Ballentine: Decoherence doesn't resolve the measurement problem

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the role of decoherence in quantum mechanics, particularly regarding its effectiveness in addressing the measurement problem and Schrödinger’s cat paradox. Participants explore the implications of decoherence theory, its limitations, and its relationship to the concept of measurement within quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that decoherence does not resolve the measurement problem, suggesting that it merely shifts the ontological burden from the wavefunction to the density matrix without providing a clear solution.
  • Others contend that while decoherence alone is insufficient, it does contribute to understanding the measurement problem, indicating a nuanced view on its utility.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of the concepts involved, with some participants noting that both decoherence and measurement are FAPP (for all practical purposes) concepts, which may limit their foundational significance.
  • One participant references Richard Feynman's views on the necessity of extending scientific ideas beyond their tested limits, suggesting that this approach is essential for progress in understanding complex phenomena.
  • Concerns are raised about the generalizability of decoherence as a solution to the measurement problem, with some participants drawing parallels to chaos theory and the unpredictability arising from sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that decoherence does not solve the measurement problem by itself. However, there is disagreement on the extent to which decoherence is helpful, with some asserting it provides some assistance while others believe it is of no help at all.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the understanding of the ontology of the density matrix and the concept of measurement, as well as the dependency on technological advancements in experimental quantum mechanics.

  • #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