Is Decoherence Possible Without Collapse?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the relationship between decoherence and wave function collapse, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics. Participants explore whether decoherence can occur independently of collapse, using examples like beta decay and quantum fluctuations to illustrate their points. The conversation includes theoretical arguments and references to academic papers.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that beta decay and quantum fluctuations are manifestations of collapse, questioning if decoherence can exist without it.
  • Others argue that decay is represented by probability amplitudes and that collapse is not synonymous with decoherence.
  • A participant asserts that decoherence occurs prior to collapse, challenging the notion that collapse is necessary for decoherence.
  • Another participant references a paper discussing the Everettian interpretation, arguing that without collapse to randomize phases, decoherence cannot occur, as it relies on the decay of off-diagonal elements in the density matrix.
  • Some responses indicate that the arguments presented have been misunderstood or misrepresented, leading to claims that the discussion is based on incorrect assumptions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether decoherence can exist without collapse. Multiple competing views are presented, with some asserting the necessity of collapse for decoherence, while others deny this requirement.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes references to specific academic papers and interpretations of quantum mechanics, highlighting the complexity and nuance of the topic. Some arguments rely on particular interpretations of quantum theory, which may not be universally accepted.

jlcd
Messages
274
Reaction score
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
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K