I New review on decoherence by Schlosshauer

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter A. Neumaier
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Decoherence Review
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
8,679
Reaction score
4,738
TL;DR Summary
On decoherence and its relevance for the measurement problem
I'd like to draw attention to the recent survey
  • M. Schlosshauer, Quantum decoherence, Physics Reports (2019). Available online 18 October 2019
Maximilian Schlosshauer said:
One of the central topics in the foundations of quantum mechanics is known as the quantum measurement problem, and in Sec. 7.1 below we will discuss whether decoherence has anything of substance to say about it. In Sec. 7.2, we will then briefly review the role that decoherence plays, or may play, in the various interpretations of quantum mechanics. In Sec. 7.3, we will comment on Niels Bohr’s views on the primacy of classical concepts and their relationship to the quantum–classical correspondence described by decoherence.
In Section 7.1 said:
for the kinds of entangled quantum states produced by decoherence-type interactions to be interpreted as describing a situation in which the system becomes “classical,” we need to take the existence of measurement outcomes as a priori given, or otherwise give an account outside of decoherence of how measurement outcomes are produced, because the property of classicality is ultimately a statement about measurement statistics. Thus decoherence, by itself, cannot address the measurement problem in any substantial way.
Of course, to say that decoherence has no bearing on the measurement problem—or on any of the “big” foundational problems in general—is not to suggest that decoherence and its underlying ideas cannot be of relevance in the investigation of fundamental questions. [...] the ability of decoherence to dynamically define preferred bases is exploited in certain interpretations of quantum mechanics
 
  • Like
Likes gentzen, msumm21, eloheim and 3 others
Physics news on Phys.org
Is there anything new in this review in comparison with his older review on decoherence and his book?
 
Demystifier said:
Is there anything new in this review in comparison with his older review on decoherence and his book?
It is carefully written to be interpretation-independent:
Maximilian Schlosshauer (p.3) said:
Stated in general and interpretation-neutral terms, decoherence describes how entangling interactions with the environment influence the statistics of future measurements on the system.
Section 7.3 on the relation to Bohr's view is also new.
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top