cases? Is it conclusive that it is the measurement apparatus interfering with the electron?

All I'm saying is that your view of the quantum-Zeno effect depends on your preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics. If you take the orthodox position (that QM is a statistical theory of observation) then the QZE can be considered to be a paradox; on the other hand if you believe QM to be a dynamical theory of waves and particle trajectories (as Bohm does, and for what it's worth, I do) then there is nothing paradoxical about it.
 

1. What is the Quantum Zeno Effect?

The Quantum Zeno Effect is a phenomenon in quantum mechanics where repeated measurements or observations of a quantum system can prevent it from evolving or changing. This effect is named after the Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea, who proposed a paradox on motion that could never be completed due to an infinite number of smaller steps.

2. How does the Quantum Zeno Effect relate to decoherence?

The Quantum Zeno Effect is often attributed to decoherence, which is the loss of quantum coherence due to interactions with the surrounding environment. Decoherence leads to a collapse of the quantum state, preventing the system from evolving. Therefore, the Quantum Zeno Effect can be seen as a result of decoherence.

3. Can the Quantum Zeno Effect be solely attributed to decoherence?

The answer to this question is still a topic of debate among scientists. While some argue that decoherence is the only factor responsible for the Quantum Zeno Effect, others suggest that there may be other underlying mechanisms at play. Further research is needed to fully understand the relationship between the two phenomena.

4. How is the Quantum Zeno Effect studied in experiments?

One common way to study the Quantum Zeno Effect is through quantum state tomography, where the state of a quantum system is repeatedly measured to observe the effect of the measurements on the system's evolution. Other methods include using quantum gates or quantum algorithms to manipulate and measure the system.

5. What are the potential applications of the Quantum Zeno Effect?

The Quantum Zeno Effect has potential applications in quantum computing, quantum communication, and quantum sensing. By controlling and manipulating the evolution of quantum systems through repeated measurements, it may be possible to improve the accuracy and stability of these technologies.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
891
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
892
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
935
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
881
Back
Top