This work is a critique of the program of "environment-induced decoherence" as advocated by Zurek, Zeh and Joos, among others. In particular, the alleged relevance of decoherence for a solution of the "measurement problem" is subjected to a detailed philosophical analysis. In the first chapter, an attempt is made to unravel what exactly this "measurement problem" amounts to for the decoherence theorists. The second chapter reviews the standard decoherence literature. The third chapter starts with a brief discussion of the philosophical implications of the decoherence program, followed by a non-standard reconstruction of the decoherence argument that aims to uncover some (mostly hidden) assumptions underlying the approach. It is argued that different subsets of these assumptions result in different versions of the decoherence argument. Next, these assumptions are investigated in more detail, and a number of open problems for the decoherence approach is formulated, in addition to the well-known "problem of outcomes". These problems concern the interpretational relevance of the preferred basis, the role and status of the ignorance interpretation of mixed states, imperfect decoherence and the role of the environment and the definition of subsystems. The fourth chapter addresses the question to what extent the embedding of decoherence in an Everett-like interpretational framework, such as Zurek's "existentional interpretation" and Wallace's structural-realistic version of the many-worlds interpretation, helps to resolve these problems. The main conclusions are formulated in the fifth chapter. Namely: 1) decoherence cannot address the "preferred-basis problem" without adding new interpretational axioms to the standard formalism, 2) the the locality principle (that says that the environment is the "irrelevant" part and should therefore be ignored) is not only problematic but also interpretationally superfluous, 3) the decoherence approach, when formulated in terms of the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, is predicated on a solution of the "problem of outcomes" and thus cannot claim to account (even partially) for the latter, and 4) that the results of the decoherence program do not increase the plausibility of a realist interpretation of the quantum state.
This work is a critique of the program of "environment-induced decoherence" as advocated by Zurek, Zeh and Joos, among others. In particular, the alleged relevance of decoherence for a solution of the "measurement problem" is subjected to a detailed philosophical analysis. In the first chapter, an attempt is made to unravel what exactly this "measurement problem" amounts to for the decoherence theorists. The second chapter reviews the standard decoherence literature. The third chapter starts with a brief discussion of the philosophical implications of the decoherence program, followed by a non-standard reconstruction of the decoherence argument that aims to uncover some (mostly hidden) assumptions underlying the approach. It is argued that different subsets of these assumptions result in different versions of the decoherence argument. Next, these assumptions are investigated in more detail, and a number of open problems for the decoherence approach is formulated, in addition to the well-known "problem of outcomes". These problems concern the interpretational relevance of the preferred basis, the role and status of the ignorance interpretation of mixed states, imperfect decoherence and the role of the environment and the definition of subsystems. The fourth chapter addresses the question to what extent the embedding of decoherence in an Everett-like interpretational framework, such as Zurek's "existentional interpretation" and Wallace's structural-realistic version of the many-worlds interpretation, helps to resolve these problems. The main conclusions are formulated in the fifth chapter. Namely: 1) decoherence cannot address the "preferred-basis problem" without adding new interpretational axioms to the standard formalism, 2) the the locality principle (that says that the environment is the "irrelevant" part and should therefore be ignored) is not only problematic but also interpretationally superfluous, 3) the decoherence approach, when formulated in terms of the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, is predicated on a solution of the "problem of outcomes" and thus cannot claim to account (even partially) for the latter, and 4) that the results of the decoherence program do not increase the plausibility of a realist interpretation of the quantum state.
The quantum measurement problem remains a central unresolved issue in theoretical physics, arising from the incompatibility between unitary quantum dynamics and the emergence of definite measurement outcomes. Closely related is the question of the physical status of the wavefunction within contemporary quantum theory. This review critically surveys leading approaches to the measurement problem, focusing on their formal consistency, physical assumptions, and empirical implications. We examine the standard measurement framework, the role of environment-induced decoherence and quantum Darwinism, and the restrictions imposed by no-go theorems such as Bell, Kochen–Specker, and Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph. Interpretations including Everettian many-worlds, Bohmian mechanics, spontaneous collapse models, relational quantum mechanics, QBist approaches, and Copenhagen-type frameworks are assessed in terms of their ability to account for classical definiteness without sacrificing empirical adequacy. We also review experimental efforts probing macroscopic superpositions and collapse dynamics. The analysis indicates that, despite its predictive success, quantum theory lacks a complete physical account of outcome selection. This suggests that the measurement problem reflects a fundamental structural limitation of current theory, motivating either new physical principles or a redefinition of the wavefunction’s ontological role.
Quantum mechanics famously posits two distinct evolution rules for the state of a system: a deterministic, unitary time evolution under the Schr¨odinger equation, and a probabilistic “collapse” of the wavefunction upon measurement as dictated by the Born rule. The apparent inconsistency of these two dynamical laws – one continuous and one discontinuous – constitutes the quantum measurement problem. This foundational problem, which underlies the emergence of definite outcomes from quantum superpositions, has persisted since the theory’s inception. In this review, we present a comprehensive and rigorous examination of the measurement problem and survey the leading approaches that seek to resolve or circumvent it. We begin by formulating the measurement problem and its conceptual challenges. We then discuss in detail the major interpretations of quantum mechanics and theoretical frameworks addressing the problem: the Copenhagen interpretation, Everett’s many-worlds interpretation, de Broglie–Bohm pilot-wave theory, objective collapse models, the role of decoherence and environment-induced superselection, and epistemic approaches such as QBism. For each interpretation, we describe the core principles and mathematical formalism, assessing how (and whether) it attempts to solve the measurement problem. We also review modern developments and experiments relevant to quantum measurements, including tests of Bell inequalities, observations of decoherence and macroscopic superpositions, weak measurements and quantum eraser experiments, and thought experiments ‘a la Wigner’s friend. We highlight how these results inform the ongoing debate. Finally, we discuss open problems and challenges that remain in fully resolving the measurement problem.
Decoherence has acquired a central role in the foundations of quantum mechanics and in various debates in philosophy of physics by providing an explanation for the suppression of interference and the emergence of quasiclassical behavior in open systems. However, it is sometimes attributed a broader philosophical scope than is effectively warranted by the formalism, particularly with regard to the measurement problem and the classical limit. This paper critically examines such scope through a simplified reconstruction of the standard formalism of environment-induced decoherence. It is argued that the decohered state corresponds to an improper mixture and, therefore, does not constitute an effective replacement for collapse nor solve the measurement problem. In addition, an operational interpretation in terms of “as if” and the preferred basis problem are analyzed, revealing conceptual tensions associated with the identification of robust states. The paper concludes with a call for prudence regarding the philosophical use of decoherence in foundational discussions.
This article surveys a selection of key conceptual and interpretational developments in quantum mechanics, tracing the theory from its foundational postulates to contemporary discussions of measurement, nonlocality, and the emergence of classicality. Beginning with the structure of Hilbert space and the postulates governing state evolution and measurement, the epistemic stance of the Copenhagen interpretation and its modern reformulations are examined. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument, Bell's theorem, and Hardy's paradox are then discussed as probes of locality and realism, alongside the deterministic but explicitly nonlocal de Broglie-Bohm theory. The measurement problem and the implications of contextuality are analyzed in relation to objective collapse models, which introduce new physical dynamics to account for definite outcomes. Finally, the role of decoherence in the suppression of interference and the emergence of classical behavior is explored, together with the interpretational frameworks of many-worlds and consistent histories. This material aims to provide a coherent introductory overview of how several of the most prominent interpretations address the central concern of what quantum mechanics tells us about the nature of physical reality.
Few, if any, issues in physics have engendered as much discussion as the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. It is generally agreed that the `normal' dynamical evolution of the state vector in quantum mechanics is given by a unitary map. The linearity of this map implies that the state vector will, in general, be found in a superposition of eigenstates of a given observable (or, similarly, that the density matrix describing a subsystem will not correspond to a definite value of this observable). However, when we make a measurement of an observable, we always obtain a define value—although it is impossible to predict with certainty which value will be obtained. The traditional response to this issue is to postulate that when a measurement is made, the wavefunction `collapses' to an eigenstate of the observable being measured, perhaps due to the inherent classicality of the measuring apparatus (Bohr), or to the consciousness of the observer (Wigner), or possibly to some modification of quantum dynamics that occurs even when observations are not being made. The main motivation for the Everett (`many worlds') interpretation is to avoid introducing any such collapse postulate. This volume commemorates the 50th anniversary of the publication of Everett's paper in 1957 and contains 20 original articles as well as the transcripts of several discussions that took place at meetings devoted to the Everett interpretation at Oxford University and the Perimeter Institute. The attractiveness of the Everett interpretation is very succinctly summarized by a sentence from Vaidman's contribution (p 582): `The collapse, with its randomness, non-locality and the lack of a well-defined moment of occurrence, is such an ugly scar on quantum theory, that I, along with many others, am ready to follow Everett and deny its existence.' But the main drawback of the interpretation is then equally succinctly stated in the next sentence: `The price is the many worlds interpretation, i.e., the existence of numerous parallel worlds.' In other words, if the state vector evolves to have a non-zero amplitude for two different values of an observable that I `measure' (i.e., interact with in an appropriate way), each of these alternatives remains equally `real', i.e., there is a `branch' of the wavefunction in which the observable takes the first value and I believe that it has this first value and a branch of the wavefunction where it takes the second value and I believe that it has this second value. Each of these `me's' sees a definite value for the observable, thus nicely accounting for what I believe I experience without invoking collapse. But then, it seems that I have to believe that there are many other `me's' around—even if they are very difficult for this particular me to access—and no way I can predict which `me' I will be in the future. Indeed, Saunders writes on p 192, `If Alice is a person (of course she is) then we must say, even prior to branching at tj that there are many Alices present, atom for atom duplicates...Alice should be uncertain after all— each Alice should be uncertain—for each as of tj does not (and as a matter of principle, cannot) know which of these branching persons she is.' Thus, if taken seriously, the Everett viewpoint leads directly to questions like `What determines which ``me'' I am now and/or will feel that I am in the future?' The response `You are all of them' somehow doesn't seem satisfying, and further pursuit of these issues would seem to lead to questions as fruitless as questions like `Why am I ``me'' and not ``you''?' I believe that this accounts for why the Everett interpretation does not have universal appeal. But enough of `me' for now (more later); let's discuss the book. Unlike many edited volumes and conference proceedings in physics—which often consist of hastily slapped-together re-hashes of previous papers—this volume meets very high standards in the choice of topics and authors and in the quality of the writing. Although each of the articles is closely tied in with the Everett interpretation, there are many articles of considerable value and interest in their own right, such as the discussion of quasiclassical realms by Hartle and and the discussion of the de Broglie–Bohm interpretation by Valentini. There is also an excellent introduction by Saunders to the quantum measurement problem and the main issues that arise in the Everett interpretation. A central issue in the Everett interpretation is the status of the `Born rule', which asserts that, for state ψ, the probability of obtaining a particular outcome of a measurement is ||Pψ||2, where P is the projection operator onto the eigensubspace associated with the measurement outcome. In traditional interpretations, the Born rule is simply postulated as part of the collapse hypothesis. In the Everett interpretation, it is far from obvious that the Born rule even has any meaning—if all outcomes occur, how can one talk about the probability of a particular outcome? Given the importance of this issue, it is highly appropriate that four chapters of the book (by Saunders, Papineau, Wallace, and Greaves and Myrvold) are devoted to addressing probability and the Born rule from the Everett viewpoint, and three chapters (by Kent, Albert, and Price) are devoted to criticising these views. As indicated by the above quote from Saunders' article, uncertainty and probability can enter the Everett interpretation via each Alice being uncertain as to which Alice she is or will be. However, in view of the difficulties to which this kind of argumentation will lead, it is perhaps not surprising that in the 123 pages of combined discussion by Saunders, Papineau, Wallace, and Greaves and Myrvold, there are only fleeting references to the use of probability along these lines. Rather, the approach taken is reminiscent of that of adept politicians: if you can't answer a question, then answer a different question, and answer it with conviction and detail. Instead of considering probabilities of outcomes—a highly problematical notion when all of the possible outcomes actually occur—consider only decision theory issues. In particular, Wallace gives a precise and detailed mathematical proof that, under certain hypotheses, the only rational strategy that a quantum observer can follow in making decisions is to weight the possible outcomes by Born rule probabilities. To illustrate this more graphically, suppose tomorrow's weather were determined by some quantum mechanical, Stern–Gerlach-like process. I would like to know whether it is likely to rain tomorrow. However, when I ask an Everett follower (who knows the state vector and has done the Born rule calculation), all she will tell me in direct response to my question is that `it will rain and it won't rain.' Nevertheless, she is willing tell me whether or not it is rational for me to take an umbrella. I suppose that if she tells me that it would be highly irrational for me to take an umbrella, I can take the hint and deduce that it is very unlikely to rain. However, there does seem something wrong with the fact that she is not allowed to say this directly. In any case, if the conclusion of a mathematically correct argument is that rational decision strategies require the Born rule, then there must be quite a bit lying in the assumptions. The articles by Kent, Albert, and Price do a good job of fleshing out these assumptions and pointing out the weaknesses and flaws in the probability and decision theory discussions within the Everett framework. I hope it is clear from what I have written above that this is an outstanding volume, which should be of great interest to anyone interested in the foundations of quantum theory. Indeed, I feel quite fortunate to be the particular `me' that happens to exist in the same branch of the wavefunction of the universe in which this book was published.
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.