Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:04:02.997Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A General Conceptual Framework for Decoherence in Closed and Open Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Mario Castagnino ,
Roberto Laura  and
Olimpia Lombardi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we argue that the formalisms for decoherence originally devised to deal just with closed or open systems can be subsumed under a general conceptual framework, in such a way that they cooperate in the understanding of the same physical phenomenon. This new perspective dissolves certain conceptual difficulties of the einselection program but, at the same time, shows that the openness of the quantum system is not the essential ingredient for decoherence.

Type
Philosophy of Mathematics and Physics
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 74 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers. Edited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander , December 2007 , pp. 968 - 980
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, Stephen (2004), Quantum Theory as an Emergent Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacciagaluppi, Guido, and Hemmo, Meir (1994), “Making Sense of Approximate Decoherence”, in Hull, David, Forbes, Micky, and Burian, Richard M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 345–354.Google Scholar
Bacciagaluppi, Guido, and Hemmo, Meir (1996), “Modal Interpretations, Decoherence and Measurements”, Modal Interpretations, Decoherence and Measurements 27:239–277.Google Scholar
Bonifacio, Rodolfo, Olivares, Stefano, Tombesi, Paolo, and Vitali, David (2000), “Model-Independent Approach to Nondissipative Decoherence”, Model-Independent Approach to Nondissipative Decoherence 61: 053802.Google Scholar
Bub, Jeffrey (1997), Interpreting the Quantum World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Calzetta, Esteban, Hu, Bei-Lok, and Mazzitelli, Francisco (2001), “Coarse-Grained Effective Action and Renormalization Group Theory in Semiclassical Gravity and Cosmology”, Coarse-Grained Effective Action and Renormalization Group Theory in Semiclassical Gravity and Cosmology 352:459–520.Google Scholar
Casati, Giulio, and Chirikov, Boris (1995a), “Comment on ‘Decoherence, Chaos, and the Second Law’”, Comment on ‘Decoherence, Chaos, and the Second Law’ 75:349–350.Google Scholar
Casati, Giulio, and Chirikov, Boris (1995b), “Quantum Chaos: Unexpected Complexity”, Quantum Chaos: Unexpected Complexity 86:220–237.Google Scholar
Castagnino, Mario (2004), “The Classical-Statistical Limit of Quantum Mechanics”, The Classical-Statistical Limit of Quantum Mechanics 335:511–517.Google Scholar
Castagnino, Mario (2005), “Classical Limit of Non-integrable Systems”, Brazilian Journal of Physics 35:375–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castagnino, Mario (2006), “The Equilibrium Limit of the Casati-Prosen Model”, The Equilibrium Limit of the Casati-Prosen Model 357:97–100.Google Scholar
Castagnino, Mario, and Gadella, Manuel (2006), “The Problem of the Classical Limit of Quantum Mechanics and the Role of Self-Induced Decoherence”, The Problem of the Classical Limit of Quantum Mechanics and the Role of Self-Induced Decoherence 36:920–952.Google Scholar
Castagnino, Mario, Gadella, Manuel, and Lombardi, Olimpia (2005), “Time’s Arrow and Irreversibility in Time-Asymmetric Quantum Mechanics”, Time’s Arrow and Irreversibility in Time-Asymmetric Quantum Mechanics 19:223–243.Google Scholar
Castagnino, Mario, Laura, Roberto, and Lombardi, Olimpia (2006), “Decoherence in Closed and Open Systems”, manuscript. arXiv: quant-ph/0601132.Google Scholar
Castagnino, Mario, and Lombardi, Olimpia (2003), “The Self-Induced Approach to Decoherence in Cosmology”, The Self-Induced Approach to Decoherence in Cosmology 42:1281–1299.Google Scholar
Castagnino, Mario, and Lombardi, Olimpia (2004), “Self-Induced Decoherence: A New Approach”, Self-Induced Decoherence: A New Approach 35:73–107.Google Scholar
Castagnino, Mario, and Lombardi, Olimpia (2005a), “Decoherence Time in Self-Induced Decoherence”, Decoherence Time in Self-Induced Decoherence 72: 012102.Google Scholar
Castagnino, Mario, and Lombardi, Olimpia (2005b), “Self-Induced Decoherence and the Classical Limit of Quantum Mechanics”, Self-Induced Decoherence and the Classical Limit of Quantum Mechanics 72:764–776.Google Scholar
Castagnino, Mario, and Lombardi, Olimpia (2006), “The Classical Limit of Non-integrable Quantum Systems, a Route to Quantum Chaos”, The Classical Limit of Non-integrable Quantum Systems, a Route to Quantum Chaos 28:879–898.Google Scholar
Daneri, A., Loinger, A., and Prosperi, G. M. (1962), “Quantum Theory of Measurement and Ergodicity Conditions”, Quantum Theory of Measurement and Ergodicity Conditions 33:297–319.Google Scholar
d’Espagnat, Bernard (1995), Veiled Reality: An Analysis of Present-Day Quantum Mechanical Concepts. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Diosi, Lajos (1987), “A Universal Master Equation for the Gravitational Violation of Quantum Mechanics”, A Universal Master Equation for the Gravitational Violation of Quantum Mechanics 120:377–381.Google Scholar
Diosi, Lajos (1989), “Models for Universal Reduction of Macroscopic Quantum Fluctuations”, Models for Universal Reduction of Macroscopic Quantum Fluctuations 40:1165–1174.Google ScholarPubMed
Elby, Andrew (1994), “The ‘Decoherence’ Approach to the Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics”, The ‘Decoherence’ Approach to the Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics 1:355–365.Google Scholar
Ford, George, and O’Connell, Robert (2001), “Decoherence without Dissipation”, Decoherence without Dissipation 286:87–90.Google Scholar
Frasca, Marco (2003), “General Theorems on Decoherence in the Thermodynamic Limit”, General Theorems on Decoherence in the Thermodynamic Limit 308:135–139.Google Scholar
Healey, Richard (1995), “Dissipating the Quantum Measurement Problem”, Dissipating the Quantum Measurement Problem 14:55–65.Google Scholar
Joos, Erich, Zeh, Dieter, Kiefer, Carl, Giulini, Domenico, Kupsch, Joachim, and Stamatescu, Ion-Olimpiu (2003), Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, Olimpia (2002), “Determinism, Internalism and Objectivity”, in Atmanspacher, Harald and Bishop, Robert (eds.), Between Chance and Choice: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Determinism. Exeter: Imprint-Academic, 75–87.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Olimpia, and Labarca, Martín (2005), “The Ontological Autonomy of the Chemical World”, The Ontological Autonomy of the Chemical World 7:125–148.Google Scholar
Mackey, Michael (1989), “The Dynamic Origin of Increasing Entropy”, The Dynamic Origin of Increasing Entropy 61:981–1015.Google Scholar
Milburn, Gerard (1991), “Intrinsic Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics”, Intrinsic Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics 44:5401–5406.Google ScholarPubMed
Omnès, Roland (2001), “Decoherence: An Irreversible Process”, Los Alamos National Laboratory, manuscript. arXiv: quant-ph/0106006.Google Scholar
Omnès, Roland (2002), “Decoherence, Irreversibility and the Selection by Decoherence of Quantum States with Definite Probabilities”, Decoherence, Irreversibility and the Selection by Decoherence of Quantum States with Definite Probabilities 65: 052119.Google Scholar
Omnès, Roland (2005), “Results and Problems in Decoherence Theory”, Results and Problems in Decoherence Theory 35:207–210.Google Scholar
Paz, Juan Pablo, and Zurek, Wojciech (2002), “Environment-Induced Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical”, in Heiss, Dieter (ed.), Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 587. Heidelberg: Springer, 77–148.Google Scholar
Pessoa, Osvaldo Jr. (1998), “Can the Decoherence Approach Help to Solve the Measurement Problem?”, Can the Decoherence Approach Help to Solve the Measurement Problem? 113:323–346.Google Scholar
Schlosshauer, Maximilian (2005), “The ‘Self-Induced Decoherence’ Approach: Strong Limitations on Its Validity in a Simple Bath Model and on Its General Physical Relevance’’, Physical Review A 72: 012109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sicardi Schifino, A. C., Abal, G., Siri, R., Romanelli, A., and Donangelo, R. (2003), “Intrinsic Decoherence and Irreversibility in the Quasiperiodic Kicked Rotor”, manuscript. arXiv: quant-ph/0308162.Google Scholar
Stamp, Philip (1995), “Time, Decoherence and ‘Reversible’ Measurements”, in Savitt, S. (ed.), Time’s Arrow Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 107–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hove, Leon (1957), “The Approach to Equilibrium in Quantum Statistics: A Perturbation Treatment to General Order”, The Approach to Equilibrium in Quantum Statistics: A Perturbation Treatment to General Order 23:441–480.Google Scholar
van Hove, Leon (1959), “The Ergodic Behaviour of Quantum Many-Body Systems”, The Ergodic Behaviour of Quantum Many-Body Systems 25:268–276.Google Scholar
van Kampen, Nicolaas (1954), “Quantum Statistics of Irreversible Processes”, Quantum Statistics of Irreversible Processes 20:603–622.Google Scholar
Zeh, Dieter (1970), “On the Interpretation of Measurement in Quantum Theory”, On the Interpretation of Measurement in Quantum Theory 1:69–76.Google Scholar
Zeh, Dieter (1971), “On the Irreversibility of Time and Observation in Quantum Theory”, in d’Espagnat, Bernard (ed.), Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Academic Press, 263–273.Google Scholar
Zeh, Dieter (1973), “Toward a Quantum Theory of Observation”, Toward a Quantum Theory of Observation 3:109–116.Google Scholar
Zurek, Wojciech (1981), “Pointer Basis of Quantum Apparatus: Into What Mixtures Does the Wave Packet Collapse?”, Pointer Basis of Quantum Apparatus: Into What Mixtures Does the Wave Packet Collapse? 24:1516–1525.Google Scholar
Zurek, Wojciech (1982), “Environment-Induced Superselection Rules”, Environment-Induced Superselection Rules 26:1862–1880.Google Scholar
Zurek, Wojciech (1991), “Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical”, Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical 44:36–44.Google Scholar
Zurek, Wojciech (1994), “Preferred Sets of States, Predictability, Classicality and EnvironmentInduced Decoherence”, in Halliwell, Jonathan J., Pérez-Mercader, Juan, and Zurek, Wojciech H. (eds.), Physical Origins of Time Asymmetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 175–212.Google Scholar
Zurek, Wojciech (1998), “Decoherence, Einselection, and the Existential Interpretation”, manuscript. arXiv: quant-ph/9805065.Google Scholar
Zurek, Wojciech (2003), “Decoherence, Einselection, and the Quantum Origins of the Classical”, Decoherence, Einselection, and the Quantum Origins of the Classical 75:715–776.Google Scholar