We offer a systematic account of decomposition of quantum systems into parts. Different decompositions (structures) are mutually linked via the proper linear canonical transformations. Different kinds of structures, as well as their relations, are considered. Emphasis is placed on mutually global and irreducible structures. Is there a privileged structure of the closed system? Is there a preferred (bipartite) structure of an open system? Are there any practical advantages of certain alternative structures of the system? Is there a simple dynamical relation for a pair of structures? The [necessarily partial] answers are rather intriguing. Relativity of quantum correlations (that include entanglement as well as the "one-way" and "two-way" discord) is carefully presented. Emphasis is placed on the "parallel occurrence of decoherence" in the quantum Brownian motion. The environment-selected preferred structure of an open composite system is presented for a pair of harmonic oscillators (or the field modes). A limitation of the Nakajima-Zwanzig projection method appears as a consequence of quantum correlations relativity. Hence, describing dynamics of an alternate open-system is a delicate task. Certain interpretational issues, which include "quantum reference frames" issue, are discussed. Some recent experiments are also discussed. To this end, the option that "there are no particles" on the most fundamental physical level naturally follows. Certain open questions and prospects for further research are highlighted.
We offer a systematic account of decomposition of quantum systems into parts. Different decompositions (structures) are mutually linked via the proper linear canonical transformations. Different kinds of structures, as well as their relations, are considered. Emphasis is placed on mutually global and irreducible structures. Is there a privileged structure of the closed system? Is there a preferred (bipartite) structure of an open system? Are there any practical advantages of certain alternative structures of the system? Is there a simple dynamical relation for a pair of structures? The [necessarily partial] answers are rather intriguing. Relativity of quantum correlations (that include entanglement as well as the "one-way" and "two-way" discord) is carefully presented. Emphasis is placed on the "parallel occurrence of decoherence" in the quantum Brownian motion. The environment-selected preferred structure of an open composite system is presented for a pair of harmonic oscillators (or the field modes). A limitation of the Nakajima-Zwanzig projection method appears as a consequence of quantum correlations relativity. Hence, describing dynamics of an alternate open-system is a delicate task. Certain interpretational issues, which include "quantum reference frames" issue, are discussed. Some recent experiments are also discussed. To this end, the option that "there are no particles" on the most fundamental physical level naturally follows. Certain open questions and prospects for further research are highlighted.
Our objective is to demonstrate an inconsistency with both the original and modern Everettian Many Worlds Interpretations. We do this by examining two important corollaries of the universally valid quantum mechanics in the context of the Quantum Brownian Motion (QBM) model: "Entanglement Relativity" and the "parallel occurrence of decoherence." We conclude that the highlighted inconsistency demands that either there is a privileged spatial structure of the QBM model universe or that the Everettian Worlds are not physically real.
Abstract In the classical framework, not only can systems be identified by their space-time location, but they also possess mutually independent existences: they are individuals in the philosophical meaning of the concept. In the quantum domain, by contrast, matters are no so easy. Quantum systems cannot be labelled. Nor can they be assigned precise trajectories. Moreover, after interacting, quantum systems become interrelated in a way that does not diminish with either time or space: quantum correlations challenge the independent existence of the subsystems of a composite quantum system. Therefore, in the quantum framework the identification of open systems is a subtle issue. In this chapter I will emphasise the relative nature of open quantum systems in standard quantum mechanics by pointing out how this relativity is manifested under different forms: the relativity of entanglement, the identification of systems in decoherence, and the many ways in which a quantum system can be decomposed. Therefore, any view that considers open quantum systems as fundamental must take this relativity into account. The general purpose is to argue that the closed systems view and the open-system view are complementary approaches that need not be considered rival.
In the last decade decoherence has become a very popular topic mainly due to the progress in experimental techniques which allow monitoring of the process of decoherence for single microscopic or mesoscopic systems. The other motivation is the rapid development of quantum information and quantum computation theory where decoherence is the main obstacle in the implementation of bold theoretical ideas. All that makes the second improved and extended edition of this book very timely. Despite the enormous efforts of many authors decoherence with its consequences still remains a rather controversial subject. It touches on, namely, the notoriously confusing issues of quantum measurement theory and interpretation of quantum mechanics. The existence of different points of view is reflected by the structure and content of the book. The first three authors (Joos, Zeh and Kiefer) accept the standard formalism of quantum mechanics but seem to reject orthodox Copenhagen interpretation, Giulini and Kupsch stick to both while Stamatescu discusses models which go beyond the standard quantum theory. Fortunately, most of the presented results are independent of the interpretation and the mathematical formalism is common for the (meta)physically different approaches. After a short introduction by Joos followed by a more detailed review of the basic concepts by Zeh, chapter 3 (the longest chapter) by Joos is devoted to the environmental decoherence. Here the author considers mostly rather `down to earth' and well-motivated mechanisms of decoherence through collisions with atoms or molecules and the processes of emission, absorption and scattering of photons. The issues of decoherence induced superselection rules and localization of objects including the possible explanation of the molecular structure are discussed in details. Many other topics are also reviewed in this chapter, e.g., the so-called Zeno effect, relationships between quantum chaos and decoherence, the role of decoherence in quantum information processing and even decoherence in the brain. The next chapter, written by Kiefer, is devoted to decoherence in quantum field theory and quantum gravity which is a much more speculative and less explored topic. Two complementary aspects are studied in this approach: decoherence of particle states by the quantum fields and decoherence of field states by the particles. Cosmological issues related to decoherence are discussed, not only within the standard Friedmann cosmology, but also using the elements of the theory of black holes, wormholes and strings. The relations between the formalism of consistent histories defined in terms of decoherence functionals and the environmental decoherence are discussed in chapter 5, also written by Kiefer. The Feynman--Vernon influence functional for the quantum open system is presented in detail as the first example of decoherence functional. Then the general theory is outlined together with possible interpretations including cosmological aspects. The next chapter by Giulini presents an overview of the superselection rules arising from physical symmetries and gauge transformations both for nonrelativistic quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. Critical discussion of kinematical superselection rules versus dynamical ones is illustrated by numerous examples like Galilei invariant quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics and quantum gravity. The introduction to the theory of quantum open systems and its applications to decoherence models is given in chapter 7 by Kupsch. Generalized master equations, Markovian approximation and a few Hamiltonian models relevant for decoherence are discussed. Some mathematical tools, e.g., complete positivity and entropy inequalities are also presented. The last chapter by Stamatescu is devoted to stochastic collapse models which can be interpreted either as certain representations of the dynamics of open quantum systems or as fundamental modifications of the Schr\"odinger equation. The final part of the book consists of remarks by Zeh on related concepts and methods and seven appendices. The broad spectrum, mathematically-friendly presentation, inclusion of the very recent developments and the extensive bibliography (about 550 references) make this book a valuable reference for all researchers, graduate and PhD students interested in the foundations of quantum mechanics, quantum open systems and quantum information. The relative independence of the chapters and numerous redundancies allow for selective reading, which is very helpful for newcomers to this field.
Here we provide the contributions' abstracts published in a volume we edited as a special issue in International Journal of Modern Physics B. The volume deals with the recent progress in quantifying quantum correlations beyond the generic notion of 'correlations in a quantum system'. The main goal of the special issue is to provide authoritative reviews on selected topics discussed in the field in the last few years. Nevertheless many articles contain significant original research. The opening section of the issue is dedicated to foundational aspects of quantum mechanics. The second section deals with diverse quantum information insights into the analysis of quantum resources (like entanglement and quantum discord). Many of the concepts presented in the first part of the issue are applied to spin systems in the third section. The last section of the issue is focused on the dynamics of quantum discord in open systems and in quantum communication protocols.
Theory and experiment have not fully resolved the apparent dichotomy , which has agonized physics for the past eighty years: on the one hand, the description of microsystems by quantum mechanics and, on the other, the description of macrosystems by classical dynamics or statistical mechanics. Derivations of the time-irreversible Liouville equation for an open quantum system, based on projecting out its environment, have narrowed the gap between the quantum and classical descriptions. Yet our `classical' intuition continues to be confronted by quantum-mechanical results like the Einstein--Podolsky--Rosen paradox that challenges the classical notion of locality, or the quantum Zeno effect which suggests that the isolation of a system is not the only way to preserve its quantum state. There are two key concepts in any discussion of such issues. The first, which is responsible for the most salient nonclassical properties, is entanglement , that is partial or complete correlation or, more generally, inseparability of the elements comprising a quantum ensemble . Even after their interaction has ceased, this inseparability, originating from their past interaction, can affect the state of one element when another element is subject to a nonunitary action, such as its measurement, tracing- out, or thermalization. The second key concept is decoherence of open quantum systems, which is the consequence of their entanglement with their environment, a `meter' or a thermal `reservoir', followed by the tracing-out of the latter. Despite new insights into entanglement and decoherence, there are still no complete, unequivocal answers to the fundamental questions of the transition from quantal to classical behaviour: how do irreversibility and classicality emerge from unitarity as systems and their environments become increasingly complex ? At what stage does system--meter entanglement give rise to a classical readout of the meter? Is there an upper limit on the size or complexity of systems displaying entanglement? Major developments have opened new vistas into controlled entanglement , which is the resource of quantum information processing. However, these developments have mainly focused on ensembles of simple two- and three-level systems that are thoroughly isolated from their environments. Treatments of coherence in quantum computing have mostly assumed that only a single or a few the elements of the quantum ensemble may simultaneously undergo an uncontrolled intervention---a quantum error. Decoherence-control protocols for more general types of errors are still incomplete. In order to resolve the outstanding issues of the quantum--classical transition, and study the control of entanglement and decoherence without the foregoing restrictions, we must venture into the domain of Quantum Complex Systems (QUACS), either consisting of a large number of inseparable elements or having many coupled degrees of freedom. Our conviction is that fundamental understanding and manipulation of entanglement within QUACS or their entanglement with the environment or a meter, call for the creation of a new conceptual framework or paradigm, that would encompass phenomena common to cold atoms in laser fields, large molecules, Josephson junctions, quantum gases and solids, with the view of employing these systems for quantum information processing and computing. Progress within this paradigm should allow us to answer the questions: does entanglement play an essential role in the evolution of large collections of complex systems? What are the size and complexity limits of systems and ensembles still controllable by an external intervention? What are the most appropriate decoherence protection schemes and control algorithms? This special issue addresses the challenge of understanding in depth and manipulating the basic quantum properties of optical, atomic, molecular and condensed-matter QUACS, and large ensembles thereof. In view of the interdisciplinary character of this issue, we find it expedient to look at the presented articles not only according to the physical objects they describe, but also from a unifying standpoint. Several unifying themes may be discerned: memory effects in dephasing and relaxation; protection of quantum information by its distribution throughout the ensemble; control of decoherence and entanglement by time-dependent interventions or measurements; manifestations of entanglement in scattering off statistical ensembles; measurment-induced dynamics. The concerted discussion of the topics outlined above should help us advance the new paradigm that addresses our abilities to diagnose and manipulate the entangled states of complex quantum objects and their robustness against decoherence. These abilities are required for quantum information (QI) applications in matter--wave interferometry in molecular, semiconducting or superconducting systems. On the fundamental level, this book may help establish the notion of dynamical information exchange between quantum systems and chart in detail the route from unitarity to classicality. Further developments within the outlined paradigm should yield novel, advantageous QI processing schemes and high-sensitivity interferometers, owing to decoherence suppression and effective control of many degrees of freedom. In the long run, these strategies may prove to be the first step towards the (hitherto unattempted) use of entanglement in nanotechnology, metrology and chemistry, with potentially remarkable novel applications.
For the standard Quantum Brownian Motion (QBM) model, we point out the occurrence of simultaneous (parallel), mutually irreducible and autonomous decoherence processes. Besides the standard, one Brownian particle, we show there is at least another one system undergoing the dynamics described by the QBM effect. We do this by selecting the two mutually irreducible, global structures (decompositions into subsystems) of the composite system of the QBM model. A generalization of this observation is a new, challenging task in the foundations of the decoherence theory. We do not place our findings in any interpretational context.