The consistent histories formalism lets us calculate interference terms between histories. A set of histories is decoherent when these terms are all suppressed. As such it is analogous to ordinary decoherence. It's mathematical in the sense that different sets of alternative histories for the same system will have different levels of decoherence, just as different splittings of subsystem + environment will have different levels of ordinary decoherence. But I would not say this makes it purely mathematical as some sets of alternative histories, like some system + environments splits, are physically very natural.nickv2423 said:Is the decoherence in consistent histories different from environmental decoherence? I’m not sure if I’m reading the interpretation wrong but it seems like decoherence in ch is purely mathematical instead of a physical interaction
So in the double slit experiment, it’s the physical interaction between the electron and the measuring device that causes it to decohere and lose the interference pattern according to ch?Morbert said:The consistent histories formalism lets us calculate interference terms between histories. A set of histories is decoherent when these terms are all suppressed. As such it is analogous to ordinary decoherence. It's mathematical in the sense that different sets of alternative histories for the same system will have different levels of decoherence, just as different splittings of subsystem + environment will have different levels of ordinary decoherence. But I would not say this makes it purely mathematical as some sets of alternative histories, like some system + environments splits, are physically very natural.
In CH language: If you write down a set of alternative histories that resolves which slit the electron went through, that set will be decoherent if there is a detector present at one of the slits. In some histories the electron interacts with the detector. In others, it doesn't. And if the histories are extended to resolve where the electron lands on a detector screen, the histories will predict an absence of an interference pattern. See 13.4 here where this scenario is discussed, albeit in the equivalent form of an interferometer.nickv2423 said:So in the double slit experiment, it’s the physical interaction between the electron and the measuring device that causes it to decohere and lose the interference pattern according to ch?
This is off topic, but what are your opinions on the PBR theorem and Griffiths CH? Does the pbr rule out CH?Morbert said:In CH language: If you write down a set of alternative histories that resolves which slit the electron went through, that set will be decoherent if there is a detector present at one of the slits. In some histories the electron interacts with the detector. In others, it doesn't. And if the histories are extended to resolve where the electron lands on a detector screen, the histories will predict an absence of an interference pattern. See 13.4 here where this scenario is discussed, albeit in the equivalent form of an interferometer.