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.
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.
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.
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.
The consensus regarding quantum measurements rests on two statements: (i) von Neumann’s standard quantum measurement theory leaves undetermined the basis in which observables are measured, and (ii) the environmental decoherence of the measuring device (the “meter”) unambiguously determines the measuring (“pointer”) basis. The latter statement means that the environment monitors (measures) selected observables of the meter and (indirectly) of the system. Equivalently, a measured quantum state must end up in one of the “pointer states” that persist in the presence of the environment. We find that, unless we restrict ourselves to projective measurements, decoherence does not necessarily determine the pointer basis of the meter. Namely, generalized measurements commonly allow the observer to choose from a multitude of alternative pointer bases that provide the same information on the observables, regardless of decoherence. By contrast, the measured observable does not depend on the pointer basis, whether in the presence or in the absence of decoherence. These results grant further support to our notion of Quantum Lamarckism, whereby the observer’s choices play an indispensable role in quantum mechanics.
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.
One of the main goals of no-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics is to show how results of measurements are objectified, or, in a more poignant terminology, how in a measurement situation facts arise. One needs to show how in their dynamical evolution the measured system and, perhaps more importantly, the measuring apparatus acquire, or at least appear to acquire, the definite properties that are otherwise explained by the collapse of the state. This can be seen as a special case of the problem whether quantum mechanics alone can account for the classical behaviour of macroscopic systems; in particular, the permanent definiteness of at least those properties of macroscopic systems that are directly observable, such as the position of the pointer of a measuring apparatus. In other words, whether quantum mechanics can account for macrofacts of the familiar kind.
Quantum Mechanics represents one of the greatest triumphs of the scientific enterprise of the twentieth century. The stunning success of quantum theory has led to many revolutionary inventions and its extraordinary concepts describe the heart of several important real world applications like transistors and lasers. The theory makes accurate predictions about a wide range of physical phenomena and has historically withstood the tests and scrutiny of every experimental investigation. However, inspite of the fact that quantum theory is widely regarded by the scientific establishment as the fundamental theory of nature and is immensly successful and useful, its conceptual framework makes many predictions which are difficult to comprehend “classically. The theory is, pardoxically, powerful and confusing at the same time. Quantum theory’s unusual predictions originate from its basic formailsm which involves concepts like probability amplitudes and the linear superposition principle(Dirac, 1947). The quantum view appears abstract and counterintuitive and at odds with classical perceptions. Many of the conceptual problems of quantum mechanics are encompassed in what is known as the quantum measurement problem(Peres, 1986; von Neumann, 1932; Wheeler & Zurek, 1983). Conventionally, the measurement paradox is supposedly ’resolved’ by forcing a notion of a sudden collapse of the state vector of the system being measured. However, the nature of this mechanism is at odds with the basic tenets of quantum mechanics and hence may lie outside its realm thus questioning the validity of the theory it self. Closely related with the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is the question of its connection with the emergence of classicality and the elusive boundary between quantum and classical worlds. What is the connection between the ‘classical’ and the ‘quantum’ worlds? Is there a definite relationship? Are classical mechanics and quantum mechanics two mutually exclusive incompatible theories or are they two aspects of the same underlying philosophy? Classical objects are eventually composed of elements of the microworld which can be described quantum mechanically. So, how and where can there be a boundary between the two worlds? In the following section we begin by introducing the quantum measurement problem. In the next section we will discuss attempts to understand and explain away the underlying paradoxes in quantum theory as highlighted in the quantum measurement problem and the question of the quantum-classical connection. From among the various explanations that seek a resolution to the conceptual problems of quantum mechanics, we focus on the ‘environment induced decoherence theory’ an approach that employs the methods developed by several authors to analyse the quantum mechanics of Measurement in Quantum Mechanics: Decoherence and the Pointer Basis