Given the impressive success of environment-induced decoherence (EID), nowadays no interpretation of quantum mechanics can ignore its results. The modal-Hamiltonian interpretation (MHI) has proved to be effective for solving several interpretative problems, but since its actualization rule applies to closed systems, it seems to stand at odds with EID. The purpose of this article is to show that this is not the case: the states einselected by the interaction with the environment according to EID (the elements of the “pointer basis”) are the eigenvectors of an actual-valued observable belonging to the preferred context selected by the MHI.
Given the impressive success of environment-induced decoherence (EID), nowadays no interpretation of quantum mechanics can ignore its results. The modal-Hamiltonian interpretation (MHI) has proved to be effective for solving several interpretative problems, but since its actualization rule applies to closed systems, it seems to stand at odds with EID. The purpose of this article is to show that this is not the case: the states einselected by the interaction with the environment according to EID (the elements of the “pointer basis”) are the eigenvectors of an actual-valued observable belonging to the preferred context selected by the MHI.
According to our modal-Hamiltonian interpretation (MHI) of quantum mechanics, the Hamiltonian of the closed system defines the set of its definite-valued observables. This definition seems to be incompatible with the pointer basis selected by the environment-induced decoherence (EID) of the open system. In this paper we argue that decoherence can be understood from a closed system perspective which (i) shows that the incompatibility between MHI and EID is only apparent, and (ii) solves certain conceptual challenges that the EID program still has to face.
Abstract In the present chapter, the Modal-Hamiltonian Interpretation (MHI) is introduced in terms of interpretative postulates. These postulates distinguish between type-properties and case-properties, and define quantum systems as bundles of properties. The Hamiltonian of the system plays a central role in the definition of systems and subsystems. Moreover, according to the MHI-Actualization Rule, the selection of the preferred context is based on the Hamiltonian. In this chapter, the MHI is introduced in a neutral way, without discussing its advantages over other proposals. The arguments supporting it will become clear in the following chapters, where its physical relevance will be explained (Chapter 5) and it will be applied to solve traditional interpretative challenges (Chapter 6).
Modal interpretations are non-collapse interpretations, where the quantum state of a system describes its possible properties rather than the properties that it actually possesses. Among them, the atomic modal interpretation (AMI) assumes the existence of a special set of disjoint systems that fixes the preferred factorization of the Hilbert space. The aim of this paper is to analyze the relationship between the AMI and our recently presented modal-hamiltonian interpretation (MHI), by showing that the MHI can be viewed as a kind of “atomic” interpretation in two different senses. On the one hand, the MHI provides a precise criterion for the preferred factorization of the Hilbert space into factors representing elemental systems. On the other hand, the MHI identifies the atomic systems that represent elemental particles on the basis of the Galilei group. Finally, we will show that the MHI also introduces a decomposition of the Hilbert space of any elemental system, which determines with precision what observables acquire definite actual values.
Abstract Since Galileo, physics has traditionally adopted a closed-system view, framed in the more generic strategy of describing highly idealized and generally non-existent situations. However, in the field of quantum mechanics—and also in other fields of physics—an open-system view has been gaining strength in recent decades, maybe under the influence of the practical success of the environment-induced decoherence (EID) developments. This trend is at odds with the perspective of the MHI, which openly adopts a closed-system view. The aim of this chapter is to discuss several aspects of quantum mechanics that reveal the difficulties faced by an open-systems approach. On this basis, a case is made for a closed-system approach that leads to a top-down view of quantum mechanics. This top-down view is in agreement with the ontology of properties introduced in Chapter 4, which will be developed in detail in the following Chapters 9, 10, and 11.
The decoherence approach to the measurement problem invokes dissipative interactions between a measuring apparatus and its environment to explain, within the context of ‘pure’ quantum mechanics (QM), why such devices appear to possess definite pointer readings. By ‘pure’ QM, I mean Schrödinger evolution with no wavefunction collapse. Several classes of interpretations of pure QM can rely on decoherence. One class is the ‘modal’ interpretations of van Fraassen (1979), Dieks (1989), Healey (1989), and others. Another class is the relative-state and many-world interpretations. I will argue that decoherence cannot help these interpretations address the general metaphysical challenges raised against them. But decoherence can help pick out a ‘special’ basis that determines which observables receive definite values. I'll explore to what extent decoherence rescues the modal (biorthogonal) basis-selection rule, and Zurek's (environmental interaction) basis-selection rule, from the basis degeneracy problem and the imperfect measurement problem.
Abstract Since the aim of this book is to introduce the Modal-Hamiltonian Interpretation (MHI) in a comprehensive way, this chapter focuses on the family of Modal Interpretations of quantum mechanics, to which the MHI belongs. The purpose is, then, to recall the common features of the Modal Interpretations as well as the differences between them. In particular, the original proposal of van Fraassen is presented, and the Biorthogonal-Decomposition Modal Interpretation, the Spectral-Decomposition Modal Interpretation, the Atomic Modal Interpretation, and the Perspectival Modal Interpretation are described, pointing out their advantages and limitations.