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

arXiv:quant-ph/0409178 · Physical Review A

Reply to “Comment on ‘Quantum measurement and decoherence’ ”

G. W. Ford, Robert F. O’Connell

Published Aug 17, 2004• 4 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

While agreeing with our exact expression for the time dependence of the motion of a free particle in an initial superposition state, corresponding to two identical Gaussians separated by a distance $d$, at temperature $T$, Gobert et al., in the preceding Comment [Phys. Rev. A70, 026101 (2004)], dispute our conclusions on decoherence time scales. However, the parameters they used to generate their figures are outside the regime of validity of our interpretation of the results and, moreover, are not of physical interest in that they correspond to $T\ensuremath{\approx}0$. The point is that in their figures they have chosen the thermal de Broglie wavelength ${\ensuremath{\lambda}}_{th}=\ensuremath{\hbar}\sqrt{mkT}$ to be equal to slit spacing $d$, whereas we have clearly stated [in the paragraph preceding Eq. (21) of our paper] that decoherence occurs and that our expression for the decoherence time applies only in the limit where $d$ is large compared not only with the slit width $\ensuremath{\sigma}$ but also with the thermal de Broglie wavelength, $d⪢{\ensuremath{\lambda}}_{th},\ensuremath{\sigma}$.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.70.026102

Related papers

Comment on “Biphoton double-slit experiment”

Xavier Oriols

In a recent paper [Phys. Rev. A 68, 033803 (2003)] experimental results on a double-slit configuration with two entangled bosons are presented. The authors argue that their data contradicts the de Broglie--Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics. In this Comment we show that this conclusion is incorrect.

Physical Review A•Jan 31, 2005•10 citations

Comment on “Quantum measurement and decoherence”

Dominique Gobert, Jan von Delft, Vinay Ambegaokar

Ford, Lewis, and O'Connell [Phys. Rev. A 64, 032101 (2001)] have recently discussed a thought experiment in which a Brownian particle is subjected to a double-slit measurement . Analyzing the decay of the emerging interference pattern, they derive a decoherence rate that is much faster than previous results and even persists in the limit of vanishing dissipation. This result is based on the definition of a certain attenuation factor, which they analyze for short times. In this note, we point out that this attenuation factor captures the physics of decoherence only for times larger than a certain time ${t}_{\mathrm{mix}}$, which is the time it takes until the two emerging wave packets begin to overlap. Therefore, the strategy of Ford et al. of extracting the decoherence time from the regime $t<{t}_{\mathrm{mix}}$ is in our opinion not meaningful. If one analyzes the attenuation factor for $t>{t}_{\mathrm{mix}}$, one recovers familiar behavior for the decoherence time; in particular, no decoherence is seen in the absence of dissipation. We confirm the latter conclusion by calculating the off-diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix.

arXiv:quant-ph/0306019•Physical Review A•Aug 17, 2004•8 citations

Decoherence in Phase Space

Mitsuko Murakami, G. W. Ford, Robert F. O’Connell

Much of the discussion of decoherence has been in terms of a particle moving in one dimension that is placed in an initial superposition state (a Schrödinger "cat" state) corresponding to two widely separated wave packets. Decoherence refers to the destruction of the interference term in the quantum probability function. Here, we stress that a quantitative measure of decoherence depends not only on the specific system being studied but also on whether one is considering coordinate, momentum or phase space. We show that this is best illustrated by considering Wigner phase space where the measure is again different. Analytic results for the time development of the Wigner distribution function for a two-Gaussian Schrodinger "cat" state have been obtained in the high-temperature limit (where decoherence can occur even for negligible dissipation) which facilitates a simple demonstration of our remarks.

arXiv:quant-ph/0301050•Civil War Book Review•Jan 13, 2003•12 citations

Reply to Comment on Experimental realization of a first test of de Broglie–Bohm theory

G. Brida, E. Cagliero, Marco Genovese +1 more

We reply to Akhavan and Golshani's comment on our double-slit experiment addressed to test standard quantum mechanics versus de Broglie–Bohm theory. We show that their results, albeit representing a relevant contribution to the discussion on the realizability of a test of de Broglie–Bohm theory, do not allow us to draw any conclusion about our experiment since their wavefunction does not describe well the photon states produced by our set-up. On the other hand, we give arguments of why our experiment can be considered a good realization of the theoretical proposal of Ghose (1999 Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics ed S M Roy), Ghose et al (2001 Phys. Lett. A 290 205) and Golshani and Akhavan ( 2001 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34 5259 ).

Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics•Sep 15, 2004•6 citations

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Why quantum mechanics cannot be formulated as a Markov process’’’

Daniel T. Gillespie

In reply to the preceding Comment on an article by D. T. Gillespie [Phys. Rev. A 49, 1607 (1994)], it is emphasized that the most plausible interpretation of the singly conditioned probability function implies that the evolution of the two-state quantum system being considered cannot be characterized as a Markov process on those states over any time interval. And it is pointed out that an alternative interpretation that is offered in the Comment appears to be in conflict with quantum mechanics.

Physical Review A•Aug 1, 1996•5 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Association between quantum paradoxes based on weak values and a realistic interpretation of quantum measurements' ”

Alice M. Aredes, Pablo L. Saldanha

Seoane et al. [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 111, 066201 (2025)] criticized our work [Phys. Rev. A 109, 022238 (2024)], saying that our argument that realistic interpretations of weak values lead to inconsistencies is not valid for all weak values and quantum theories. This is true. We never intended that the arguments we presented would be valid for all weak values. We believe it is clearly stated in our work that we were dealing only with the weak values related to the quantum paradoxes cited in our paper. Seoane et al. also said in their Comment that the ``general argument'' we present in our paper is formally incorrect. However, this criticism is related to the interpretation they give to the expression ``equivalent,'' which is different from the one we use. In this sense, the presented criticisms are a matter of semantics, not of physics.

Physical Review A•Jun 2, 2025•1 citation
While agreeing with our exact expression for the time dependence of the motion of a free particle in an initial superposition state, corresponding to two identical Gaussians separated by a distance ddd, at temperature TTT, Gobert et al., in the preceding Comment [Phys. Rev. A70, 026101 (2004)], dispute our conclusions on decoherence time scales. However, the parameters they used to generate their figures are outside the regime of validity of our interpretation of the results and, moreover, are not of physical interest in that they correspond to T\ensuremath≈0T\ensuremath{\approx}0T\ensuremath≈0. The point is that in their figures they have chosen the thermal de Broglie wavelength \ensuremathλth=\ensuremathℏmkT{\ensuremath{\lambda}}_{th}=\ensuremath{\hbar}\sqrt{mkT}\ensuremathλth​=\ensuremathℏmkT​ to be equal to slit spacing ddd, whereas we have clearly stated [in the paragraph preceding Eq. (21) of our paper] that decoherence occurs and that our expression for the decoherence time applies only in the limit where ddd is large compared not only with the slit width \ensuremathσ\ensuremath{\sigma}\ensuremathσ but also with the thermal de Broglie wavelength, d⪢\ensuremathλth,\ensuremathσd⪢{\ensuremath{\lambda}}_{th},\ensuremath{\sigma}d⪢\ensuremathλth​,\ensuremathσ.
Ford, Lewis, and O'Connell [Phys. Rev. A 64, 032101 (2001)] have recently discussed a thought experiment in which a Brownian particle is subjected to a double-slit measurement . Analyzing the decay of the emerging interference pattern, they derive a decoherence rate that is much faster than previous results and even persists in the limit of vanishing dissipation. This result is based on the definition of a certain attenuation factor, which they analyze for short times. In this note, we point out that this attenuation factor captures the physics of decoherence only for times larger than a certain time tmix{t}_{\mathrm{mix}}tmix​, which is the time it takes until the two emerging wave packets begin to overlap. Therefore, the strategy of Ford et al. of extracting the decoherence time from the regime t<tmixt<{t}_{\mathrm{mix}}t<tmix​ is in our opinion not meaningful. If one analyzes the attenuation factor for t>tmixt>{t}_{\mathrm{mix}}t>tmix​, one recovers familiar behavior for the decoherence time; in particular, no decoherence is seen in the absence of dissipation. We confirm the latter conclusion by calculating the off-diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix.
Much of the discussion of decoherence has been in terms of a particle moving in one dimension that is placed in an initial superposition state (a Schrödinger "cat" state) corresponding to two widely separated wave packets. Decoherence refers to the destruction of the interference term in the quantum probability function. Here, we stress that a quantitative measure of decoherence depends not only on the specific system being studied but also on whether one is considering coordinate, momentum or phase space. We show that this is best illustrated by considering Wigner phase space where the measure is again different. Analytic results for the time development of the Wigner distribution function for a two-Gaussian Schrodinger "cat" state have been obtained in the high-temperature limit (where decoherence can occur even for negligible dissipation) which facilitates a simple demonstration of our remarks.
We reply to Akhavan and Golshani's comment on our double-slit experiment addressed to test standard quantum mechanics versus de Broglie–Bohm theory. We show that their results, albeit representing a relevant contribution to the discussion on the realizability of a test of de Broglie–Bohm theory, do not allow us to draw any conclusion about our experiment since their wavefunction does not describe well the photon states produced by our set-up. On the other hand, we give arguments of why our experiment can be considered a good realization of the theoretical proposal of Ghose (1999 Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics ed S M Roy), Ghose et al (2001 Phys. Lett. A 290 205) and Golshani and Akhavan ( 2001 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34 5259 ).
Seoane et al. [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 111, 066201 (2025)] criticized our work [Phys. Rev. A 109, 022238 (2024)], saying that our argument that realistic interpretations of weak values lead to inconsistencies is not valid for all weak values and quantum theories. This is true. We never intended that the arguments we presented would be valid for all weak values. We believe it is clearly stated in our work that we were dealing only with the weak values related to the quantum paradoxes cited in our paper. Seoane et al. also said in their Comment that the ``general argument'' we present in our paper is formally incorrect. However, this criticism is related to the interpretation they give to the expression ``equivalent,'' which is different from the one we use. In this sense, the presented criticisms are a matter of semantics, not of physics.