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

Modeling the Observation of a Quantum System as an Interaction

Satish Ramakrishna

Published Nov 16, 2019• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

The act of measurement on a quantum state is supposed to collapse the state into one of several eigenstates of the operator corresponding to the observable being measured. This measurement process is sometimes described as outside standard quantum-mechanical evolution and not calculable from Schr\odinger's equation. There are two general approaches to the study of wave-function collapse: one called the consistent or decoherent histories approach and the other, the environmental decoherence approach, which studies the effect of the environment upon the quantum system, to explain wave-function collapse. In the environmental decoherence approach, one usually studies a Markovian-approximated Master equation to study the time-evolution of reduced density matrix and obtains the long-term dependence of the off-diagonal elements of this matrix. We do not make a Markovian assumption and study a particularly simple and calculable example. We find, the short-time behavior of a collapsing system, at least the one considered in this paper, is not exponential, which is a new result (the long-term behavior is, of course, still exponential). This allows one to connect the Fermi-golden rule quadratic-in-time behavior of a transition probability to the exponential long-time behavior of a collapsing wave-function.

Related papers

A microscopic model of wave-function dephasing and decoherence in the double-slit experiment

Satish Ramakrishna

The act of measurement on a quantum state is supposed to "dephase" (dephasing refers to the phenomenon that the states lose phase coherence; then the phases get randomized in interaction with a bath of other oscillators, which is referred to as "decoherence"), then "decohere" and "collapse" (or more precisely "register" and "reduce") the state into one of several eigenstates of the operator corresponding to the observable being measured. This measurement process is sometimes described as outside standard quantum-mechanical evolution and not calculable from Schrödinger's equation. Progress has, however, been made in studying this problem with two main calculation tools-one uses a time-independent Hamiltonian, while a rather more general approach proving that decoherence occurs under some generic conditions. The two general approaches to the study of wave-function collapse are as follows. The first approach, called the "consistent" or "decoherent"' histories approach, studies microscopic histories that diverge probabilistically and explains collapse as an event in our particular history. The other, referred to as the "environmental decoherence" approach studies the effect of the environment upon the quantum system, to explain wave-function decoherence which is produced by irreversible effects of various sorts. However, as we know, wave-function collapse is not related to thermal connection with the environment, rather, it is inherent to how measurements are performed by macroscopic apparata. In the "environmental decoherence" approach, one studies decoherence using a Markovian-approximated Master equation to study the time-evolution of the reduced density matrix (post dephasing) and obtains the long-time dependence of the off-diagonal elements of this matrix. The calculation in this paper studies the evolution of a quantum system starting with "dephasing" followed by the effects of the environment with some differences from prior analyses. We start from the Schrödinger equation for the state of the system, with a time-dependent Hamiltonian that reflects the actual microscopic interactions that are occurring. Then we systematically solve (exactly) for the time-evolved state, without invoking a Markovian approximation when writing out the effective time-evolution equation, i.e., keeping the evolution unitary until the end. This approach is useful, and it shows that the system wave-function will explicitly "un-collapse" if the measurement apparatus is sufficiently small. However, in the limit of a macroscopic system, this "dephasing" quickly leads to "decoherence"-collapse is a temporary state that will simply take extremely long (of the order of multiple universe lifetimes) to reverse. This has been attempted previously and our calculation is particularly simple and calculable. We make some connections to the work by Linden et al. while doing so. The calculation in this paper has interesting implications for the interpretation of the Wigner's friend experiment, as well as the Mott experiment, which is explored in "Connection to some general theoretical results" and "Recurrence times" (especially the enumerated points in "Recurrence times"). The upshot is that as long as Wigner's friend is macroscopically large (or uses a macroscopically large measuring instrument), no one needs to worry that Wigner would see something different from his friend. Indeed, Wigner's friend does not even need to be conscious during the measurement that she conducts. It also allows one to reasonably interpret some of the more recent thought experiments proposed. In particular, as a result of the mathematical analysis, the short-time behavior of a collapsing system, at least the one considered in this paper, is not exponential. Instead, it is the usual Fermi-golden rule result. The long-term behavior is, of course, still exponential. This is a second novel feature of the paper-we connect the short-term Fermi-golden rule (quadratic-in-time behavior) transition probability to the exponential long-time behavior of a collapsing wave-function in one continuous mathematical formulation.

arXiv:1911.08586•Scientific Reports•Oct 25, 2021•3 citations

Scheme of a Derivation of Collapse from Quantum Dynamics

Roland L. Omnes

Two categories of results regarding quantum measurements are derived in this work and applied to the problem of collapse. The first category is concerned with local and transient features of the entanglement between a macroscopic measuring system and a measured one. These properties result directly from the Schrödinger equation. They cannot be formulated in terms of observables, do not affect the wave functions themselves but express their history in an irreversible way. They carry a specific new kind of local probabilities, which evolve with a finite velocity under nonlinear wave equations. The second category of results extends these local properties to the case of a macroscopic system and its environment. Fluctuations in their interaction are predicted then and generate a specific incoherence in the quantum state of the system. These two kinds of effects act together when a macroscopic measuring system interacts with a measured system and with an environment. Their combination yields then an explicit and effective mechanism of collapse, with a random behavior resulting from random incoherence. Born's basic probability rule for the results of measurements turns out then simply a consequence of quantum dynamics. Some conjectures still enter into the derivation of these effects, which one may recognize to look hardly credible at first sight. They fit however so well together that one proposes a more thorough investigation of their approach as a promising strategy for a self-contained explanation of collapse.

arXiv:1601.01214•Jan 6, 2016•0 citations

Demolishing quantum nondemolition

Christopher R. Monroe

Most physicists are taught that quantum physics has two parts: coherent wave mechanics, in which quantum states evolve according to the reversible Schrödinger wave equation, and the measurement process, in which quantum states irreversibly collapse into a particular state given by the details of the measurement. So when a quantum superposition state such as a|0〉 + b|1〉 is measured with a device that discriminates perfectly between |0〉 and |1〉, the system evolves to the definite state |0〉 or |1〉 with respective probabilities |a|2 and |b|2. Of course, when such an ideal measurement is repeated on the surviving state, the same definite state will appear again and again. Many of us, starting with Albert Einstein, do not like the apparent disconnect between those two rules and may not even subscribe to that conventional “Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum mechanics. It is nevertheless useful because it correctly predicts the results of all experiments performed to date, even though it gives the appearance that the observer necessarily affects the system.In the past two decades, the advent of quantum information science and the ability of experiments to control quantum systems such as single atoms have provided the happy opportunity to once again ponder the disconnect between the fundamental quantum concepts of coherent evolution and measurement. Quantum systems can now be measured with nearly perfect efficiency, meaning that the observed distribution of a measurement is given almost exactly by the probabilities of the underlying superposition, as prescribed by the conventional Copenhagen rules that we are taught.However, a new term, the quantum nondemolition, or QND, has crept into the literature these past decades. Also known as “quantum back-action-evading measurement,” it’s a needlessly confusing term that seems to highlight the mundane aspect of a perfect quantum measurement: If one already knows that the system is in a particular eigenstate of the measuring device, then, obviously, a measurement on the system will produce that eigenstate and leave the system intact. Zero information is gained from the repeated measurement. On the other hand, when the system is not in an eigenstate of the measuring device, the quantum state can be thought to collapse to one of its eigenstates. In that case, information is gained from the system, and the QND measurement most certainly demolishes the system. The concept of QND measurement adds nothing to the usual rules of quantum measurement, regardless of interpretation. But worse, the term confounds students and newcomers who may even be comfortable with the prescriptions of quantum physics.Not all measurements are perfect, of course, and some people may wish to use the QND nomenclature to distinguish the efficiency of a measuring device. However, in the spirit of quantum decoherence theory (see, for example, Wojciech Zurek’s article in PHYSICS TODAY, October 1991, page 36), we can still think of any measurement as a QND measurement plus a possible interaction with a reservoir that can either mask the information obtained from the system or even uncontrollably change the quantum state. The interaction with the reservoir is what can make quantum problems difficult, and it is there that we confront the conceptual difficulties with quantum mechanics and the quantum–classical divide.As a common example of an imperfect measurement, consider photodetection. When a single photon strikes a photomultiplier tube and generates a pulse of photocurrent, the photon is lost forever. Or is it? The photocurrent may interact with a macroscopic system of a bulk conductor, and we may measure the resulting voltage across the conductor. Sure, the photon has disappeared, but if our detector indicates that we had one photon, we can always create another and get the same answer again and again, exactly like a QND measurement. Even if we begin with a coherent superposition of zero and one photon, which is not an eigenstate of our measurement device, that approach works. After the first measurement collapses the state into |0〉 or |1〉, we know which one came out and we either prepare zero or one photon forever after. A real photodetector is not 100% efficient, of course, meaning that a single photon striking the detector could register nothing, or that even in the absence of photons the noisy detector fires anyway. Again we can think of this as a QND measurement in which we have lost information to the environment. In practice, we trace over the environment and then must describe the system in terms of a density matrix containing the probabilities of various outcomes.In every case, the concept of QND measurement is confusing and unnecessary. It wasn’t needed in the formative years of quantum mechanics; and now with quantum information theory, entanglement, and decoherence theory, we still do not need it. Marvelous advances in many experimental quantum systems, such as individual atoms and superconducting circuits, are allowing quantum measurements to be performed almost exactly like in textbooks, as most of us have learned. Why not demolish the term “QND”?© 2011 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Dec 30, 2010•12 citations

Open Quantum System dynamics: Applications to Decoherence and Collapse models

Matteo Carlesso

Quantum mechanics exhibits a broad collection of theoretical results in complete agreement with experimental evidence. Besides showing unquestionable success in the description of isolated systems, it can be also successfully used to characterize non-isolated quantum system. In such a case, phenomena like dissipation, diffusion or decoherence. The theory of open quantum systems provides the framework where such features can be conveniently explained. \nThis thesis is about decoherence and collapse models. Albeit conceptually they are very far from each other, they both belong the framework of open quantum systems. Indeed, they consider systems interacting with an external entity: an environment for decoherence models, a noise for collapse models. Although the external influence has different origin, they can be described by similar dynamical equations and, to confirm or falsify them, the same experimental tests can be performed. \nThe quantum Brownian motion model can be considered the paradigm of decoherence models. We provide an exact and analytic equation for the time evolution of the operators and we show that the corresponding equation for the states is equivalent to well-known results in the literature. Our derivation allows to compute the time evolution of physically relevant quantities in a much easier way than previous formulations. Moreover, we are not bound to compute the time evolution of the state of the system, which in general is a complicated task. The explicit dependence on the initial state appears only in the initial expectation values and not in the dynamics. This makes possible the derivation of expectation values also for nontrivial states. \nAnother decoherence model we considered is a recently proposed model, based on the mass-energy equivalence. The model describes a decoherence source acting universally on every system whose superposition is extended on positions experiencing different gravitational potentials. We studied the conditions under which this mechanism becomes the dominant decoherence effect in typical interferometric experiments. We show that current experiments are off by several orders of magnitude. New ideas are needed to achieve the necessary requirements. \nThe second part of this thesis concerns collapse models, in particular the Continuous Spontaneous Localization (CSL) model. We focus on experimental tests that can probe it. In this respect, experiments can be grouped in two classes: interferometric tests and non-interferometric ones. The first class includes those experiments, which directly create and detect quantum superpositions of the center of mass of massive systems. The strongest bounds on the CSL parameters come from the second class of non-interferometric experiments, which are sensitive to small position displacements and detect CSL-induced diffusion in position. \nWe investigate how we can benefit from the non-interferometric perspective given by optomechanical setups, which have reached high sensitivities as force and position sensors. Three examples are considered.\nFirst, we compute the upper bounds on the CSL parameters, which can be inferred by the gravitational wave detectors LIGO, LISA Pathfinder and AURIGA.\nSecond, we report new results from an experiment based on a high-quality cantilever cooled to millikelvin temperature. High accuracy measurements of the cantilever thermal fluctuations reveal a nonthermal force noise of unknown origin. This excess noise is compatible with the CSL heating predicted by Adler. Several physical mechanisms able to explain the observed noise have been ruled out.\nThird, we propose an unattempted non-interferometric test aimed to investigate the still unexplored region of the CSL parameter space. Our proposal relies on torsional degrees of freedom rather than the usual vibrational ones. We believe that the test that has been put forward here, will eventually probe the unexplored CSL parameter space.

•Feb 6, 2018•0 citations

A model of wave function collapse in a quantum measurement of spin as the Schroedinger equation solution of a system with a simple harmonic oscillator in a bath

Li Hua Yu

We present a set of exact system solutions to a model we developed to study wave function collapse in the quantum spin measurement process. Specifically, we calculated the wave function evolution for a simple harmonic oscillator of spin \frac{1}{2}, with its magnetic moment in interaction with a magnetic field, coupled to an environment that is a bath of harmonic oscillators. The system's time evolution is described by the direct product of two independent Hilbert spaces: one that is defined by an effective Hamiltonian, which represents a damped simple harmonic oscillator with its potential well divided into two, based on the spin and the other that represents the effect of the bath, i.e., the Brownian motion. The initial states of this set of wave functions form an orthonormal basis, defined as the eigenstates of the system. If the system is initially in one of these states, the final result is predetermined, i.e., the measurement is deterministic. If the bath is initially in the ground state,and the wave function is initially a wave packet at the origin, it collapses into one of the two potential wells depending on the initial spin. If the initial spin is a vector in the Bloch sphere not parallel to the magnetic field, the final distribution among the two potential wells is given by the Born rule applied to the initial spin state with the well-known ground state width. Hence, the result is also predetermined. We discuss its implications to the Bell theorem[1]. We end with a summary of the implications for the understanding of the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics.

arXiv:2304.03865•Apr 7, 2023•0 citations

Quantum Interference

Jeffrey Alan Barrett

Abstract Moving to more subtle experiments, we consider how the standard formulation of quantum mechanics predicts and explains interference phenomena. Tracking the conditions under which one observes interference phenomena leads to the notion of quantum decoherence. We see why one must sharply distinguish between collapse phenomena and decoherence phenomena on the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. While collapses explain determinate measurement records, environmental decoherence just produces more complex, entangled states where the physical systems involved lack ordinary physical properties. We characterize the quantum-mechanical wave function as both an element of a Hilbert space and a complex-valued function over a configuration space. We also discuss how the wave function is interpreted in the standard theory.

•Dec 26, 2019•0 citations
The act of measurement on a quantum state is supposed to collapse the state into one of several eigenstates of the operator corresponding to the observable being measured. This measurement process is sometimes described as outside standard quantum-mechanical evolution and not calculable from Schr\odinger's equation. There are two general approaches to the study of wave-function collapse: one called the consistent or decoherent histories approach and the other, the environmental decoherence approach, which studies the effect of the environment upon the quantum system, to explain wave-function collapse. In the environmental decoherence approach, one usually studies a Markovian-approximated Master equation to study the time-evolution of reduced density matrix and obtains the long-term dependence of the off-diagonal elements of this matrix. We do not make a Markovian assumption and study a particularly simple and calculable example. We find, the short-time behavior of a collapsing system, at least the one considered in this paper, is not exponential, which is a new result (the long-term behavior is, of course, still exponential). This allows one to connect the Fermi-golden rule quadratic-in-time behavior of a transition probability to the exponential long-time behavior of a collapsing wave-function.
The act of measurement on a quantum state is supposed to "dephase" (dephasing refers to the phenomenon that the states lose phase coherence; then the phases get randomized in interaction with a bath of other oscillators, which is referred to as "decoherence"), then "decohere" and "collapse" (or more precisely "register" and "reduce") the state into one of several eigenstates of the operator corresponding to the observable being measured. This measurement process is sometimes described as outside standard quantum-mechanical evolution and not calculable from Schrödinger's equation. Progress has, however, been made in studying this problem with two main calculation tools-one uses a time-independent Hamiltonian, while a rather more general approach proving that decoherence occurs under some generic conditions. The two general approaches to the study of wave-function collapse are as follows. The first approach, called the "consistent" or "decoherent"' histories approach, studies microscopic histories that diverge probabilistically and explains collapse as an event in our particular history. The other, referred to as the "environmental decoherence" approach studies the effect of the environment upon the quantum system, to explain wave-function decoherence which is produced by irreversible effects of various sorts. However, as we know, wave-function collapse is not related to thermal connection with the environment, rather, it is inherent to how measurements are performed by macroscopic apparata. In the "environmental decoherence" approach, one studies decoherence using a Markovian-approximated Master equation to study the time-evolution of the reduced density matrix (post dephasing) and obtains the long-time dependence of the off-diagonal elements of this matrix. The calculation in this paper studies the evolution of a quantum system starting with "dephasing" followed by the effects of the environment with some differences from prior analyses. We start from the Schrödinger equation for the state of the system, with a time-dependent Hamiltonian that reflects the actual microscopic interactions that are occurring. Then we systematically solve (exactly) for the time-evolved state, without invoking a Markovian approximation when writing out the effective time-evolution equation, i.e., keeping the evolution unitary until the end. This approach is useful, and it shows that the system wave-function will explicitly "un-collapse" if the measurement apparatus is sufficiently small. However, in the limit of a macroscopic system, this "dephasing" quickly leads to "decoherence"-collapse is a temporary state that will simply take extremely long (of the order of multiple universe lifetimes) to reverse. This has been attempted previously and our calculation is particularly simple and calculable. We make some connections to the work by Linden et al. while doing so. The calculation in this paper has interesting implications for the interpretation of the Wigner's friend experiment, as well as the Mott experiment, which is explored in "Connection to some general theoretical results" and "Recurrence times" (especially the enumerated points in "Recurrence times"). The upshot is that as long as Wigner's friend is macroscopically large (or uses a macroscopically large measuring instrument), no one needs to worry that Wigner would see something different from his friend. Indeed, Wigner's friend does not even need to be conscious during the measurement that she conducts. It also allows one to reasonably interpret some of the more recent thought experiments proposed. In particular, as a result of the mathematical analysis, the short-time behavior of a collapsing system, at least the one considered in this paper, is not exponential. Instead, it is the usual Fermi-golden rule result. The long-term behavior is, of course, still exponential. This is a second novel feature of the paper-we connect the short-term Fermi-golden rule (quadratic-in-time behavior) transition probability to the exponential long-time behavior of a collapsing wave-function in one continuous mathematical formulation.
Two categories of results regarding quantum measurements are derived in this work and applied to the problem of collapse. The first category is concerned with local and transient features of the entanglement between a macroscopic measuring system and a measured one. These properties result directly from the Schrödinger equation. They cannot be formulated in terms of observables, do not affect the wave functions themselves but express their history in an irreversible way. They carry a specific new kind of local probabilities, which evolve with a finite velocity under nonlinear wave equations. The second category of results extends these local properties to the case of a macroscopic system and its environment. Fluctuations in their interaction are predicted then and generate a specific incoherence in the quantum state of the system. These two kinds of effects act together when a macroscopic measuring system interacts with a measured system and with an environment. Their combination yields then an explicit and effective mechanism of collapse, with a random behavior resulting from random incoherence. Born's basic probability rule for the results of measurements turns out then simply a consequence of quantum dynamics. Some conjectures still enter into the derivation of these effects, which one may recognize to look hardly credible at first sight. They fit however so well together that one proposes a more thorough investigation of their approach as a promising strategy for a self-contained explanation of collapse.
Most physicists are taught that quantum physics has two parts: coherent wave mechanics, in which quantum states evolve according to the reversible Schrödinger wave equation, and the measurement process, in which quantum states irreversibly collapse into a particular state given by the details of the measurement. So when a quantum superposition state such as a|0〉 + b|1〉 is measured with a device that discriminates perfectly between |0〉 and |1〉, the system evolves to the definite state |0〉 or |1〉 with respective probabilities |a|2 and |b|2. Of course, when such an ideal measurement is repeated on the surviving state, the same definite state will appear again and again. Many of us, starting with Albert Einstein, do not like the apparent disconnect between those two rules and may not even subscribe to that conventional “Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum mechanics. It is nevertheless useful because it correctly predicts the results of all experiments performed to date, even though it gives the appearance that the observer necessarily affects the system.In the past two decades, the advent of quantum information science and the ability of experiments to control quantum systems such as single atoms have provided the happy opportunity to once again ponder the disconnect between the fundamental quantum concepts of coherent evolution and measurement. Quantum systems can now be measured with nearly perfect efficiency, meaning that the observed distribution of a measurement is given almost exactly by the probabilities of the underlying superposition, as prescribed by the conventional Copenhagen rules that we are taught.However, a new term, the quantum nondemolition, or QND, has crept into the literature these past decades. Also known as “quantum back-action-evading measurement,” it’s a needlessly confusing term that seems to highlight the mundane aspect of a perfect quantum measurement: If one already knows that the system is in a particular eigenstate of the measuring device, then, obviously, a measurement on the system will produce that eigenstate and leave the system intact. Zero information is gained from the repeated measurement. On the other hand, when the system is not in an eigenstate of the measuring device, the quantum state can be thought to collapse to one of its eigenstates. In that case, information is gained from the system, and the QND measurement most certainly demolishes the system. The concept of QND measurement adds nothing to the usual rules of quantum measurement, regardless of interpretation. But worse, the term confounds students and newcomers who may even be comfortable with the prescriptions of quantum physics.Not all measurements are perfect, of course, and some people may wish to use the QND nomenclature to distinguish the efficiency of a measuring device. However, in the spirit of quantum decoherence theory (see, for example, Wojciech Zurek’s article in PHYSICS TODAY, October 1991, page 36), we can still think of any measurement as a QND measurement plus a possible interaction with a reservoir that can either mask the information obtained from the system or even uncontrollably change the quantum state. The interaction with the reservoir is what can make quantum problems difficult, and it is there that we confront the conceptual difficulties with quantum mechanics and the quantum–classical divide.As a common example of an imperfect measurement, consider photodetection. When a single photon strikes a photomultiplier tube and generates a pulse of photocurrent, the photon is lost forever. Or is it? The photocurrent may interact with a macroscopic system of a bulk conductor, and we may measure the resulting voltage across the conductor. Sure, the photon has disappeared, but if our detector indicates that we had one photon, we can always create another and get the same answer again and again, exactly like a QND measurement. Even if we begin with a coherent superposition of zero and one photon, which is not an eigenstate of our measurement device, that approach works. After the first measurement collapses the state into |0〉 or |1〉, we know which one came out and we either prepare zero or one photon forever after. A real photodetector is not 100% efficient, of course, meaning that a single photon striking the detector could register nothing, or that even in the absence of photons the noisy detector fires anyway. Again we can think of this as a QND measurement in which we have lost information to the environment. In practice, we trace over the environment and then must describe the system in terms of a density matrix containing the probabilities of various outcomes.In every case, the concept of QND measurement is confusing and unnecessary. It wasn’t needed in the formative years of quantum mechanics; and now with quantum information theory, entanglement, and decoherence theory, we still do not need it. Marvelous advances in many experimental quantum systems, such as individual atoms and superconducting circuits, are allowing quantum measurements to be performed almost exactly like in textbooks, as most of us have learned. Why not demolish the term “QND”?© 2011 American Institute of Physics.
Quantum mechanics exhibits a broad collection of theoretical results in complete agreement with experimental evidence. Besides showing unquestionable success in the description of isolated systems, it can be also successfully used to characterize non-isolated quantum system. In such a case, phenomena like dissipation, diffusion or decoherence. The theory of open quantum systems provides the framework where such features can be conveniently explained. \nThis thesis is about decoherence and collapse models. Albeit conceptually they are very far from each other, they both belong the framework of open quantum systems. Indeed, they consider systems interacting with an external entity: an environment for decoherence models, a noise for collapse models. Although the external influence has different origin, they can be described by similar dynamical equations and, to confirm or falsify them, the same experimental tests can be performed. \nThe quantum Brownian motion model can be considered the paradigm of decoherence models. We provide an exact and analytic equation for the time evolution of the operators and we show that the corresponding equation for the states is equivalent to well-known results in the literature. Our derivation allows to compute the time evolution of physically relevant quantities in a much easier way than previous formulations. Moreover, we are not bound to compute the time evolution of the state of the system, which in general is a complicated task. The explicit dependence on the initial state appears only in the initial expectation values and not in the dynamics. This makes possible the derivation of expectation values also for nontrivial states. \nAnother decoherence model we considered is a recently proposed model, based on the mass-energy equivalence. The model describes a decoherence source acting universally on every system whose superposition is extended on positions experiencing different gravitational potentials. We studied the conditions under which this mechanism becomes the dominant decoherence effect in typical interferometric experiments. We show that current experiments are off by several orders of magnitude. New ideas are needed to achieve the necessary requirements. \nThe second part of this thesis concerns collapse models, in particular the Continuous Spontaneous Localization (CSL) model. We focus on experimental tests that can probe it. In this respect, experiments can be grouped in two classes: interferometric tests and non-interferometric ones. The first class includes those experiments, which directly create and detect quantum superpositions of the center of mass of massive systems. The strongest bounds on the CSL parameters come from the second class of non-interferometric experiments, which are sensitive to small position displacements and detect CSL-induced diffusion in position. \nWe investigate how we can benefit from the non-interferometric perspective given by optomechanical setups, which have reached high sensitivities as force and position sensors. Three examples are considered.\nFirst, we compute the upper bounds on the CSL parameters, which can be inferred by the gravitational wave detectors LIGO, LISA Pathfinder and AURIGA.\nSecond, we report new results from an experiment based on a high-quality cantilever cooled to millikelvin temperature. High accuracy measurements of the cantilever thermal fluctuations reveal a nonthermal force noise of unknown origin. This excess noise is compatible with the CSL heating predicted by Adler. Several physical mechanisms able to explain the observed noise have been ruled out.\nThird, we propose an unattempted non-interferometric test aimed to investigate the still unexplored region of the CSL parameter space. Our proposal relies on torsional degrees of freedom rather than the usual vibrational ones. We believe that the test that has been put forward here, will eventually probe the unexplored CSL parameter space.
We present a set of exact system solutions to a model we developed to study wave function collapse in the quantum spin measurement process. Specifically, we calculated the wave function evolution for a simple harmonic oscillator of spin \frac{1}{2}, with its magnetic moment in interaction with a magnetic field, coupled to an environment that is a bath of harmonic oscillators. The system's time evolution is described by the direct product of two independent Hilbert spaces: one that is defined by an effective Hamiltonian, which represents a damped simple harmonic oscillator with its potential well divided into two, based on the spin and the other that represents the effect of the bath, i.e., the Brownian motion. The initial states of this set of wave functions form an orthonormal basis, defined as the eigenstates of the system. If the system is initially in one of these states, the final result is predetermined, i.e., the measurement is deterministic. If the bath is initially in the ground state,and the wave function is initially a wave packet at the origin, it collapses into one of the two potential wells depending on the initial spin. If the initial spin is a vector in the Bloch sphere not parallel to the magnetic field, the final distribution among the two potential wells is given by the Born rule applied to the initial spin state with the well-known ground state width. Hence, the result is also predetermined. We discuss its implications to the Bell theorem[1]. We end with a summary of the implications for the understanding of the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Abstract Moving to more subtle experiments, we consider how the standard formulation of quantum mechanics predicts and explains interference phenomena. Tracking the conditions under which one observes interference phenomena leads to the notion of quantum decoherence. We see why one must sharply distinguish between collapse phenomena and decoherence phenomena on the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. While collapses explain determinate measurement records, environmental decoherence just produces more complex, entangled states where the physical systems involved lack ordinary physical properties. We characterize the quantum-mechanical wave function as both an element of a Hilbert space and a complex-valued function over a configuration space. We also discuss how the wave function is interpreted in the standard theory.