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

Foundations of Physics

Classicality without Decoherence: A Reply to Schlosshauer

L. E. Ballentine

Published Oct 1, 2008• 19 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Schlosshauer has criticized the conclusion of Wiebe and Ballentine (Phys. Rev. A 72:022109, 2005 ) that decoherence is not essential for the emergence of classicality from quantum mechanics. I reply to the issues raised in his critique, which range from the interpretation of quantum mechanics to the criterion for classicality, and conclude that the role of decoherence in these issues is much more restricted than is often claimed.

DOI
10.1007/s10701-008-9242-0

Related papers

Brief reply to "Can gravity account for the emergence of classicality?"

Igor Pikovski, Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa +1 more

In a series of comments, Bonder et al. criticized our work on decoherence due to time dilation [Nature Physics 11, 668-672 (2015)]. First the authors erroneously claimed that our results contradict the equivalence principle, only to "resolve" the alleged conflict in a second note. The resolution - relativity of simultaneity - was already explained in our reply [arXiv:1508.03296], which Bonder et al. now essentially reiterate. The newly raised points were also already extensively clarified in our note. The physical prediction of our work remains valid: systems with internal dynamics decohere if the superposed paths have different proper times.

arXiv:1509.07767•Sep 24, 2015•1 citation

Decoherence and the Emergence of Classicality

Steven J. Weinstein

We consider the claim that decoherence explains the emergence of classicality in quantum systems, and conclude that it cannot. We show that, given a universe composed of a variety of subsystems, some of which are macroscopic and subject to decoherence-inducing interactions, and some of which are microscopic, the macroscopic subsystems do not display any distinctively classical behavior. Therefore, a universe in which macroscopic and microscopic do display distinct behavior must be in a very special, highly nongeneric quantum state.

•Jan 1, 2009•1 citation

Decoherence and Intertheory Relations in Quantum Realism

Nahuel Sznajderhaus

The complex relation between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics is crucial in the philosophy of modern physics, and it cuts across current quantum physics. This paper is divided in two parts. In the first part I will offer a critical analysis of the role that decoherence plays in the account of the quantum-classical limit. In the second part I will mention three ways in which philosophers are engaging with the realist interpretation of quantum mechanics in light of the assessment that the problem of the quantum-classical limit is still open to debate. My main claim is that the problem of the quantum-classical limit is overrated and it receives too much attention for the realist who looks at quantum mechanics. The question that the realist wants to focus on is the crucial interpretation question: what is a quantum system?

Metatheoria – Revista de Filosofía e Historia de la Ciencia•Apr 1, 2019•0 citations

Decoherence and the (non)emergence of classicality

Steven J. Weinstein

We consider the claim that decoherence explains the emergence of classicality in quantum systems, and conclude that it does not. We show that, given a randomly chosen universe composed of a variety of subsystems, some of which are macroscopic and subject to decoherence-inducing interactions, and some of which are microscopic, the macroscopic subsystems will not display any distinctively classical behavior. Therefore, a universe in which macroscopic and microscopic do display distinct behavior must be in a very special, highly nongeneric quantum state.

arXiv:0807.3376•Jul 22, 2008•1 citation

Frequently Asked Questions about Decoherence

Charis Anastopoulos

We give a short, critical review of the issue of decoherence. We establish the most general framework in which decoherence can be discussed, how it can be quantified and how it can be measured. We focus on environment induced decoherence and its degree of usefulness for the interpretation of quantum theory. We finally discuss the emergence of a classical world. An overall emphasis is given in pointing at common fallacies and misconceptions.

arXiv:quant-ph/0011123•Nov 30, 2000•7 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Nonlocality counterfactuals, and quantum mechanics’ ”

William George Unruh

Stapp [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 60, 2595 (1999)] has argued that my criticism of his nonlocality proof is wrong. I point out that counterfactual arguments are fraught with dangers, and that any such claim should use them in a conservative manner. A reanalysis of his claims continues to lead me to the conclusion that the nonlocality of quantum mechanics remains unproven.

Physical Review A•Sep 1, 1999•2 citations
Schlosshauer has criticized the conclusion of Wiebe and Ballentine (Phys. Rev. A 72:022109, 2005 ) that decoherence is not essential for the emergence of classicality from quantum mechanics. I reply to the issues raised in his critique, which range from the interpretation of quantum mechanics to the criterion for classicality, and conclude that the role of decoherence in these issues is much more restricted than is often claimed.
In a series of comments, Bonder et al. criticized our work on decoherence due to time dilation [Nature Physics 11, 668-672 (2015)]. First the authors erroneously claimed that our results contradict the equivalence principle, only to "resolve" the alleged conflict in a second note. The resolution - relativity of simultaneity - was already explained in our reply [arXiv:1508.03296], which Bonder et al. now essentially reiterate. The newly raised points were also already extensively clarified in our note. The physical prediction of our work remains valid: systems with internal dynamics decohere if the superposed paths have different proper times.
We consider the claim that decoherence explains the emergence of classicality in quantum systems, and conclude that it cannot. We show that, given a universe composed of a variety of subsystems, some of which are macroscopic and subject to decoherence-inducing interactions, and some of which are microscopic, the macroscopic subsystems do not display any distinctively classical behavior. Therefore, a universe in which macroscopic and microscopic do display distinct behavior must be in a very special, highly nongeneric quantum state.
The complex relation between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics is crucial in the philosophy of modern physics, and it cuts across current quantum physics. This paper is divided in two parts. In the first part I will offer a critical analysis of the role that decoherence plays in the account of the quantum-classical limit. In the second part I will mention three ways in which philosophers are engaging with the realist interpretation of quantum mechanics in light of the assessment that the problem of the quantum-classical limit is still open to debate. My main claim is that the problem of the quantum-classical limit is overrated and it receives too much attention for the realist who looks at quantum mechanics. The question that the realist wants to focus on is the crucial interpretation question: what is a quantum system?
We consider the claim that decoherence explains the emergence of classicality in quantum systems, and conclude that it does not. We show that, given a randomly chosen universe composed of a variety of subsystems, some of which are macroscopic and subject to decoherence-inducing interactions, and some of which are microscopic, the macroscopic subsystems will not display any distinctively classical behavior. Therefore, a universe in which macroscopic and microscopic do display distinct behavior must be in a very special, highly nongeneric quantum state.