Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:35:16.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantum Decoherence and the Approach to Equilibrium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Meir Hemmo  and
Orly Shenker
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We discuss a recent proposal by Albert (1994a; 1994b; 2000, ch. 7) to recover thermodynamics on a purely dynamical basis, using the quantum theory of the collapse of the wave function by Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber (1986). We propose an alternative way to explain thermodynamics within no-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics. Our approach relies on the standard quantum mechanical models of environmental decoherence of open systems (e.g., Joos and Zeh 1985; Zurek and Paz 1994). This paper presents the two approaches and discusses their advantages. The problems faced by both approaches will be discussed in a sequel (Hemmo and Shenker 2003).

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 70 , Issue 2 , April 2003 , pp. 330 - 358
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.)

Footnotes

‡

We thank David Albert, Guido Bacciagaluppi, Jeremy Butterfield, Itamar Pitowsky, Professor Dieter Zeh, and two anonymous referees for very helpful comments.

References

Albert, David (1994a), “The Foundations of Quantum Mechanics and the Approach to Thermodynamic Equilibrium”, The Foundations of Quantum Mechanics and the Approach to Thermodynamic Equilibrium 45:669–677.Google Scholar
Albert, David (1994b), “The Foundations of Quantum Mechanics and the Approach to Thermodynamic Equilibrium”, The Foundations of Quantum Mechanics and the Approach to Thermodynamic Equilibrium 41:191–206.Google Scholar
Albert, David (2000), Time and Chance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Arntzenius, Frank (1998), “Curiouser and Curiouser: A Personal Evaluation of Modal Interpretations”, in Dieks and Vermaas 1998, 337–377.Google Scholar
Bacciagaluppi, Guido (1998), “Bohm-Bell Dynamics in the Modal Interpretation”, in Dieks and Vermaas 1998, 177–211.Google Scholar
Bacciagaluppi, Guido, and Dickson, Michael (1999), “Dynamics for Modal Interpretations”, Dynamics for Modal Interpretations 29:1165–1201Google Scholar
Bell, John (1987), “Are There Quantum Jumps”, in Bell, John, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 201–212.Google Scholar
Brown, Harvey, and Uffink, Jos (2002), “The Origins of Time-Asymmetry in Thermodynamics: The Minus First Law”, The Origins of Time-Asymmetry in Thermodynamics: The Minus First Law 32:525–538.Google Scholar
Bricmont, Jean, et al. (2001), Chance in Physics: Foundations and Perspectives. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bub, Jeffrey (1997), Interpreting the Quantum World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Caldeira, A.O., and Leggett, A.J. (1983), “Path Integral Approach to Quantum Brownian Motion”, Physica 121 A: 587–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushing James, Sheldon Goldstein, and Fine, Arthur (eds.) (1996), Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeWitt, Bryce, and Graham, Neill (eds.) (1973), The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dieks, Dennis, and Vermaas, Pieter (eds.) (1998), The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, The Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John, and Norton, John (1998), “Exorcist XIV: The Wrath of Maxwell’s Demon” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 29:435–471 (Part I); 30:1–40 (Part II).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John, and Redei, Miklos (1996), “Why Ergodic Theory Does Not Explain the Success of Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics”, Why Ergodic Theory Does Not Explain the Success of Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics 47:63–78.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, Gian Carlo (2000), “Beyond Conventional Quantum Mechanics”, in Ellis, John and Amati, Daniele (eds.), Quantum Reflections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 79–116.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, Gian Carlo, Rimini, Alberto, and Weber, Tullio (1986), “Unified Dynamics for Microscopic and Macroscopic Systems”, Unified Dynamics for Microscopic and Macroscopic Systems D 34:470–479.Google ScholarPubMed
Giulini, Domenico, et al. (1996), Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttmann, Yair (1999), The Concept of Probability in Statistical Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healey, Richard, and Hellman, Geoffrey (eds.) (1998), Quantum Measurement: Beyond Paradox, Minnesota Studies in Philosophy of Science, vol. 17. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Hemmo, Meir, and Shenker, Orly (2001), “Can We Explain Thermodynamics by Quantum Decoherence?”, Can We Explain Thermodynamics by Quantum Decoherence? 32:555–568.Google Scholar
Hemmo, Meir, and Shenker, Orly (2003), “Quantum Decoherence and the Approach to Equilibrium II”, under review.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, Leah (2002), “The von Neumann Entropy: A Reply to Shenker”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Jaynes, T. Edwin (1965), “Gibbs vs. Boltzmann Entropies”, Gibbs vs. Boltzmann Entropies 33: 391.Google Scholar
Joos, Eric (1996), “Decoherence through Interaction with the Environment”, in Domenico Giulini et al. 1996, 35–136.Google Scholar
Joos, Eric, and Zeh, H. Dieter (1985), “The Emergence of Classical Properties through Interaction with the Environment”, Zeitschrift für Physik (Z. Phys.) B (Condensed Matter) 59:223–243.Google Scholar
Monteoliva, Diana, and Paz, Juan Pablo (2000), “Decoherence and the Rate of Entropy Production in Chaotic Quantum Systems”, Decoherence and the Rate of Entropy Production in Chaotic Quantum Systems 85 (16): 3373–3376..Google ScholarPubMed
Paz, Juan Pablo, and Zurek, Wojciech (1999), “Environment-Induced Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical”, lectures given at the 72nd Les Houches Summer School on “Coherent Matter Waves”, July-August 1999: quant-ph/0010011.Google Scholar
Pearle, Philip (1997), “Tails and Tales and Stuff and Nonsense”, in Robert S. Cohen, Michael Horne, and John Stachel (eds.), Experimental Metaphysics: Quantum Mechanical Studies for Abner Shimony, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 193–194. Dordrecht: Kluwer 143–156.Google Scholar
Pearle, Philip, Ghirardi, Gian Carlo, and Grassi, Renata (1990), “Relativistic Dynamical Reduction Models: General Framework and Examples”, Relativistic Dynamical Reduction Models: General Framework and Examples 20 (11): 1271–1316..Google Scholar
Ridderbos, Katinka (2002), “The Coarse Graining Approach to Statistical Mechanics: How Blissful Is Our Ignorance?”, The Coarse Graining Approach to Statistical Mechanics: How Blissful Is Our Ignorance? 33:65–77.Google Scholar
Shenker, Orly (1999), “Is—kTr(ρlnρ) the Entropy in Quantum Mechanics?”, Is—kTr(ρlnρ) the Entropy in Quantum Mechanics? 50:33–48.Google Scholar
Sklar, Lawrence (1993), Physics and Chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uffink, Jos (2001), “Bluff Your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics”, Bluff Your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics 32:305–394.Google Scholar
Walker, G.H., and Ford, J. (1969), “Amplitude Instability and Ergodic Behavior for Conservative Nonlinear Oscillator Systems”, Amplitude Instability and Ergodic Behavior for Conservative Nonlinear Oscillator Systems 188:416–432.Google Scholar
Wallace, David (2001), “Implications of Quantum Theory in the Foundations of Statistical Mechanics”, Pittsburgh PhilSci Archive, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/.Google Scholar
Zeh, Dieter H. (1992), The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time, 2nd Edition. Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-3-662-02759-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zurek, Wojciech (1982), “Environment-Induced Superselection Rules”, Environment-Induced Superselection Rules D 26:1862–1880.Google Scholar
Zurek, Wojciech (1993), “Preferred States, Predictability, Classicality, and the Environment-Induced Decoherence”, Preferred States, Predictability, Classicality, and the Environment-Induced Decoherence 89:281–312.Google Scholar
Zurek, Wojciech, Habib, Salman, and Paz, Juan Pablo (1993), “Coherent States via Decoherence”, Coherent States via Decoherence 70:1187–1190.Google ScholarPubMed
Zurek, Wojciech, Habib, Salman, and Paz, Juan Pablo (1994), “Decoherence, Chaos, and the Second Law”, Decoherence, Chaos, and the Second Law 72 (16): 2508–2511..Google ScholarPubMed
Zurek, Wojciech, and Paz, Juan Pablo (1995), “Quantum Chaos: A Decoherent Definition”, Quantum Chaos: A Decoherent Definition D 83:300–308.Google Scholar