Is it a myth that serves as motivation for decoherence?

In summary, Zurek is interested in the phenomenon of decoherence, which in short means that superpositions decohere, i.e., become unobservable. So one can say that the environment gives rise to the (classically) observed property that systems are either here or there, but not both.In summary, the paper discusses the concept of Quantum Darwinism and its implications on the superposition principle. It explores the idea that even though the principle implies that localization should be a rare exception in quantum systems, it seems to contradict with our everyday reality of localized states. The paper suggests that this conflict can be resolved by understanding decoherence, which explains how superpositions become unobservable due to interactions with the environment. However
  • #1
zonde
Gold Member
2,961
224
This paper about Quantum Darwinism https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.5082v1.pdf starts with statement:
"The quantum principle of superposition implies that any combination of quantum states is also a legal state. This seems to be in conflict with everyday reality: States we encounter are localized. Classical objects can be either here or there, but never both here and there. Yet, the principle of superposition says that localization should be a rare exception and not a rule for quantum systems."

This sums up nicely motivation behind decoherence approach to measurement problem.
But there is no reference for these statements so I would like to test my suspicions that this is just QM folklore rather than solid predictions of QM.

First statement: "The quantum principle of superposition implies that any combination of quantum states is also a legal state."
Isn't it required that both states are described using the same Hamiltonian? So that this statement might not be true in general?

Second: "Classical objects can be either here or there, but never both here and there." implying that quantum objects can be both here and there.
As I see this comes from explanation of double slit experiment that photon (or other quantum particle, say buckyball) goes by both paths and interferes with itself but not with other particles in the beam.
This interpretation of double slit experiment is certainly falsified by experiments that create interference between beams of two phase locked lasers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
zonde said:
I would like to test my suspicions that this is just QM folklore rather than solid predictions of QM.

The first statement is a solid prediction of QM. The second is a reasonable conclusion based on our observations; the question is how best to model it in the framework of QM.

zonde said:
Isn't it required that both states are described using the same Hamiltonian?

What does this mean? States aren't described by Hamiltonians; they're described by vectors in a Hilbert space (or density matrices, depending on what formalism you are using). The superposition principle just reflects the fact that Hilbert space is a vector space, so adding any two vectors in the space gives another vector that is also in the space.

zonde said:
implying that quantum objects can be both here and there.

The paper is using "both here and there" as a shorthand for "in a superposition of here and there". Certainly quantum objects have been experimentally placed in such superpositions.

zonde said:
As I see this comes from explanation of double slit experiment that photon (or other quantum particle, say buckyball) goes by both paths and interferes with itself but not with other particles in the beam.

I don't see this anywhere in the paper. The paper is simply observing that nobody has ever done an experiment that shows a classical object being in a superposition; yet if classical objects are built from quantum building blocks, it should be possible to put them in superpositions, just as you can with quantum objects. The rest of the paper tries to explain how it can be that we never observe classical objects to be in superpositions, even though QM seems to say that should be possible.
 
  • #3
PeterDonis said:
What does this mean? States aren't described by Hamiltonians; they're described by vectors in a Hilbert space (or density matrices, depending on what formalism you are using). The superposition principle just reflects the fact that Hilbert space is a vector space, so adding any two vectors in the space gives another vector that is also in the space.
But Hamiltonian determines Hilbert space, right? In order to write Schrödinger equation and speak about it's solutions (and superpositions of it's solutions) you need Hamiltonian, right?
 
  • #4
PeterDonis said:
The paper is using "both here and there" as a shorthand for "in a superposition of here and there". Certainly quantum objects have been experimentally placed in such superpositions.
Can you give some reference for experimental observation of "superposition of here and there" (probably observation of interference effect from such superposition)?
 
  • #7
zonde said:
experimental observation of "superposition of here and there" (probably observation of interference effect from such superposition)?
Experimentally observed are always numbers, not state vectors. And they are always observed here (where the detector is), and never there (everywhere else).

It is impossible to observe a state vector. The best one can do is to infer from many observations of an ensemble of events that the experimental setting was prepared to produce an ensemble whose state is given by a superposition of here and there. What this implies about the corresponding quantum objects remains a matter of speculation (i.e., interpretative assumptions).
 
  • #8
zonde said:
First statement: "The quantum principle of superposition implies that any combination of quantum states is also a legal state."
Isn't it required that both states are described using the same Hamiltonian? So that this statement might not be true in general?
As usual, I'm having a bit trouble to understand what exactly you are after because of your unusual terminology. There is a sense in which what you write makes sense to me, so I'll comment.

If you have an electron in a state |electron> and a proton in a state |proton>, the state |electron>+|proton> cannot be reached because all the known interactions conserve the number of leptons and baryons. This is a very handwaving explanation of the phenomenon of superselection, which strictly excludes some states as unphysical.

What Zurek has shown is that if we have prepared a quantum system in a superposition of eigenstates of a certain observable, the interaction with a sufficiently large environment in a thermal state leads to a rapid decay of the interference properties of the system state. So we cannot describe the system state as a superposition anymore (interestingly, the decay of coherence is the only effect on this time scale; the probabilities to obtain the different eigenvalues in a measurement of our observable don't change). Since the time-scale of this effect is so short, it can be viewed as a dynmical kind of superselection for which Zurek coined the term "environment-induced superselection".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #9
zonde said:
But Hamiltonian determines Hilbert space, right? In order to write Schrödinger equation and speak about it's solutions (and superpositions of it's solutions) you need Hamiltonian, right?

No, the Hilbert space is prior to any particular Hamiltonian. For nonrelativistic quantum mechanics of a single spinless particle, the Hilbert space is the set of all square-integrable functions on 3D space. That's the same for every Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian is an operator on Hilbert space.
 
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis
  • #10
zonde said:
Can you give some reference for experimental observation of "superposition of here and there" (probably observation of interference effect from such superposition)?

Any time you use a wave function, you are using a superposition of "here" and "there" (unless the wave function is a delta function, which really isn't possible, since that's not square-integrable).
 
  • Like
Likes Jilang and vanhees71
  • #11
stevendaryl said:
Any time you use a wave function, you are using a superposition of "here" and "there"
Not if, as usually the case in quantum information theory, the Hilbert space is finite-dimensional only.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and stevendaryl
  • #12
A. Neumaier said:
Not if, as usually the case in quantum information theory, the Hilbert space is finite-dimensional only.

I tend to use the word "wave function" only when we are talking about the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions on [itex]R^3[/itex], but I guess people might use it for other types of Hilbert spaces, as well.
 

1. Is decoherence a real phenomenon or just a myth?

Decoherence is a well-established and widely accepted concept in quantum mechanics. It refers to the process by which a quantum system interacts with its environment, causing it to lose its quantum properties and behave more like a classical system. While there may be ongoing debates about the exact mechanisms and interpretations of decoherence, it is not considered a myth by the scientific community.

2. How does decoherence affect quantum computing?

Decoherence is one of the main challenges in quantum computing. It causes quantum systems to lose their coherence and become susceptible to errors, making it difficult to maintain the delicate quantum states required for performing computations. Researchers are currently working on ways to mitigate decoherence in quantum computers, such as through error correction techniques.

3. Can decoherence be observed in everyday life?

Yes, decoherence can be observed in everyday life. Any interaction between a quantum system and its environment can cause decoherence, even on a microscopic level. Decoherence is responsible for the transition from quantum to classical behavior in our macroscopic world, and it is essential for understanding how classical reality emerges from the quantum realm.

4. Is decoherence the same as quantum collapse or wave function collapse?

No, decoherence is not the same as quantum collapse or wave function collapse. Decoherence is a gradual process that results from interactions between a quantum system and its environment, while quantum collapse is a sudden and unpredictable change in the state of a quantum system when it is observed. Decoherence plays a role in the phenomenon of quantum collapse, but they are distinct concepts.

5. Can decoherence be reversed?

Technically, yes, decoherence can be reversed by isolating the system from its environment. However, in practical terms, it is extremely difficult to reverse decoherence once it has occurred. This is because the quantum information lost during decoherence is typically dispersed into the environment and becomes difficult to retrieve. Thus, preventing decoherence is a more feasible approach in most cases.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
556
  • Quantum Physics
5
Replies
143
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
31
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
161
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
17
Views
1K
Back
Top