Decoherence and the Copenhagen cut

While it is widely agreed that decoherence will not solve the measurement problem, decoherence has been used to explain the “emergence of classicality” and to eliminate the need for a Copenhagen edict that some systems simply have to be treated as classical via a quantum-classical “cut”. I argue that decoherence still relies on such a cut. Decoherence accounts derive classicality only in virtue of their incompleteness, by omission of part of the entangled system of which the classical-appearing subsystem is a part. I argue that this omission is only justified by implicit classical assumptions that objectify a subsystem and are employed via either a traditional Copenhagen cut or a functionally equivalent imposition of separability on a system in a non-separable state. I argue that decoherence cannot derive classicality without assuming it in some other form, and I provide an analysis of when it is appropriate to make these otherwise implicit classical assumptions by adopting a minimalistic Copenhagen-style approach to measurement. Finally, I argue that, ironically, the conditions for making these assumptions may be better satisfied in standard measurement situations than in cases of environmental monitoring.

[1]  I. Stamatescu,et al.  Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory , 1996 .

[2]  Erich Joos,et al.  Elements of Environmental Decoherence , 1999, quant-ph/9908008.

[3]  S. Lloyd,et al.  Quantum tensor product structures are observable induced. , 2003, Physical Review Letters.

[4]  J. Wheeler,et al.  Quantum theory and measurement , 1983 .

[5]  Michal Horodecki,et al.  Are there basic laws of quantum information processing , 1998 .

[6]  Wojciech H. Zurek,et al.  Decoherence, einselection and the existential interpretation (the rough guide) , 1998, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[7]  M. Scully,et al.  Is spin coherence like Humpty-Dumpty? , 1988 .

[8]  Wojciech H. Zurek,et al.  Probabilities from entanglement, Born's rule p{sub k}= vertical bar {psi}{sub k} vertical bar{sup 2} from envariance , 2005 .

[9]  M. Scully,et al.  Is spin coherence like Humpty-Dumpty? I. Simplified treatment , 1988 .

[10]  Osvaldo Pessoa,et al.  Can the Decoherence Approach Help to Solve the Measurement Problem? , 1997, Synthese.

[11]  P. Stamp,et al.  The decoherence puzzle , 2006 .

[12]  R. E. Moss,et al.  Non-relativistic Quantum Mechanics , 1973 .

[13]  Jan Faye,et al.  Niels Bohr and contemporary philosophy , 1994 .

[14]  Genuine Fortuitousness. Where Did That Click Come From? , 2001 .

[15]  Maximilian Schlosshauer-Selbach Decoherence and the quantum-to-classical transition , 2008 .

[16]  E. Joos Decoherence Through Interaction with the Environment , 2003 .

[17]  Jeffrey Bub,et al.  Interpreting the Quantum World , 1997 .

[18]  A. Bokulich Open or closed? Dirac, Heisenberg, and the relation between classical and quantum mechanics , 2004 .

[19]  Random delayed-choice quantum eraser via two-photon imaging , 2005, quant-ph/0512207.

[20]  Michael Zwolak,et al.  Quantum darwinism in a mixed environment. , 2009, Physical review letters.

[21]  Scott Tanona Uncertainty in Bohr's response to the Heisenberg microscope , 2004 .

[22]  N. P. Landsman Between classical and quantum , 2005 .

[23]  W. Zurek Probabilities from Entanglement, Born's Rule from Envariance , 2004, quant-ph/0405161.

[24]  Kristian Camilleri A history of entanglement: Decoherence and the interpretation problem , 2009 .

[25]  N. Bohr The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory , 1928, Nature.

[26]  Guido Bacciagaluppi,et al.  The Role of Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics , 2012 .

[27]  Philippe Grangier,et al.  Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment , 2006, Science.

[28]  H. D. Zeh Roots and Fruits of Decoherence , 2006 .

[29]  Olimpia Lombardi,et al.  Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics , 2002 .

[30]  B. Englert,et al.  Quantum optical tests of complementarity , 1991, Nature.

[31]  H. S. Allen The Quantum Theory , 1928, Nature.

[32]  W. Heisenberg,et al.  Physics and Philosophy , 1943, Nature.

[33]  A. Komech Genesis of Quantum Mechanics , 2013 .

[34]  P. Kleingeld,et al.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2013 .

[35]  W. Zurek Preferred States, Predictability, Classicality and the Environment-Induced Decoherence , 1993 .

[36]  Herbert Walther,et al.  An Operational Analysis of Quantum Eraser and Delayed Choice , 1998 .

[37]  Berthold-Georg Englert,et al.  Science and Ultimate Reality: Quantum erasing the nature of reality: or, perhaps, the reality of nature? , 2004 .

[38]  W. Zurek Quantum Darwinism , 2009, 0903.5082.

[39]  M. Schlosshauer Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics , 2003, quant-ph/0312059.

[40]  M. Scully,et al.  Quantum eraser: A proposed photon correlation experiment concerning observation and , 1982 .

[41]  Wojciech H. Zurek,et al.  Critical dynamics of decoherence , 2009, 0911.5729.

[42]  D. Howard What Makes a Classical Concept Classical , 1994 .

[43]  W. Zurek Pointer Basis of Quantum Apparatus: Into What Mixture Does the Wave Packet Collapse? , 1981 .

[44]  Shih,et al.  Delayed "Choice" quantum eraser , 1999, Physical review letters.

[45]  Idealization and Formalism in Bohr’s Approach to Quantum Theory , 2004, Philosophy of Science.

[46]  W. Zurek Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical—Revisited , 2003, quant-ph/0306072.

[47]  Eric Winsberg,et al.  Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics , 2010 .

[48]  Charles L. Harper,et al.  Science and ultimate reality : quantum theory, cosmology, and complexity , 2004 .

[49]  Philippe Blanchard,et al.  Decoherence: Theoretical, Experimental, and Conceptual Problems , 2000 .

[50]  A. Zeilinger Experiment and the Foundations of Quantum Physics , 1999 .