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

European Journal of Physics

Modeling decoherence with qubits

Stefan Heusler, Wolfgang Dür

Published Nov 27, 2017• 6 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract Quantum effects like the superposition principle contradict our experience of daily life. Decoherence can be viewed as a possible explanation why we do not observe quantum superposition states in the macroscopic world. In this article, we use the qubit ansatz to discuss decoherence in the simplest possible model system and propose a visualization for the microscopic origin of decoherence, and the emergence of a so-called pointer basis. Finally, we discuss the possibility of ‘macroscopic’ quantum effects.

DOI
10.1088/1361-6404/aa9cb8

Related papers

Measurement in Quantum Mechanics: Decoherence and the Pointer Basis

Anu Venugopalan

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

InTech eBooks•Feb 22, 2012•2 citations

Decoherence, quantum Darwinism, and the generic emergence of our objective classical reality

Paul A. Knott

In this article I aim to provide an intuitive and non-technical introduction to decoherence and quantum Darwinism. Together these theories explain how our classical reality emerges from an underlying quantum mechanical description. Here I focus on two aspects of this and explain, firstly, how decoherence can tell us why we never see macroscopic superpositions, such as dead-and-alive cats, in our classical surroundings; and secondly I describe and then provide a resolution to the so-called preferred basis problem. I then introduce recent results demonstrating that certain aspects of classicality are generic phenomena that emerge from the basic mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. This is in stark contrast to previous work in this field that focused on specific models that cannot realistically be scaled up to explicitly answer questions about the macroscopic world. Finally, I demonstrate how decoherence and quantum Darwinism can shed significant light on the measurement problem, and I discuss the implications for how we should interpret quantum mechanics.

arXiv:1811.09062•Nov 22, 2018•1 citation

Quantum in the Microscopic and Macroscopic Worlds

Mahn-Soo CHOI

It is widely believed that the microscopic, that is, atomic-scale or smaller, world is governed by quantum mechanics while the macroscopic world, where our direct and daily experiences reside, is governed by classical mechanics. But why? Why do we not observe quantum phenomena such as quantum tunneling and quantum superposition in the macroscopic world? Where is the boundary between the microscopic and macroscopic worlds when it comes to the governing physical principles? Macroscopic quantum phenomena were first examined theoretically by A. Leggett in the 1970s. This boldly audacious idea was experimentally demonstrated in a series of groundbreaking works on Josephson junctions by John Clarke, Michel Devoret, and John Martinis in 1985, that have been celebrated by the 2025 Nobel Prize in Physics. The trio’s work spurred the development of various qubit types based on superconducting circuits, ultimately leading to the current advancement of superconducting quantum computers.

Physics and High Technology•Dec 23, 2025•0 citations

Decoherence bypass of macroscopic superpositions in quantum measurement

Dominique Spehner, Fritz Haake

We study a class of quantum measurement models. A microscopic object is entangled with a macroscopic pointer such that a distinct pointer position is tied to each eigenvalue of the measured object observable. Those different pointer positions mutually decohere under the influence of an environment. Overcoming limitations of previous approaches we (i) cope with initial correlations between pointer and environment by considering them initially in a metastable local thermal equilibrium, (ii) allow for object–pointer entanglement and environment-induced decoherence of distinct pointer readouts to proceed simultaneously, such that mixtures of macroscopically distinct object–pointer product states arise without intervening macroscopic superpositions, and (iii) go beyond the Markovian treatment of decoherence.

arXiv:0709.0469•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Feb 5, 2008•5 citations

CAN QUANTUM COMPUTERS REPLACE TRADITIONAL COMPUTERS?

X. N. Yuldashev1, J. M. Toshtemirov2 University of science and Technolohies 1,2, 2-year student1 Karshi State University2

This article analyzes the operating principles of quantum computers, their differences from classical computers, and the challenges of their application in daily life. The paper provides scientific explanations of superposition, quantum entanglement, decoherence, error correction, and practical limitations of quantum computers. Keywords: qubit, superposition, quantum entanglement, decoherence, quantum errors, classical computer,

•Jan 8, 2026•0 citations

Quantum decoherence: Mathematical foundations, physical mechanisms, and experimental tests

Sachin .

Quantum decoherence is widely regarded as the principal dynamical mechanism through which classical behaviour emerges from quantum dynamics. This review presents a technical account of decoherence as an open-system phenomenon, emphasizing its mathematical framework, microscopic models, experimental evidence, and foundational implications. Starting from system-environment interactions and reduced density operators, we introduce completely positive trace-preserving maps and Lindblad master equations. We then discuss pure dephasing, pointer-state selection, quantum Brownian motion, spin-boson dynamics, and collisional decoherence. Experimental evidence from atom and molecular interferometry, superconducting qubits, and mesoscopic platforms is examined. Finally, the review assesses the role of decoherence in the quantum measurement problem. Decoherence explains preferred-basis selection and practical suppression of interference, but it does not independently account for the occurrence of a unique measurement outcome.

International Journal of Physics and Applications•Jul 1, 2025•0 citations
Abstract Quantum effects like the superposition principle contradict our experience of daily life. Decoherence can be viewed as a possible explanation why we do not observe quantum superposition states in the macroscopic world. In this article, we use the qubit ansatz to discuss decoherence in the simplest possible model system and propose a visualization for the microscopic origin of decoherence, and the emergence of a so-called pointer basis. Finally, we discuss the possibility of ‘macroscopic’ quantum effects.
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
In this article I aim to provide an intuitive and non-technical introduction to decoherence and quantum Darwinism. Together these theories explain how our classical reality emerges from an underlying quantum mechanical description. Here I focus on two aspects of this and explain, firstly, how decoherence can tell us why we never see macroscopic superpositions, such as dead-and-alive cats, in our classical surroundings; and secondly I describe and then provide a resolution to the so-called preferred basis problem. I then introduce recent results demonstrating that certain aspects of classicality are generic phenomena that emerge from the basic mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. This is in stark contrast to previous work in this field that focused on specific models that cannot realistically be scaled up to explicitly answer questions about the macroscopic world. Finally, I demonstrate how decoherence and quantum Darwinism can shed significant light on the measurement problem, and I discuss the implications for how we should interpret quantum mechanics.
It is widely believed that the microscopic, that is, atomic-scale or smaller, world is governed by quantum mechanics while the macroscopic world, where our direct and daily experiences reside, is governed by classical mechanics. But why? Why do we not observe quantum phenomena such as quantum tunneling and quantum superposition in the macroscopic world? Where is the boundary between the microscopic and macroscopic worlds when it comes to the governing physical principles? Macroscopic quantum phenomena were first examined theoretically by A. Leggett in the 1970s. This boldly audacious idea was experimentally demonstrated in a series of groundbreaking works on Josephson junctions by John Clarke, Michel Devoret, and John Martinis in 1985, that have been celebrated by the 2025 Nobel Prize in Physics. The trio’s work spurred the development of various qubit types based on superconducting circuits, ultimately leading to the current advancement of superconducting quantum computers.
We study a class of quantum measurement models. A microscopic object is entangled with a macroscopic pointer such that a distinct pointer position is tied to each eigenvalue of the measured object observable. Those different pointer positions mutually decohere under the influence of an environment. Overcoming limitations of previous approaches we (i) cope with initial correlations between pointer and environment by considering them initially in a metastable local thermal equilibrium, (ii) allow for object–pointer entanglement and environment-induced decoherence of distinct pointer readouts to proceed simultaneously, such that mixtures of macroscopically distinct object–pointer product states arise without intervening macroscopic superpositions, and (iii) go beyond the Markovian treatment of decoherence.
Quantum decoherence is widely regarded as the principal dynamical mechanism through which classical behaviour emerges from quantum dynamics. This review presents a technical account of decoherence as an open-system phenomenon, emphasizing its mathematical framework, microscopic models, experimental evidence, and foundational implications. Starting from system-environment interactions and reduced density operators, we introduce completely positive trace-preserving maps and Lindblad master equations. We then discuss pure dephasing, pointer-state selection, quantum Brownian motion, spin-boson dynamics, and collisional decoherence. Experimental evidence from atom and molecular interferometry, superconducting qubits, and mesoscopic platforms is examined. Finally, the review assesses the role of decoherence in the quantum measurement problem. Decoherence explains preferred-basis selection and practical suppression of interference, but it does not independently account for the occurrence of a unique measurement outcome.