The visible reality at a given moment is a result of the modification of the quantum states of the observables of some systems from another level of quantum reality. The projection towards the new reality is done by collapsing some states described by simple wave functions or resulting from quantum superpositions. Collapses are also achieved through measurements of observables, influencing quantum phenomena, bringing some phenomena to another level of reality. These can pass from a higher level of quantum reality to another level, effectively measuring certain observables, but also through discoveries, studies, identifying the dynamics of the supply-demand balance from the "cloud" of the market's equilibrium points, the realization of new products or services, etc. That is, the still invisible objects will become visible by extracting them from the original quantum reality with the help of projectors, through collapses. The quantum state of the systems also changes through decoherence, through the interaction with the surrounding environment. In the following, some directions are suggested for the development of models for unitary treatment of objects from different levels of reality.
The visible reality at a given moment is a result of the modification of the quantum states of the observables of some systems from another level of quantum reality. The projection towards the new reality is done by collapsing some states described by simple wave functions or resulting from quantum superpositions. Collapses are also achieved through measurements of observables, influencing quantum phenomena, bringing some phenomena to another level of reality. These can pass from a higher level of quantum reality to another level, effectively measuring certain observables, but also through discoveries, studies, identifying the dynamics of the supply-demand balance from the "cloud" of the market's equilibrium points, the realization of new products or services, etc. That is, the still invisible objects will become visible by extracting them from the original quantum reality with the help of projectors, through collapses. The quantum state of the systems also changes through decoherence, through the interaction with the surrounding environment. In the following, some directions are suggested for the development of models for unitary treatment of objects from different levels of reality.
Theory and experiment have not fully resolved the apparent dichotomy , which has agonized physics for the past eighty years: on the one hand, the description of microsystems by quantum mechanics and, on the other, the description of macrosystems by classical dynamics or statistical mechanics. Derivations of the time-irreversible Liouville equation for an open quantum system, based on projecting out its environment, have narrowed the gap between the quantum and classical descriptions. Yet our `classical' intuition continues to be confronted by quantum-mechanical results like the Einstein--Podolsky--Rosen paradox that challenges the classical notion of locality, or the quantum Zeno effect which suggests that the isolation of a system is not the only way to preserve its quantum state. There are two key concepts in any discussion of such issues. The first, which is responsible for the most salient nonclassical properties, is entanglement , that is partial or complete correlation or, more generally, inseparability of the elements comprising a quantum ensemble . Even after their interaction has ceased, this inseparability, originating from their past interaction, can affect the state of one element when another element is subject to a nonunitary action, such as its measurement, tracing- out, or thermalization. The second key concept is decoherence of open quantum systems, which is the consequence of their entanglement with their environment, a `meter' or a thermal `reservoir', followed by the tracing-out of the latter. Despite new insights into entanglement and decoherence, there are still no complete, unequivocal answers to the fundamental questions of the transition from quantal to classical behaviour: how do irreversibility and classicality emerge from unitarity as systems and their environments become increasingly complex ? At what stage does system--meter entanglement give rise to a classical readout of the meter? Is there an upper limit on the size or complexity of systems displaying entanglement? Major developments have opened new vistas into controlled entanglement , which is the resource of quantum information processing. However, these developments have mainly focused on ensembles of simple two- and three-level systems that are thoroughly isolated from their environments. Treatments of coherence in quantum computing have mostly assumed that only a single or a few the elements of the quantum ensemble may simultaneously undergo an uncontrolled intervention---a quantum error. Decoherence-control protocols for more general types of errors are still incomplete. In order to resolve the outstanding issues of the quantum--classical transition, and study the control of entanglement and decoherence without the foregoing restrictions, we must venture into the domain of Quantum Complex Systems (QUACS), either consisting of a large number of inseparable elements or having many coupled degrees of freedom. Our conviction is that fundamental understanding and manipulation of entanglement within QUACS or their entanglement with the environment or a meter, call for the creation of a new conceptual framework or paradigm, that would encompass phenomena common to cold atoms in laser fields, large molecules, Josephson junctions, quantum gases and solids, with the view of employing these systems for quantum information processing and computing. Progress within this paradigm should allow us to answer the questions: does entanglement play an essential role in the evolution of large collections of complex systems? What are the size and complexity limits of systems and ensembles still controllable by an external intervention? What are the most appropriate decoherence protection schemes and control algorithms? This special issue addresses the challenge of understanding in depth and manipulating the basic quantum properties of optical, atomic, molecular and condensed-matter QUACS, and large ensembles thereof. In view of the interdisciplinary character of this issue, we find it expedient to look at the presented articles not only according to the physical objects they describe, but also from a unifying standpoint. Several unifying themes may be discerned: memory effects in dephasing and relaxation; protection of quantum information by its distribution throughout the ensemble; control of decoherence and entanglement by time-dependent interventions or measurements; manifestations of entanglement in scattering off statistical ensembles; measurment-induced dynamics. The concerted discussion of the topics outlined above should help us advance the new paradigm that addresses our abilities to diagnose and manipulate the entangled states of complex quantum objects and their robustness against decoherence. These abilities are required for quantum information (QI) applications in matter--wave interferometry in molecular, semiconducting or superconducting systems. On the fundamental level, this book may help establish the notion of dynamical information exchange between quantum systems and chart in detail the route from unitarity to classicality. Further developments within the outlined paradigm should yield novel, advantageous QI processing schemes and high-sensitivity interferometers, owing to decoherence suppression and effective control of many degrees of freedom. In the long run, these strategies may prove to be the first step towards the (hitherto unattempted) use of entanglement in nanotechnology, metrology and chemistry, with potentially remarkable novel applications.
State collapse is a very peculiar process, and I will have a lot more to say about it through this book. However, it is not the only way that quantum states can change. For most of the time, the various quantum systems in nature wander about the universe not being involved in experiments, yet clearly things can and do change. Any self-respecting theory must be capable of describing the ordinary business of a world in which things interact with one another, change, and develop. Part of our dealings in this chapter will be to develop the machinery that quantum theory uses to portray the changes of ordinary development and the, rather more mysterious, changes due to measurement.
Quantum decoherence in all its locus of essence, and expression is the loss of coherence or ordering of the phase angles between the components of a system in a quantum superposition. Detrimental ramifications, and pernicious implications of this dephasing leads to classical or probabilistically additive behavior. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse (the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer. Here it is to be noted that perception is not the reality and what you see is not what you see ;what you do not see is what you do not see; what you see is what you do not see ;and what you do not see is what you see.)… Thus in all its wide ranging manifestations, it justifies the propositional subsistence and corporeal reality that justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation: decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges out of a perceptual field of quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary. Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment in a thermodynamically irreversible way. This prevents transitive states, substantive sub states and determinate orientation different elements in the quantum superposition of the system and environment's wavefunction from interfering with each other. Decoherence has been a subject of active research since the 1980s. Decoherence can be viewed as the principal frontier of diurnal dynamics that results in loss of information from a system into the environment (often modeled as a heat bath), since every system is loosely coupled with the energetic state of its surroundings, with particularistic predicational pronouncements. . Viewed in isolation, the system's dynamics are non-unitary (although the combined system plus environment evolves in a unitary fashion). Thus, the dynamics of the system aphorism and anecdote of the system alone are irreversible. As with any coupling, entanglements are generated in its theme and potentialities between the system and environment, which have the effect of sharing quantum information with—or transferring it to—the surroundings. It is a blatant and flagrant misconception that collapse of wave function is attributable and ascribable to wave function collapse; Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the appearance of the wavefunction collapse, as the quantum nature of the system leaks into the environment. So, the wave function collapse is the figment of the observer’s imagination, product of puerile prognostication and resultant orientationality of his phantasmagoria. One cannot have the apodictic knowledge of reality that is; components of the wavefunction are decoupled from a coherent system, and acquire phases from their immediate surroundings. A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level), but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue. This is a very important pharisaical provenience and plagenetious precocity with all the disembodied resemblances of the system in total form; specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the measurement problem. Rather, decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states observers perceive. Moreover, our observation tells us that this mixture looks like a proper quantum ensemble in a measurement situation, as we observe that measurements lead to the of precisely one state in the ensemble.Decoherence represents a challenge for the practical realization of quantum computers, since they are expected to rely heavily on the undisturbed evolution of quantum coherences. Simply put; they require that coherent states be preserved and that decoherence is managed, in order to actually perform quantum computation. In the following we give a model for decoherence of the environment, coupled quantum states, at determinate and differential levels ,internal resonance in coupled spin systems, and the conflict in the Quantum state operations and decoupling. KEY WORDS Coupled quantum states, Quantum mechanics
A transition would lead the system from its original superposition state to another state, in which the system and the measuring apparatus acquire definite properties. The problem of measurement is approached from the theory of environment-induced decoherence. This theoretical program, based on the study of the effects of the interaction between a quantum system, is considered as an open system and its environment. In turn, even the measurement problem has been reformulated, expanding its scope. As Schlosshauer points out, the conceptual difficulties of quantum measurement can now be concentrated around two cases: The definite outcome, which consists of the traditional question about quantum measurement. The problem of the preferred basis: since there is a theoretical ambiguity in the definition of the observable measured due to the mathematical possibility of a base change in the expression of the system state.
This article offers a systematic interpretation of quantum objects within the ontology of EFOS (Entity That Forming Objects and Subjects). Key concept explained: EFO (Entity Forming Objects) is the hypothetical source of all objects that are not subjects: stars, planets, stones, elementary particles. EFO is not itself an object—it generates them, projects them into reality. Think of it as a projector that creates an image, but the projector itself is not visible on the screen. It is shown that quantum objects — superpositions, entangled states — can be understood as projections of EFOS at the quantum level of description (G = quantum). Superposition is interpreted as a "pre-projection sector" onto the classical register: a state in which an entity has not yet been projected into classical ontology. Wave function collapse is interpreted as a change in the level of description G (quantum → classical), rather than as a physical process. The projection operator P(G) is shown to form a semigroup, not a group — projection is irreversible, and part of the information about the source remains in the kernel of the operator and cannot be recovered from the screen. Decoherence is interpreted as the irreversible loss of information in this kernel. The Armstrong Principle is formulated: the inverse problem of recovering EFO from the projection is fundamentally incorrect. Quantum superpositions are classified as non-objects at G_quantum, but become objects at G_classical, demonstrating the relational nature of ontological categories. A comparison is made with alternative interpretations: Copenhagen, Everett, decoherence, Tarasov, relational quantum mechanics (Rovelli), and QBism. A testing program is proposed through measurable markers (I_PA, K_G, I_ARD, η_info) with numerical thresholds. The article concludes with open questions and an invitation to collaboration. Keywords: EFOS, EFO, quantum object, superposition, collapse, decoherence, projection, G, semigroup, Armstrong Principle, renormalization group, I_PA, K_G.