Ballentine: Decoherence doesn't resolve the measurement problem

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the limitations of decoherence theory in addressing the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, particularly in relation to Schrödinger's cat paradox. Participants agree that while decoherence provides a pragmatic framework using the density matrix, it fails to clarify the ontology of the measurement process. The consensus is that decoherence does not resolve the measurement problem but offers partial insights, emphasizing that both decoherence and measurement are FAPP (for all practical purposes) concepts. The discussion highlights the need for a deeper understanding of the foundational issues in quantum mechanics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics fundamentals
  • Familiarity with decoherence theory and density matrices
  • Knowledge of Schrödinger's cat paradox
  • Concepts of FAPP (for all practical purposes) in scientific discourse
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of decoherence on quantum measurement theory
  • Study the ontology of the density matrix in quantum mechanics
  • Explore alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics beyond decoherence
  • Investigate the role of experimental setups, such as Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment, in understanding quantum phenomena
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, researchers in the foundations of quantum mechanics, and students seeking to deepen their understanding of the measurement problem and decoherence theory.

  • #61
martinbn said:
1) No, no. These are not physical objects.
2), 3) Yes, yes.

You keep asking questions, but you give no answers nor explanations.
1) What is an object?
2) Why is the phonon an object?
Before I answer you, please explain me the main difference between photon and phonon that reflects the idea that one is an object and another isn't.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Demystifier said:
Before I answer you, please explain me the main difference between photon and phonon that reflects the idea that one is an object and another isn't.
I said that in post #53. For me it is important to distinguish objects from collective behavior of objects. A football crowd that is chanting is different from one that isn't, but it is pointless to say that there is an object "chant".
Demystifier said:
For our purposes, an object is anything that, in principle, can cause a click in a detector.
I disagree, I think for the purposes here it is way too vague. Would you say that a gravitational wave is an object, given that the space-time of such a wave is empty?!
 
  • #63
Demystifier said:
For our purposes, an object is anything that, in principle, can cause a click in a detector.
So the Moon is not an object?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby
  • #64
A. Neumaier said:
Demystifier said:
For our purposes, an object is anything that, in principle, can cause a click in a detector.
So the Moon is not an object?
Heh, I'm pretty sure the Moon would cause a gigantic click when it hits your detector... :biggrin:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Klystron, thephystudent, Demystifier and 2 others
  • #65
martinbn said:
I said that in post #53. For me it is important to distinguish objects from collective behavior of objects. A football crowd that is chanting is different from one that isn't, but it is pointless to say that there is an object "chant".
A photon is a collective excitation of quantum electromagnetic field.

martinbn said:
Would you say that a gravitational wave is an object
Yes I would.
 
  • #66
A. Neumaier said:
So the Moon is not an object?
It's not difficult to construct a device that clicks whenever the (picture of the) Moon appears in the telescope.
 
Last edited:
  • #67
martinbn said:
The photon can exist on its own, it can propagate in vacuum.
And what is the definition of vacuum? You will probably say - the absence of particles. Fine, but then what is the definition of a particle? Do you see a circularity here?

martinbn said:
The phonon on the other hand cannot, if you remove the lattice of atoms/molecules there are no phonons.
Likewise, if you remove the lattice of electromagnetic fields (in lattice regularization of quantum electrodynamics), then there are no photons.
 
  • #68
Ghostly Object or low-lying quanta? Still Object though..:woot:
 
  • #69
Hi,

There are many words such as object, property, phenomenon that are open to interpretation in physics.

"misnaming an object is adding up misery in this world". (Albert Camus)

/Patrick
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier and atyy
  • #70
Demystifier said:
For our purposes, an object is anything that, in principle, can cause a click in a detector.
Isn't that a too vague criterion? Then a rain bow and even the blue sky would be an object. I wonder what is not an object but can be seen, felt, tasted etc.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 89 ·
3
Replies
89
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 119 ·
4
Replies
119
Views
20K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K