Is MWI Compatible with a Deterministic Interpretation of Decoherence?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kof9595995
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Decoherence
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the compatibility of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics with a deterministic interpretation of decoherence. Participants explore the implications of decoherence as an experimental fact and its role in quantum measurements, questioning whether it can fully account for the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that decoherence, while deterministic, does not provide specific outcomes for quantum states, leading to questions about its completeness in explaining measurements.
  • Others argue that decoherence is a deterministic process that transitions quantum probabilities to classical ones, but it remains unclear how it relates to the measurement problem.
  • A participant questions whether interpretations of quantum mechanics primarily address measurements, implying that decoherence alone may not suffice to explain why a system collapses to a single outcome.
  • There is a suggestion that MWI may be necessary to supplement decoherence in understanding how a system resolves to one of the possibilities defined by the decohered density matrix.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that decoherence is a deterministic process, but there is no consensus on whether it fully explains the measurement problem or how it relates to interpretations like MWI. Multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of decoherence in quantum mechanics.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight that decoherence cannot specify the final state of a system, which raises questions about the assumptions underlying its deterministic nature. The discussion also touches on the distinction between decoherence as an experimental fact and its role in various interpretations of quantum mechanics.

kof9595995
Messages
676
Reaction score
2
Just read a bit about decoherence from wiki, it seems to me that according to this interpretation, the probabilistic nature of QM is no different from statistical mechanics, and the irreversibility of measurement is just thermodynamic, so does this mean decoherence is indeed a deterministic interpretation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all, decoherence is not an interpretation, but an experimental fact. Theoretically, it is a direct consequence of the Schrödinger equation applied to a large number of degrees of freedom.

Decoherence is a deterministic process, in which probability evolves deterministically. In this process quantum probabilistic laws effectively evolve towards classical ones, thus explaining why, on the macroscopic level, for all practical purposes we can use classical statistical mechanics. More precisely, decoherence provides a continuous deterministic mechanism by which the interference terms in the probability density become dynamically suppressed.

Decoherence also plays an important role in some interpretations of QM, especially many-world and Bohmian. But these interpretations (controversial just as all other interpretations) should be distinguished from decoherence itself which is not controversial at all.
 
Last edited:
Is it correct to say interpretations of QM are mainly concerned with measurements? So does it mean decoherence is not the whole story of measurements? If so, what cannot be explained by decoherence? Sorry for shooting a lot of questions at the same time : )
 
Demystifier said:
More precisely, decoherence provides a continuous deterministic mechanism by which the interference terms in the probability density become dynamically suppressed.
It's deterministic in what sense? The interference terms do get suppressed by known procedures making a, initially pure, state mixed. But decoherence cannot tell you the specific state that the system will end up to. Right?
 
JK423 said:
It's deterministic in what sense? The interference terms do get suppressed by known procedures making a, initially pure, state mixed. But decoherence cannot tell you the specific state that the system will end up to. Right?
Right. It is a deterministic evolution of the probability density, so probabilistic interpretation is not removed (unless you adopt a many-world or Bohmian interpretation).
 
kof9595995 said:
Is it correct to say interpretations of QM are mainly concerned with measurements?
Yes.

kof9595995 said:
I
So does it mean decoherence is not the whole story of measurements?
True.

kof9595995 said:
If so, what cannot be explained by decoherence?
Why and how the system takes only one of the possibilities (defined by the decohered density matrix).
 
Thanks.
 
kof9595995 said:
If so, what cannot be explained by decoherence?
need be supplemented with MWI.
to takes only one of the possibilities.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Graduate Multi-scale Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Undergrad Is quantum mechanics imply nature is deterministic or probabilistic?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Graduate Exact symmetry, quantum states, and symmetric dynamics
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
Graduate Given decoherence, do we still need random quantum jumps and
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Undergrad Does a qubit break interference in the double slit experiment?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Graduate Ballentine: Decoherence doesn't resolve the measurement problem
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
Graduate What Are the Key Questions Surrounding Quantum Decoherence?
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
Graduate How/why decoherence rather than how/why coherence
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
High School What, in essence, distinguishes light from matter?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Undergrad Does "Decoherence" really explain anything?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K