Abstract
While it is widely agreed that decoherence will not solve the measurement problem, decoherence has been used to explain the “emergence of classicality” and to eliminate the need for a Copenhagen edict that some systems simply have to be treated as classical via a quantum-classical “cut”. I argue that decoherence still relies on such a cut. Decoherence accounts derive classicality only in virtue of their incompleteness, by omission of part of the entangled system of which the classical-appearing subsystem is a part. I argue that this omission is only justified by implicit classical assumptions that objectify a subsystem and are employed via either a traditional Copenhagen cut or a functionally equivalent imposition of separability on a system in a non-separable state. I argue that decoherence cannot derive classicality without assuming it in some other form, and I provide an analysis of when it is appropriate to make these otherwise implicit classical assumptions by adopting a minimalistic Copenhagen-style approach to measurement. Finally, I argue that, ironically, the conditions for making these assumptions may be better satisfied in standard measurement situations than in cases of environmental monitoring.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bacciagaluppi, G. (2007). The role of decoherence in quantum mechanics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition) http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/qm-decoherence/).
Blanchard P., Giulini D. et al (1999) Decoherence: Theoretical, experimental, and conceptual problems. Springer, New York
Bohm D. (1951) Quantum theory. Prentice-Hall, New York
Bohr N. (1928) The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory. Nature 121(supplement): 580–590
Bohr, N. (1963). The genesis of quantum mechanics. In Essays 1958–1962 (pp. 74–78). New York: Wiley.
Bokulich A. (2004) Open or closed? Dirac, Heisenberg, and the relation between classical and quantum mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35: 377–396
Bub J. (1997) Interpreting the quantum world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Camilleri K. (2009) A history of entanglement: Decoherence and the interpretation problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40: 290–302
Damski, B., Quan, H. T., et al. (2009). Critical dynamics of decoherence. arXiv:0911.5729v1.
d’Espagnat B. (1971) Conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics. Addison Wesley, New York
Dickson M. (2007) Non-relativistic quantum mechanics. In: Butterfield J., Earman J., Gabbay D., Thagard P. R., Woods J. (Eds.), Philosophy of physics (Handbook for the philosophy of science). North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 275–416
Dickson, M., & Dieks, D. (2007). Modal interpretations of quantum mechanics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. (Spring 2009 Edition) http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/qm-modal/).
Dopfer, B. (1998). Zwei Experimente zur Interferenz von Zwei-Photonen Zustanden Ein Heisenbergmikroskop und Pendellosung. Dissertation, Institut fur Experimentalphysik, Innsbruck.
Englert B.-G., Schwinder J. et al (1988) Is spin coherence like humpty-dumpty?. I. Simplified treatment. Foundations of Physics 18: 1045–1056
Guilini D. et al (1996) Decoherence and the appearance of a classical world in quantum theory. Springer, Berlin
Horodecki M., Horodecki R. (1998) Are there basic laws of quantum information processing?. Physics Letters A 244: 473–481
Howard D. (1994) What makes a classical concept classical?. In: Faye J., Folse H. J. (Eds.), Niels Bohr and contemporary philosophy. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 210–230
Jacques V., Wu E. et al (2005) Single-photon wavefront-splitting interference: An illustration of the light quantum in action. European Physical Journal D 35: 561–565
Jacques V., Wu E. et al (2007) Experimental realization of Wheeler’s delayed-choice gedanken Experiment. Science 315: 966–968
Joos E. (1999) Elements of environmental decoherence. In: Blanchard P., Giulini D., Joos E., Kiefer C., Stamatescu I.-O. (Eds.), Decoherence: Theoretical, experimental, and conceptual problems. Springer, New York, pp 1–17
Joos E. (2003) Decoherence through interaction with the environment. In: Joos E., Zeh H. D., Kiefer C. (Eds.), Decoherence and the appearance of a classical world in quantum theory. Springer, Berlin, pp 35–136
Joos, E. (2007). Decoherence: An introduction. Physics and Philosophy. Retrieved Jan 2, 2010 from http://hdl.handle.net/2003/24483..
Kim Y.-H., Yu R. et al (2000) Delayed choice quantum eraser. Physical Review Letters 84: 1–5
Kwiat P., Englert B.-G. (2004) Quantum-erasing the nature of reality, or perhaps, the reality of nature?. In: Barrow J. D., Davies P. C. W., Harper C. L. (Eds.), Science and ultimate reality: Quantum theory, cosmology, and complexity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 306–328
Landsman N. P. (2007) Between classical and quantum. In: Butterfield J., Earman J., Gabbay D., Thagard P. R., Woods J. (Eds.), Philosophy of physics (Handbook for the philosophy of science). North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 417–554
Liu C. (1998) Decoherence and idealization in quantum measurement idealization IX: Idealization. In: Shanks N. E. (Ed.), Contemporary physics. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp 75–98
MacKinnon E. M. (2008) The new reductionism. The Philosophical Forum 39: 439–461
Pessoa O. Jr. (1997) Can the decoherence approach help to solve the measurement problem?. Synthese 113: 323–346
Scarcelli G., Zhou Y. et al (2007) Random delayed-choice quantum eraser via two-photon imaging. European Physical Journal D 44: 167–173
Schlosshauer M. (2004) Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics 76: 1267–1305
Schlosshauer M. (2007) Decoherence and the quantum-to-classical transition. Springer, Berlin
Schwinger J., Scully M. O. et al (1998) Is spin coherence like Humpty-Dumpty? II. General theory. Zeitschrift für Physik D 10: 135–144
Scully M. O., Drühl K. (1982) Quantum eraser: A proposed photon correlation experiment concerning observation and delayed choice in quantum mechanics. Physical Review A 25: 2208–2213
Scully M. O., Englert B.-G. et al (1991) Quantum optical tests of complementarity. Nature 351: 111–116
Scully M. O., Walther H. (1998) An operational analysis of quantum eraser and delayed choice. Foundations of Physics 28: 399–413
Stamp P. C. E. (2006) The decoherence puzzle. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 37: 467–497
Tanona S. (2004a) Idealization and formalism in Bohr’s approach to quantum theory. Philosophy of Science 71: 683–695
Tanona S. (2004b) Uncertainty in Bohr’s response to the Heisenberg microscope. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35: 483–507
Tanona, S. (2010). Theory, coordination, and empirical meaning in modern physics. In M. Domski & M. Dickson (Eds.), Discourse on a New Method. Open Court.
Ulfbeck O., Bohr A. (2001) Genuine fortuitousness. Where did that click come from?. Foundations of Physics 31: 757–774
Wickes, W. C., Alley, C. O., et al. (1983). A ‘delayed-choice’ quantum mechanics experiment. In J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek (Eds.), Quantum theory and measurement (pp. 457–461). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Zanardi P., Lidar D. A. et al (2004) Quantum tensor product structures are observable induced. Physical Review Letters 92: 060402
Zeh H. D. (2006) Roots and fruits of decoherence. Séminaire Poincaré 1: 115–125
Zeh, H. D. (2009). How decoherence can solve the measurement problem. Retrieved Jan 2, 2010 from http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~as3/SolveMeas.html.
Zeilinger A. (1999) Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics. Reviews of Modern Physics 71: S288–S297
Zurek W. H. (1981) Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: Into what mixture does the wave packet collapse?. Physical Review D 24: 1516–1525
Zurek W. H. (1993) Preferred states, predictability, classicality, and the environment-induced decoherence. Progress in Theoretical Physics 89: 281–312
Zurek W. H. (1998) Decoherence, einselection, and the existential interpretation (the rough guide). Philosophical Transactions A A356: 1793–1820
Zurek W. H. (2002) Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical—revisited. Los Alamos Science 27: 2–25
Zurek W. H. (2005) Probabilities from entanglement, Born’s rule from envariance. Physical Review A 71: 052105
Zurek W. H. (2009) Quantum Darwinism. Nature Physics 5: 181–188
Zwolak M., Quan H.T. et al (2009) Quantum Darwinism in a mixed environment. Physical Review Letters 103: 110402
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tanona, S. Decoherence and the Copenhagen cut. Synthese 190, 3625–3649 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0216-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0216-6