"decoherence" - the myth It's interesting when one hears supposedly fact-based scientists claim that decoherence has resolved the "measurement problem". Having been brought up on a staple of QM texts I was flabbergasted when i heard these kind of statements claiming decoherence was the answer to foundational problems of qm. So i decided to investigate these claims and allow myself to be convinced. Having now come to my conclusion that decoherence is nothing other than bunk; its made me wonder about the ethics of qm interpretational research. I'm not criticising decoherence as a practical framework for working with qm but i am severely critical of the extra weight which has been given to it as a solution to the "measurement problem". For anyone who wants a fair appraisal or what decoherence actually achieves and what it does not i believe the best paper available at the moment is: 2005 updated version: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312059v4 To sum it up; the findings suggest and appear to be supported by the majority of qm phycists that decoherence does not even touch the "measurement problem" except as a practical approach to interpreting qm without the typical observer related paradox. So what we basically have here is not the truth but a glorified FAPP type construct. But lets forget the majority for a moment. What about this minority who claim that decoherence resolves foundational issues such as the "measurement problem". If i as a layman can work out they are talking rubbish (re the real problem) then what does it say about their motives or their intellect that they feel they can sweep this incredible paradox under the rug with some made-up false construct? Frankly i am gobsmacked.