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

Physical Review A

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Wave-function collapse by measurement and its simulation’ ’’

Mikio Namiki, Saverio Pascazio

Published Sep 1, 1993• 8 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We discuss and clarify the concept of dephasing in the many-Hilbert-space approach to the quantum measurement problem. We argue that the phase randomization provoked by a detecting macroscopic device is responsible for the loss of quantum coherence, and that the ``collapse of the wave function'' is to be regarded as a statistical process for the accumulated distribution over many events. In stressing the fundamental differences between our approach and the Copenhagen interpretation, we counter the objections put forward by Johnston [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 48, 2497 (1993)], whose standpoint is essentially similar to the Copenhagen one.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.48.2499

Related papers

Wave-function collapse by measurement and its simulation

Mikio Namiki, Saverio Pascazio

The many-Hilbert-space approach to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is applied to a typical ``yes-no'' experiment relative to two branch routes corresponding to mutually exclusive propositions. First, we reformulate the notion of wave-function collapse by measurement as a dephasing process between the two branch waves of an interfering particle (from our own point of view as opposed to the conventional Copenhagen interpretation). In this way, the concept of ``wave-function collapse'' is replaced by that of a statistically defined dephasing process. One of the most important points of this paper is the introduction of an order parameter \ensuremath{\epsilon} that quantitatively describes the degree of decoherence. Its value ranges from \ensuremath{\epsilon}=0 (which describes the case in which the two waves are perfectly coherent) to \ensuremath{\epsilon}=1 (which describes the case in which coherence is totally lost); for this reason \ensuremath{\epsilon} is named the ``decoherence parameter.'' In terms of this parameter we formulate a definite criterion to judge whether an instrument works well or not as a measuring apparatus. Then, we study the interaction between a microscopic particle and a macroscopic system (a detector), by modeling the macrosystem with a linear array of complex \ensuremath{\delta} potentials, which undergo several kinds of statistical fluctuations. This leads us, under particular conditions, to the so-called wave-function collapse, which is attained in the limit \ensuremath{\epsilon}=1. We also examine in some detail which kind of elastic and/or inelastic collisions can give the wave-function collapse. Some connections with recent experimental results in neutron interferometry and quantum optics are also stressed.

Physical Review A•Jul 1, 1991•84 citations

Loss of quantum-mechanical coherence in a measurement process

Hiromichi Nakazato, Saverio Pascazio

A quantum-mechanical measurement process is analyzed in terms of a model Hamiltonian describing the interaction between a quantum system (a ``particle'') and a macroscopic apparatus (a ``detector''), which is assumed to be made up of N two-level elementary constituents (``molecules''). The description of the molecule locations introduces an effective fluctuating coupling constant, and this provokes a loss of quantum-mechanical coherence in the limit of large N. It is argued that coherence is lost statistically, as a result of the interaction: The collapse of the wave function is indeed obtained when the same experiment is performed many times, as a result of the microscopic differences among macroscopically identical initial states of the detector. In this way, insight is obtained into the mechanism engendering the loss of coherence suffered by a quantum-mechanical system when interacting with a macroscopic apparatus, and the concept of ``wave-function collapse'' is replaced by that of a statistically defined dephasing process. No classical behavior of the detection system is postulated and the presence of no external observer is required.

Physical Review A•Apr 1, 1992•15 citations

Comment on ‘‘Wave-function collapse by measurement and its simulation’’

James R. Johnston

Namiki and Pascazio [Phys. Rev. A 44, 39 (1991)] propose a model of wave-function collapse associated with the nonfiring of a detector in one of two paths for which a particle is known to be present, and argue that the collapse has the same status as the collapse associated with a measurement involving an actual detection. I question this proposal on the following grounds: (i) it is based on a shift in detection probabilities in the two paths while there is no shift in wave-function amplitudes, and (ii) Namiki and Pascazio use an insufficient measure, loss of interference, as an indicator of collapse.

Physical Review A•Sep 1, 1993•4 citations

On the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Measurement

Michael Luke Walker

We claim that quantum collapse, as per the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, follows naturally from the energetics of measurement. We argue that a realistic device generates an interaction energy that drives a random walk in Hilbert space and generates the probabilistic interpretation of Born.

Universe•Mar 1, 2024•3 citations

Comment on ‘‘Meaning of the wave function’’

Carlo Rovelli C

An experiment that would measure noncommuting quantum-mechanical observables without collapsing the wave function has been recently proposed by Y. Aharonov, J. Anandan, and L. Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 47, 4616 (1993)]. These authors argue that this ``protected measurement'' may give an indication on ``the reality of the wave function.'' We show that the proposed experiment admits a much simpler interpretation: it is an experiment in which the quantum system is (assumed to be) in an eigenstate of the observable being measured. As such, the fact that no collapse occurs is trivial and can be understood without the need of the concept of ``protective'' devices. We argue that the experiment does not provide a way for measuring noncommuting observables without a collapse, does not bear on the issue of the ``reality of the wave function,'' and does not add any particular insight into our understanding (or nonunderstanding) of quantum mechanics.

Physical Review A•Sep 1, 1994•35 citations

Decoherence and Quantum Measurements

Mikio Namiki, Hiromichi Nakazato, Saverio Pascazio

The quantum measurement problem is one of the most fascinating and challenging topics in physics both theoretically and experimentally. It involves deep questions and the use of very sophisticated and elegant techniques. After analyzing the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics and of the Copenhagen interpretation, this book reviews the most important approaches to the measurement problem and rigorously reformulates the "collapse of the wave function" by measurement, as a dephasing process quantitatively characterized by an order parameter (called the decoherence parameter), according to

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Feb 1, 1998•98 citations
We discuss and clarify the concept of dephasing in the many-Hilbert-space approach to the quantum measurement problem. We argue that the phase randomization provoked by a detecting macroscopic device is responsible for the loss of quantum coherence, and that the ``collapse of the wave function'' is to be regarded as a statistical process for the accumulated distribution over many events. In stressing the fundamental differences between our approach and the Copenhagen interpretation, we counter the objections put forward by Johnston [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 48, 2497 (1993)], whose standpoint is essentially similar to the Copenhagen one.
The many-Hilbert-space approach to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is applied to a typical ``yes-no'' experiment relative to two branch routes corresponding to mutually exclusive propositions. First, we reformulate the notion of wave-function collapse by measurement as a dephasing process between the two branch waves of an interfering particle (from our own point of view as opposed to the conventional Copenhagen interpretation). In this way, the concept of ``wave-function collapse'' is replaced by that of a statistically defined dephasing process. One of the most important points of this paper is the introduction of an order parameter \ensuremath{\epsilon} that quantitatively describes the degree of decoherence. Its value ranges from \ensuremath{\epsilon}=0 (which describes the case in which the two waves are perfectly coherent) to \ensuremath{\epsilon}=1 (which describes the case in which coherence is totally lost); for this reason \ensuremath{\epsilon} is named the ``decoherence parameter.'' In terms of this parameter we formulate a definite criterion to judge whether an instrument works well or not as a measuring apparatus. Then, we study the interaction between a microscopic particle and a macroscopic system (a detector), by modeling the macrosystem with a linear array of complex \ensuremath{\delta} potentials, which undergo several kinds of statistical fluctuations. This leads us, under particular conditions, to the so-called wave-function collapse, which is attained in the limit \ensuremath{\epsilon}=1. We also examine in some detail which kind of elastic and/or inelastic collisions can give the wave-function collapse. Some connections with recent experimental results in neutron interferometry and quantum optics are also stressed.
A quantum-mechanical measurement process is analyzed in terms of a model Hamiltonian describing the interaction between a quantum system (a ``particle'') and a macroscopic apparatus (a ``detector''), which is assumed to be made up of N two-level elementary constituents (``molecules''). The description of the molecule locations introduces an effective fluctuating coupling constant, and this provokes a loss of quantum-mechanical coherence in the limit of large N. It is argued that coherence is lost statistically, as a result of the interaction: The collapse of the wave function is indeed obtained when the same experiment is performed many times, as a result of the microscopic differences among macroscopically identical initial states of the detector. In this way, insight is obtained into the mechanism engendering the loss of coherence suffered by a quantum-mechanical system when interacting with a macroscopic apparatus, and the concept of ``wave-function collapse'' is replaced by that of a statistically defined dephasing process. No classical behavior of the detection system is postulated and the presence of no external observer is required.
Namiki and Pascazio [Phys. Rev. A 44, 39 (1991)] propose a model of wave-function collapse associated with the nonfiring of a detector in one of two paths for which a particle is known to be present, and argue that the collapse has the same status as the collapse associated with a measurement involving an actual detection. I question this proposal on the following grounds: (i) it is based on a shift in detection probabilities in the two paths while there is no shift in wave-function amplitudes, and (ii) Namiki and Pascazio use an insufficient measure, loss of interference, as an indicator of collapse.
An experiment that would measure noncommuting quantum-mechanical observables without collapsing the wave function has been recently proposed by Y. Aharonov, J. Anandan, and L. Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 47, 4616 (1993)]. These authors argue that this ``protected measurement'' may give an indication on ``the reality of the wave function.'' We show that the proposed experiment admits a much simpler interpretation: it is an experiment in which the quantum system is (assumed to be) in an eigenstate of the observable being measured. As such, the fact that no collapse occurs is trivial and can be understood without the need of the concept of ``protective'' devices. We argue that the experiment does not provide a way for measuring noncommuting observables without a collapse, does not bear on the issue of the ``reality of the wave function,'' and does not add any particular insight into our understanding (or nonunderstanding) of quantum mechanics.
The quantum measurement problem is one of the most fascinating and challenging topics in physics both theoretically and experimentally. It involves deep questions and the use of very sophisticated and elegant techniques. After analyzing the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics and of the Copenhagen interpretation, this book reviews the most important approaches to the measurement problem and rigorously reformulates the "collapse of the wave function" by measurement, as a dephasing process quantitatively characterized by an order parameter (called the decoherence parameter), according to