Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1208.0904

Decoherence and definite outcomes

Klaus Colanero

Published Aug 4, 2012• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

This thesis has three aims: (1) to clarify in detail the relation between the decoherence mechanism and the problem of definite outcomes, (2) to dispel common misconceptions about the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, and (3) to present some recent alternative approaches in the quest for a satisfactory solution of the definite outcomes problem.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1208.0904

Related papers

Decoherence and the measurement problem

Hervé Zwirn C

The problem of measurement taken at face value shows clearly that there is an inconsistency inside the quantum formalism.The phenomenon of decoherence is often presented as a solution to it.A widely debated question is to decide between two different interpretations.The first one is to consider that the decoherence process has the effect to actually project a superposed state into one of its classically interpretable component, hence doing the same job as the reduction postulate.For the second one, decoherence is only a way to show why no macroscopic superposed state can be observed and so, to explain the classical appearance of the macroscopic world, while the quantum entanglement between the system, the apparatus and the environment never disappears.In this case, explaining why only one single definite outcome is observed remains to do.In this paper, we examine arguments for and against both interpretations and defend a position according to which the outcome that is observed is relative to the observer in close parallel to the Everett interpretation.

Proceedings of Frontiers of Fundamental Physics 14 — PoS(FFP14)•Sep 15, 2016•3 citations

Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics

Maximilian Schlosshauer

Environment-induced decoherence and superselection have been a subject of intensive research over the past two decades, yet their implications for the foundational problems of quantum mechanics, most notably the quantum measurement problem, have remained a matter of great controversy. This paper is intended to clarify key features of the decoherence program, including its more recent results, and to investigate their application and consequences in the context of the main interpretive approaches of quantum mechanics.

arXiv:quant-ph/0312059•Reviews of Modern Physics•Feb 23, 2005•1,441 citations

Introduction

David Wallace

The basic thesis of this book is that there is no quantum measurement problem. I do not mean by this that the apparent paradoxes of quantum mechanics arise because we fail to recognize ‘that quantum theory does not describe physical reality’ (Fuchs and Peres 2000a). Quantum theory describes reality just fine, like any other scientific theory worth taking seriously: describing (and explaining) reality is what the scientific enterprise is about. Nor do I mean that we have found solutions to the problem, ways to modify or supplement quantum mechanics so that the paradoxes are removed. I don’t actually think that we have found any very satisfactory solutions in this sense (at least not in the relativistic domain) but that isn’t my theme: even if we did have these modifications, they would be ways of changing from quantum physics, which supposedly does have a measurement problem, to some other theory, which supposedly doesn’t.

Oxford University Press eBooks•May 24, 2012•3 citations

Why Decoherence has not Solved the Measurement Problem: A Response to P. W. Anderson

Stephen L. Adler

We discuss why, contrary to claims recently made by P. W. Anderson, decoherence has not solved the quantum measurement problem.

•Dec 17, 2001•134 citations

Relational Grounding and the Quantum Measurement Problem: Admissibility Conditions for Definite Outcomes

Nolan Dedrick Lattyak

Relational Grounding and the Quantum Measurement Problem develops a constraint on outcome attribution within quantum mechanics. The paper distinguishes formal state assignment from located outcomes and introduces an admissibility condition: evaluation over candidate outcomes must range over actual members of reality rather than representations. From this, a Quantum Grounding Constraint is derived, showing that definite outcomes can only be attributed where relational grounding is established. The result does not solve the measurement problem but restricts its admissible form by excluding ungrounded outcome attribution. The framework applies this constraint across standard interpretations, clarifying the conditions under which definite outcomes can be meaningfully attributed.

•Apr 23, 2026•0 citations

Making Sense of Approximate Decoherence

Guido Bacciagaluppi, Meir Hemmo

One of the main goals of no-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics is to show how results of measurements are objectified, or, in a more poignant terminology, how in a measurement situation facts arise. One needs to show how in their dynamical evolution the measured system and, perhaps more importantly, the measuring apparatus acquire, or at least appear to acquire, the definite properties that are otherwise explained by the collapse of the state. This can be seen as a special case of the problem whether quantum mechanics alone can account for the classical behaviour of macroscopic systems; in particular, the permanent definiteness of at least those properties of macroscopic systems that are directly observable, such as the position of the pointer of a measuring apparatus. In other words, whether quantum mechanics can account for macrofacts of the familiar kind.

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association•Jan 1, 1994•15 citations
This thesis has three aims: (1) to clarify in detail the relation between the decoherence mechanism and the problem of definite outcomes, (2) to dispel common misconceptions about the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, and (3) to present some recent alternative approaches in the quest for a satisfactory solution of the definite outcomes problem.
The problem of measurement taken at face value shows clearly that there is an inconsistency inside the quantum formalism.The phenomenon of decoherence is often presented as a solution to it.A widely debated question is to decide between two different interpretations.The first one is to consider that the decoherence process has the effect to actually project a superposed state into one of its classically interpretable component, hence doing the same job as the reduction postulate.For the second one, decoherence is only a way to show why no macroscopic superposed state can be observed and so, to explain the classical appearance of the macroscopic world, while the quantum entanglement between the system, the apparatus and the environment never disappears.In this case, explaining why only one single definite outcome is observed remains to do.In this paper, we examine arguments for and against both interpretations and defend a position according to which the outcome that is observed is relative to the observer in close parallel to the Everett interpretation.
Environment-induced decoherence and superselection have been a subject of intensive research over the past two decades, yet their implications for the foundational problems of quantum mechanics, most notably the quantum measurement problem, have remained a matter of great controversy. This paper is intended to clarify key features of the decoherence program, including its more recent results, and to investigate their application and consequences in the context of the main interpretive approaches of quantum mechanics.
The basic thesis of this book is that there is no quantum measurement problem. I do not mean by this that the apparent paradoxes of quantum mechanics arise because we fail to recognize ‘that quantum theory does not describe physical reality’ (Fuchs and Peres 2000a). Quantum theory describes reality just fine, like any other scientific theory worth taking seriously: describing (and explaining) reality is what the scientific enterprise is about. Nor do I mean that we have found solutions to the problem, ways to modify or supplement quantum mechanics so that the paradoxes are removed. I don’t actually think that we have found any very satisfactory solutions in this sense (at least not in the relativistic domain) but that isn’t my theme: even if we did have these modifications, they would be ways of changing from quantum physics, which supposedly does have a measurement problem, to some other theory, which supposedly doesn’t.
Relational Grounding and the Quantum Measurement Problem develops a constraint on outcome attribution within quantum mechanics. The paper distinguishes formal state assignment from located outcomes and introduces an admissibility condition: evaluation over candidate outcomes must range over actual members of reality rather than representations. From this, a Quantum Grounding Constraint is derived, showing that definite outcomes can only be attributed where relational grounding is established. The result does not solve the measurement problem but restricts its admissible form by excluding ungrounded outcome attribution. The framework applies this constraint across standard interpretations, clarifying the conditions under which definite outcomes can be meaningfully attributed.
One of the main goals of no-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics is to show how results of measurements are objectified, or, in a more poignant terminology, how in a measurement situation facts arise. One needs to show how in their dynamical evolution the measured system and, perhaps more importantly, the measuring apparatus acquire, or at least appear to acquire, the definite properties that are otherwise explained by the collapse of the state. This can be seen as a special case of the problem whether quantum mechanics alone can account for the classical behaviour of macroscopic systems; in particular, the permanent definiteness of at least those properties of macroscopic systems that are directly observable, such as the position of the pointer of a measuring apparatus. In other words, whether quantum mechanics can account for macrofacts of the familiar kind.