Is Decoherence Possible Without Collapse?

In summary, the conversation discusses the relationship between beta decay, quantum fluctuations, and random vacuum polarizations as manifestations of collapse. There is a disagreement about whether decoherence can exist without collapse first occurring. The argument presented suggests that without collapse, there would be no decay of the off-diagonal elements of the system density matrix and therefore no decoherence. However, the other party in the conversation disagrees and points out that the paper being referenced is discussing the Everettian picture, which is not necessarily applicable to the way decoherence appears as a consequence of unitary evolution. The conversation ends with the moderator closing the thread due to a misunderstanding.
  • #1
jlcd
274
7
Beta decay, quantum fluctuations, even random vacuum polarizations are all manifestation of collapse, isn't it?

The arguments being that in pure unitary wave function, there will be no phase randomization of any kind.

Do you consider beta decay as example of decoherence?

For decoherence to exist, there should be collapse first. Right.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If one state decays into another, it's usually represented by a probability amplitude of the overlap between the initial and final states. I'm not sure what you mean by "collapse". It's not the same thing as "collapsing a wave function", if that's what you're asking.
 
  • #3
jlcd said:
Beta decay, quantum fluctuations, even random vacuum polarizations are all manifestation of collapse, isn't it?
In a sense yes, but not necessarily in a way you might think.

jlcd said:
Do you consider beta decay as example of decoherence?
Yes.

jlcd said:
For decoherence to exist, there should be collapse first. Right.
Definitely no. Decoherence comes first.
 
  • #4
Demystifier said:
In a sense yes, but not necessarily in a way you might think.Yes.Definitely no. Decoherence comes first.

Please go to this thread where I inquired exactly this. I gave links and the arguments that without collapse, there is no decoherence. Don't you agree with it and why? The argument goes like this:

Mathematically, decoherence is the decay of the off-diagonal elements of the system density matrix in a specific basis. Now the paper
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10757/1/Einselection_and_HThm_Final.pdf (see also http://transactionalinterpretation....ally-split-in-the-many-worlds-interpretation/) is saying that "The crucial point that does not yet seem to have been fully appreciated is this: in the
Everettian picture, everything is always coherently entangled, so pure states must be viewed as a
fiction -- but that means that it is also fiction that the putative 'environmental systems' are all
randomly phased
. In helping themselves to this phase randomness, Everettian decoherentists
have effectively assumed what they are trying to prove: macroscopic classicality only ‘emerges’
in this picture because a classical, non-quantum-correlated environment was illegitimately put in
by hand from the beginning. Without that unjustified presupposition, there would be no
vanishing of the off-diagonal terms and therefore no apparent diagonalization of the system’s
reduced density matrix that could support even an approximate, ‘FAPP’ mixed state
interpretation."

Therefore, without collapse to randomize the phases where initially "everything is always coherently entangled", there is no decay of the off-diagonal elements of the system density matrix hence no decoherence. Do you agree or not and how come?
 
  • #5
jlcd said:
Please go to this thread where I inquired exactly this. I gave links and the arguments that without collapse, there is no decoherence. Don't you agree with it and why? The argument goes like this:
...
Therefore, without collapse to randomize the phases where initially "everything is always coherently entangled", there is no decay of the off-diagonal elements of the system density matrix hence no decoherence. Do you agree or not and how come?
See my post https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/decoherence-clarification.828712/#post-5314332
 
  • #6
jlcd said:
Please go to this thread where I inquired exactly this. I gave links and the arguments that without collapse, there is no decoherence. Don't you agree with it and why? The argument goes like this:
..."The crucial point that does not yet seem to have been fully appreciated is this: in the Everettian picture...

Note the text that I have marked in boldface. The paper you are quoting from is talking about the Everettian picture has with decoherence; it doesn't have anything to do with the way that decoherence appears as a consequence of unitary evolution and it most certainly is not saying what you're claiming it does.

As this thread is based on a misunderstanding that has already been corrected repeatedly, it is closed. Your other thread on decoherence and collapse remains open.
 

1. What is beta decay?

Beta decay is a type of radioactive decay in which an unstable atom releases a beta particle (an electron) in order to become more stable.

2. What causes beta decay?

Beta decay is caused by an imbalance between the number of protons and neutrons in an atom's nucleus. This imbalance can be corrected by releasing a beta particle, resulting in a more stable nucleus.

3. What is the difference between beta minus decay and beta plus decay?

Beta minus decay (β-) occurs when a neutron in an atom's nucleus changes into a proton, releasing an electron and an antineutrino. Beta plus decay (β+) occurs when a proton in an atom's nucleus changes into a neutron, releasing a positron and a neutrino.

4. How does beta decay affect an element's atomic number and mass number?

In beta minus decay, the atomic number increases by one and the mass number remains the same. In beta plus decay, the atomic number decreases by one and the mass number remains the same.

5. Can beta decay occur in all elements?

Yes, beta decay can occur in all elements that have unstable nuclei. However, the rate of beta decay varies between elements, with some elements undergoing beta decay more frequently than others.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
832
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
963
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
13
Views
986
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top