CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 65Quantum Mechanics and ApplicationsPhilosophy and History of ScienceQuantum Information and Cryptography

Decoherence and its role in the modern measurement problem

Open access
Wallace, David·2012·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
DOI 10.1098/rsta.2011.0490
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Decoherence is widely felt to have something to do with the quantum measurement problem, but getting clear on just what is made difficult by the fact that the ‘measurement problem’, as traditionally presented in foundational and philosophical discussions, has become somewhat disconnected from the conceptual problems posed by real physics. This, in turn, is because quantum mechanics as discussed in textbooks and in foundational discussions has become somewhat removed from scientific practice, especially where the analysis of measurement is concerned. This paper has two goals: firstly (§§1–2), to present an account of how quantum measurements are actually dealt with in modern physics (hint: it does not involve a collapse of the wave function) and to state the measurement problem from the perspective of that account; and secondly (§§3–4), to clarify what role decoherence plays in modern measurement theory and what effect it has on the various strategies that have been proposed to solve the measurement problem.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rsta.2011.0490

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, the dynamical processes involved in decoherence primarily favor the dissemination of information in a coarse-graining of the position basis.

    “In particular, in the case of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, the dynamical processes involved in decoherence primarily favor the dissemination of information in a coarse-graining of the position basis (Wallace 2012)”

    From Information is Physical: Cross-Perspective Links in Relational Quantum Mechanics (2023) · cites this paper as Wallace 2012

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Anglin, J. R. and W. H. Zurek (1996). Decoherence of quantum fields: Pointer states and predictability. Physical Review D 53 , 7327-7335.
  2. Ballentine, L. E. (1990). Quantum Mechanics . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
  3. Bell, J. and M. Nauenberg (1966). The moral aspect of quantum mechanics. In A. De Shalit, H. Feshbach, and L. Van Hove (Eds.), Preludes in Theoretical Physics , pp. 279-86. Amsterdam.: North Holland. Reprinted in Bell, J.S.,
  4. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 22-28.
  5. Bell, J. S. (1966). On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics 38 , 447-452. Reprinted in Bell (1987), pp. 113.
  6. Bell, J. S. (1987). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Cohen-Tannoudji, C., B. Diu, and F. Lalo¨ e (1977). Quantum Mechanics , Volume 1. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
  8. Colin, S. and W. Struyve (2007). A Dirac sea pilot-wave model for quantum field theory. Journal of Physics A 40 , 7309-7342.
  9. Cushing, J. T., A. Fine, and S. Goldstein (Eds.) (1996). Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal , Dordrecht. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  10. Deutsch, D. (1997). The Fabric of Reality . London: Penguin.
  11. DeWitt, B. and N. Graham (Eds.) (1973). The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  12. Dieks, D. and P. E. Vermaas (Eds.) (1998). The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics , Dordrecht. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  13. Dirac, P. (1930). The Principles of Quantum Mechanics . Oxford University Press.
  14. D¨ urr, D., S. Goldstein, R. Tumulka, and N. Zanghi (2004). Bohmian mechanics and quantum field theory. Physical Review Letters 93 , 090402.
  15. D¨ urr, D., S. Goldstein, R. Tumulka, and N. Zanghi (2005). Bell-type quantum field theories. Journal of Physics A38 , R1.
  16. Everett, H. I. (1957). Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Review of Modern Physics 29 , 454-462. Reprinted in DeWitt and Graham (1973).
  17. Fuchs, C. (2002). Quantum mechanics as quantum information (and only a little more). Available online at at http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205039. · arXiv
  18. Fuchs, C. and A. Peres (2000). Quantum theory needs no 'interpretation'. Physics Today 53 (3), 70-71.
  19. Gell-Mann, M. and J. B. Hartle (1993). Classical equations for quantum systems. Physical Review D 47 , 3345-3382.
  20. Ghirardi, G., A. Rimini, and T. Weber (1986). Unified Dynamics for Micro and Macro Systems. Physical Review D 34 , 470-491.
  21. Gleason, A. (1957). Measures on the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 6 , 885-893.
  22. Halliwell, J. J. (1998). Decoherent histories and hydrodynamic equations. Physical Review D 35 , 105015.
  23. Home, D. and M. A. B. Whitaker (1997). A conceptual analysis of quantum Zeno: Paradox, measurement and experiment. Annals of Physics 258 , 237-285.
  24. Joos, E., H. D. Zeh, C. Kiefer, D. Giulini, J. Kupsch, and I. O. Stamatescu (2003). Decoherence and the Appearence of a Classical World in Quantum Theory (2nd Edition ed.). Berlin: Springer.
  25. Kent, A. (1990). Against Many-Worlds Interpretations. International Journal of Theoretical Physics A5 , 1764. Expanded and updated version at http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9703089. · arXiv
  26. Kochen, S. and E. Specker (1967). The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 17 , 59-87.
  27. Landau, L. and E. Lifshitz (1977). Quantum Mechanics (Non-Relativistic Theory) (3rd ed.). Butterworth Heinemann.
  28. Misra, B. and E. C. G. Sudarshan (1977). The Zeno's paradox in quantum theory. Journal of Mathematical Physics 18 , 756.
  29. Penrose, R. (1989). The Emperor's New Mind: concerning computers, brains and the laws of physics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  30. Peskin, M. E. and D. V. Schroeder (1995). An introduction to Quantum Field Theory . Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
  31. Rae, A. I. (1992). Quantum Mechanics (3rd ed.). Bristol: Institute of Physics Publishing.
  32. Redhead, M. (1987). Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism: A Prolegomenon to the Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  33. Saunders, S., J. Barrett, A. Kent, and D. Wallace (Eds.) (2010). Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality , Oxford. Oxford University Press.
  34. Spekkens, R. W. (2007). In defense of the epistemic view of quantum states: a toy theory. Physical Review A 75 , 032110.
  35. Struyve, W. and H. Westman (2007). A minimalist pilot-wave model for quantum electrodynamics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 463 , 3115-3129.
  36. Tumulka, R. (2006). Collapse and relativity. In A. Bassi, T. Weber, and N. Zanghi (Eds.), Quantum Mechanics: Are There Quantum Jumps? and on the Present Status of Quantum Mechanics , pp. 340. American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings. Available online at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0602208. · arXiv
  37. von Neumann, J. (1955). Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  38. Wallace, D. (2008). The interpretation of quantum mechanics. In D. Rickles (Ed.), The Ashgate Companion to Contemporary Philosophy of Physics , pp. 197-261. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
  39. Wallace, D. (2010a). Decoherence and ontology: Or: How I learned to stop worrying and love FAPP. In S. Saunders, J. Barrett, A. Kent, and D. Wallace (Eds.), Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality , pp. 53-72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  40. Wallace, D. (2010b). How to prove the Born rule. In S. Saunders, J. Barrett, A. Kent, and D. Wallace (Eds.), Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory and Reality . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available online at http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.2718. · arXiv
  41. Wallace, D. (2011). The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory according to the Everett Interpretation . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  42. Zurek, W. H. (1991). Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical. Physics Today 43 , 36-44. Revised version available online at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306072. · arXiv
  43. Zurek, W. H. (1994). Preferred observables, predictability, classicality, and the environment-induced decoherence. In J. J. Halliwell, J. PerezMercader, and W. H. Zurek (Eds.), The Physical Origins of Time Asymmetry , pp. 175-212. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wallace, D.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Wallace, David
ORCID
Wallace, David
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
Publisher
The Royal Society
Published
2012-09-28
Volume
370
Issue
1975
Pages
4576-4593
ISSN
  • 1364-503X (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2962
DOI
10.1098/rsta.2011.0490
OpenAlex
W2105154538
Cited by
65
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 18 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
royalsociety.org/journals/ethics-policies/data-sharing-mining/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PhilSci-Archive (University of Pittsburgh) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
Keywords
decoherence, measurement problem, wave function collapse, measurement theory, quantum foundations, interpretation of quantum mechanics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review