• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Let's not talk about the Big Bang

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
References?!?!?! Your misrepresentation of the Particle in a Box experiment is a classic example. The Particle in a Box is simply a one dimensional approximation model of the limits of one particle constantly moving within limits of impenetrable barriers.

I'm not sure how that is relevant to the discussion. The particle in a box is treated quantum mechanically. It is chosen because it gives easy math to do the analysis. The reason it is easier is those infinite barriers.

If you want finite barriers, the analysis is still possible, but is technically more difficult, involving a separate analysis of the case when the energy of the particle is less than the barrier and a slightly different analysis for when the energy is more. The advantage of this is that it allows a discussion of quantum tunneling and the reflection off of barriers with energy less than the particle (neither of which can happen in a Newtonian framework).

Wait, are you thinking that the particle in a box is analyzed using Newtonian physics (classical physics)? Or do you realize the analysis is fully quantum mecanical in nature?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Concerning emergent space: I also believe that gravity is an entropic emergent gravity from entanglement, but this is motr hypothetical. * will provide references,

Space Emerging from Quantum Mechanics​

70 Comments / arxiv, Science
The other day I was amused to find a quote from Einstein, in 1936, about how hard it would be to quantize gravity: “like an attempt to breathe in empty space.” Eight decades later, I think we can still agree that it’s hard.

So here is a possibility worth considering: rather than quantizing gravity, maybe we should try to gravitize quantum mechanics. Or, more accurately but less evocatively, “find gravity inside quantum mechanics.” Rather than starting with some essentially classical view of gravity and “quantizing” it, we might imagine starting with a quantum view of reality from the start, and find the ordinary three-dimensional space in which we live somehow emerging from quantum information. That’s the project that ChunJun (Charles) Cao, Spyridon (Spiros) Michalakis, and I take a few tentative steps toward in a new paper.

We human beings, even those who have been studying quantum mechanics for a long time, still think in terms of a classical concepts. Positions, momenta, particles, fields, space itself. Quantum mechanics tells a different story. The quantum state of the universe is not a collection of things distributed through space, but something called a wave function. The wave function gives us a way of calculating the outcomes of measurements: whenever we measure an observable quantity like the position or momentum or spin of a particle, the wave function has a value for every possible outcome, and the probability of obtaining that outcome is given by the wave function squared. Indeed, that’s typically how we construct wave functions in practice. Start with some classical-sounding notion like “the position of a particle” or “the amplitude of a field,” and to each possible value we attach a complex number. That complex number, squared, gives us the probability of observing the system with that observed value.

Mathematically, wave functions are elements of a mathematical structure called Hilbert space. That means they are vectors — we can add quantum states together (the origin of superpositions in quantum mechanics) and calculate the angle (“dot product”) between them. (We’re skipping over some technicalities here, especially regarding complex numbers — see e.g. The Theoretical Minimum for more.) The word “space” in “Hilbert space” doesn’t mean the good old three-dimensional space we walk through every day, or even the four-dimensional spacetime of relativity. It’s just math-speak for “a collection of things,” in this case “possible quantum states of the universe.”

read on . . .

Once again, a *hypothesis* that researchers are investigating. NOT accepted science. This is an issue for quantum gravity.

And, as we have repeatedly pointed out, ALL discussion of quantum gravity is speculation and NOT accepted science (as yet).
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Once again, a *hypothesis* that researchers are investigating. NOT accepted science. This is an issue for quantum gravity.

And, as we have repeatedly pointed out, ALL discussion of quantum gravity is speculation and NOT accepted science (as yet).

Once again as references provided the concept of emergent space is accepted science. I DID NOT consider anything posted as totally speculation. I have provided numerous references supported by research and experiments and you have provided ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on the contrary

There is of course, speculation in the science of Physics and Quantum Mechanics, but my references contain actual published research and experiments that support the concept of emerging time and space.

our misrepresentation of the Particle in a Box experiment is a classic example. The Particle in a Box is simply a one dimensional approximation model of the limits of one particle constantly moving within limits of impenetrable barriers..
 
Last edited:

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
False, my references clearly demonstrated that the emergence of time is considered standard acceptance of science. You have failed to cite my references as 'saying otherwise.'

References?!?!?! Your misrepresentation of the Particle in a Box experiment is a classic example. The Particle in a Box is simply a one dimensional approximation model of the limits of one particle constantly moving within limits of impenetrable barriers.

Also your reference concerning the Hydrogen only addressed properties of the electron of the Hydrogen atom. Nothing motr,
Your referances show no such thing. I notice that you've once again totally ignored my questions about your mathematical understanding.

This is actually vital because if you don't understand the mathematics, then you don't really understand the theory and you won't be able to see the that it clearly treats time as continuous. Do you understand calculus at all? If I gave you a really simple problem like this:

ql_0d0668eedbae2b25e17ad3942ccb670a_l3.png


would you know the answer?

The last two paragraphs simply show that you spectacularly missed the point of the examples.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Once again as references provided the concept of emergent space is accepted science.
No, they show that speculation on such a possibility exists and research is being done on that idea. It does NOT show that it is accepted science. In fact, quite the opposite.
I DID NOT consider anything posted as totally speculation. I have provided numerous references supported by research and experiments and you have provided ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on the contrary
And yet, what you posted *is*, in fact, totally speculation. ANYTHING concerning quantum gravity is speculation. The questions regarding 'emergent' time and space are questions concerning quantum gravity. At this point, there is no tested and generally accepted theory of quantum gravity. There are *several* different options, all of which have different details.

Emergent space and time are generally related to quantum loop gravity, which is ONE of the directions of research on quantum gravity. String theory is another. They do not agree with each other in these matters. Also, neither these, nor other theories of quantum gravity are currently testable.

There is of course, speculation in the science of Physics and Quantum Mechanics, but my references contain actual published research and experiments that support the concept of emerging time and space.
The research is speculative. You had one reference that mentioned an experiment concerning emergent time. I tried to track down that reference, but was unable to find anything to back it up.

In fact, in a search on arxiv.org for Page and Wooters, I found two articles. One was from 2017 and the other from 2019. The first deals with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and is pure speculation (since the WDW equation is at this point). The other deals with the AdS/CFT correspondence, which is mathematically important for string theory, but, again, string theory is speculation at this point.

So, the main substantial thing you came up with is clearly a relatively insignificant possibility (as yet) and is not being investigated heavily. It is also relevant only in quantum gravity, which is also pure speculation and NOT 'accepted science' (which requires strong observational support).
our misrepresentation of the Particle in a Box experiment is a classic example. The Particle in a Box is simply a one dimensional approximation model of the limits of one particle constantly moving within limits of impenetrable barriers..

How did ANYONE misrepresent the particle in a box? It is easy to give a full 3D version of this (the math isn't very different). If you want finite barriers, the math is more difficult, but it is still done in most standard textbooks in quantum mechanics.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Once again, a *hypothesis* that researchers are investigating. NOT accepted science. This is an issue for quantum gravity.

And, as we have repeatedly pointed out, ALL discussion of quantum gravity is speculation and NOT accepted science (as yet).

Are you saying hypotheses are not accepted science?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Are you saying hypotheses are not accepted science?

Making hypotheses is an accepted *step* in the scientific process.

But, no, the hypotheses are NOT considered to be 'accepted science' until they are directly tested against observations over the course of time, usually with direct challenges by competing hypotheses.

So, quantum mechanics is accepted science. it has been tested in a wide variety of ways over the last century. And even when the predictions are counter-intuitive (say, with Einstein thinking they shouldn't be correct), they are upheld by actual observations.

The Standard Model of particle physics is *mostly* accepted science. There are still issues that need to be tested concerning the specifics about the Higg's particle and some things concerning neutrinos that need to be resolved.

Quantum gravity (string theory, quantum loop gravity, for example) are NOT accepted science. They are certainly being actively researched and a lot of time and thought has gone into this topic, but no generally accepted and tested results currently exist for this.

The LCDM (cold dark matter with a cosmological constant and an expanding universe) is accepted science. It has been tested in multiple ways over the last century and has withstood repeated challenges.

The inflationary universe models are NOT accepted science. They are very popular and it is likely that something like them is correct, but there are a LOT of tests that need to be made, including the nature of the inflaton and the precise timing of the inflationary time period (there are other issues as well).

Quantum gravity is active before the inflationary stage, so is more speculative than inflation.

Emergent time and space are aspects of certain models of quantum gravity and are PURE speculation at this point.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Making hypotheses is an accepted *step* in the scientific process.

But, no, the hypotheses are NOT considered to be 'accepted science' until they are directly tested against observations over the course of time, usually with direct challenges by competing hypotheses.

So, quantum mechanics is accepted science. it has been tested in a wide variety of ways over the last century. And even when the predictions are counter-intuitive (say, with Einstein thinking they shouldn't be correct), they are upheld by actual observations.

The Standard Model of particle physics is *mostly* accepted science. There are still issues that need to be tested concerning the specifics about the Higg's particle and some things concerning neutrinos that need to be resolved.

Quantum gravity (string theory, quantum loop gravity, for example) are NOT accepted science. They are certainly being actively researched and a lot of time and thought has gone into this topic, but no generally accepted and tested results currently exist for this.

The LCDM (cold dark matter with a cosmological constant and an expanding universe) is accepted science. It has been tested in multiple ways over the last century and has withstood repeated challenges.

The inflationary universe models are NOT accepted science. They are very popular and it is likely that something like them is correct, but there are a LOT of tests that need to be made, including the nature of the inflaton and the precise timing of the inflationary time period (there are other issues as well).

Quantum gravity is active before the inflationary stage, so is more speculative than inflation.

Emergent time and space are aspects of certain models of quantum gravity and are PURE speculation at this point.

Is the abiogenesis hypothesis accepted science?
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Is the abiogenesis hypothesis accepted science?
The abiogenesis hypothesis? Which one? There are several hypotheses about abiogenesis and no, none of them is accepted science because we don't have enough evidence yet.

I mean, it's clear that abiogenesis happened, we have the evidence for that and know about when it happened but we don't know the mechanism.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Are you saying hypotheses are not accepted science?

Only scientific theories are “sciences”, not hypotheses.

A hypothesis is “proposed” scientific theory, or has the “potential” of becoming scientific theory.

Do you understand what the meaning or significance of the words, “potential” or “proposed”?

Hypothesis could only become a new theory, if it pass all 3 requirements of reaching “scientific theory” status:
  1. Falsifiability: if the concepts or ideas are “falsifiable”
  2. Scientific Method: this is where (A) the hypothesis is developed or formulated (eg explanations, predictions, equations, instructions on how one would test the hypothesis), (B) then tested the hypothesis, through observations (eg evidence, experiments & data are observations).
  3. Peer Review: this where independent scientists in specific fields, would check for errors in the hypothesis and if the tests support or refute the hypothesis.
Once it pass all 3 requirements, then it becomes a candidate of being “science” or “scientific theory”.

Yes, a candidate. I did say that hypothesis “could become a new theory”...the emphasis on “could”.

It is possible to have more than 1 hypothesis, doing or investigating the same or similar researches. The one with superior explanations, supported by the most evidence, would have a better chance of becoming a new scientific theory.
 
Last edited:

We Never Know

No Slack
The abiogenesis hypothesis? Which one? There are several hypotheses about abiogenesis and no, none of them is accepted science because we don't have enough evidence yet.

I mean, it's clear that abiogenesis happened, we have the evidence for that and know about when it happened but we don't know the mechanism.

"There are several hypotheses about abiogenesis"

What are they?
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Your referances show no such thing. I notice that you've once again totally ignored my questions about your mathematical understanding.

This is actually vital because if you don't understand the mathematics, then you don't really understand the theory and you won't be able to see the that it clearly treats time as continuous. Do you understand calculus at all? If I gave you a really simple problem like this:

ql_0d0668eedbae2b25e17ad3942ccb670a_l3.png


would you know the answer?

The last two paragraphs simply show that you spectacularly missed the point of the examples.
Silly math questions are not relevant. My math is rusty, but I believe the answer is simply x.

False, my references clearly demonstrated that the emergence of time is considered standard acceptance of science. You have failed to cite my references as 'saying otherwise.'

References?!?!?! Your misrepresentation of the Particle in a Box experiment is a classic example. The Particle in a Box is simply a one dimensional approximation model of the limits of one particle constantly moving within limits of impenetrable barriers.

Also your reference concerning the Hydrogen only addressed properties of the electron of the Hydrogen atom. Nothing more,

Reference is here: Particle in a box - Wikipedia

In quantum mechanics, the particle in a box model (also known as the infinite potential well or the infinite square well) describes a particle free to move in a small space surrounded by impenetrable barriers. The model is mainly used as a hypothetical example to illustrate the differences between classical and quantum systems. In classical systems, for example, a particle trapped inside a large box can move at any speed within the box and it is no more likely to be found at one position than another. However, when the well becomes very narrow (on the scale of a few nanometers), quantum effects become important. The particle may only occupy certain positive energy levels. Likewise, it can never have zero energy, meaning that the particle can never "sit still". Additionally, it is more likely to be found at certain positions than at others, depending on its energy level. The particle may never be detected at certain positions, known as spatial nodes.

The particle in a box model is one of the very few problems in quantum mechanics which can be solved analytically, without approximations. Due to its simplicity, the model allows insight into quantum effects without the need for complicated mathematics. It serves as a simple illustration of how energy quantizations (energy levels), which are found in more complicated quantum systems such as atoms and molecules, come about. It is one of the first quantum mechanics problems taught in undergraduate physics courses, and it is commonly used as an approximation for more complicated quantum systems.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
"There are several hypotheses about abiogenesis"

What are they?

Not the subject of the thread. by the way there are many hypothesis concerning abiogenesis. Some basic biochemistry ad supported by research and discoveries;

If you have any questions concerning abiogenesis start a thread and I will address it.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Not the subject of the thread. by the way there are many hypothesis concerning abiogenesis. Some basic biochemistry ad supported by research and discoveries;

If you have any questions concerning abiogenesis start a thread and I will address it.

I was going to try to help you by pointing out some people accept some hypotheses and discard others.... When none are settled science.

But you are right. Its off topic and I have no horse in this race
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Silly math questions are not relevant.
So mathematics is silly now? Ignorance is bliss? The mathematics is very, very relevant because it is that alone that can fully express the theory. All the wordy pop-science is only an attempt to express what the mathematics says to those who don't understand it.

False, my references clearly demonstrated that the emergence of time is considered standard acceptance of science. You have failed to cite my references as 'saying otherwise.'
This is still untrue, no matter how many times you repeat it. If you weren't afraid of the mathematics, you'd see why all the references to standard QM (all of them, both from you and others) clearly show that time is treated as continuous.

Your other references are clearly hypothetical, and this one:


quite clearly states that time is "smooth and continuous" in standard QM.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
So mathematics is silly now? Ignorance is bliss? The mathematics is very, very relevant because it is that alone that can fully express the theory. All the wordy pop-science is only an attempt to express what the mathematics says to those who don't understand it.

Math is a tool box of ALL sciences and in and of itself it proves nothing but the math theorem or proof independently of science. I believe the references I providedare qualified in the math they use to justiry the research and experiments to support emerging time and science.


This is still untrue, no matter how many times you repeat it. If you weren't afraid of the mathematics, you'd see why all the references to standard QM (all of them, both from you and others) clearly show that time is treated as continuous.

Your other references are clearly hypothetical, and this one:


quite clearly states that time is "smooth and continuous" in standard QM.
Maybe Standard QM 30 years ago. Still no coherent responses

The concepts of emergent time and space are today Standard QM as referenced numerous tines with confirming research and experiments.

You still have not presenting any current sources that remotely question these concepts.

Now the concept of entopic emerging gravity is still indeed hypothetical, but I believe it is the best explanation with no evidence of gravity at the Quantum scale.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
No, they show that speculation on such a possibility exists and research is being done on that idea. It does NOT show that it is accepted science. In fact, quite the opposite.

And yet, what you posted *is*, in fact, totally speculation. ANYTHING concerning quantum gravity is speculation. The questions regarding 'emergent' time and space are questions concerning quantum gravity. At this point, there is no tested and generally accepted theory of quantum gravity. There are *several* different options, all of which have different details.

Emergent space and time are generally related to quantum loop gravity, which is ONE of the directions of research on quantum gravity. String theory is another. They do not agree with each other in these matters. Also, neither these, nor other theories of quantum gravity are currently testable.


The research is speculative. You had one reference that mentioned an experiment concerning emergent time. I tried to track down that reference, but was unable to find anything to back it up.

In fact, in a search on arxiv.org for Page and Wooters, I found two articles. One was from 2017 and the other from 2019. The first deals with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and is pure speculation (since the WDW equation is at this point). The other deals with the AdS/CFT correspondence, which is mathematically important for string theory, but, again, string theory is speculation at this point.

So, the main substantial thing you came up with is clearly a relatively insignificant possibility (as yet) and is not being investigated heavily. It is also relevant only in quantum gravity, which is also pure speculation and NOT 'accepted science' (which requires strong observational support).

The references
I provided were supported by research and experiments and supported by the scientists that published their work.

How did ANYONE misrepresent the particle in a box? It is easy to give a full 3D version of this (the math isn't very different). If you want finite barriers, the math is more difficult, but it is still done in most standard textbooks in quantum mechanics.
The sumple experiment was proposed to demonstrate continuous time at the Quantum particle scale, and it does nothing of the sort.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I'm not sure how that is relevant to the discussion. The particle in a box is treated quantum mechanically. It is chosen because it gives easy math to do the analysis. The reason it is easier is those infinite barriers.

True, but it fails to show continuous time.
If you want finite barriers, the analysis is still possible, but is technically more difficult, involving a separate analysis of the case when the energy of the particle is less than the barrier and a slightly different analysis for when the energy is more. The advantage of this is that it allows a discussion of quantum tunneling and the reflection off of barriers with energy less than the particle (neither of which can happen in a Newtonian framework)

Maybe, but it is an experiment that reflects the nature and limits of a Quantum particle based on Quantum Mechanics, and NOT Newtonian Physics.

Wait, are you thinking that the particle in a box is analyzed using Newtonian physics (classical physics)? Or do you realize the analysis is fully quantum mecanical in nature?
Read my posts. I stated specifically the Particle in a Box deals with the simple one dimensional experiment of Quantum particle properties. Your statement above is a bit garbled and dose not reflect anything what I previously posted..
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The abiogenesis hypothesis? Which one? There are several hypotheses about abiogenesis and no, none of them is accepted science because we don't have enough evidence yet.

I mean, it's clear that abiogenesis happened, we have the evidence for that and know about when it happened but we don't know the mechanism.

I disagree, some, but of course not all, hypothesis of abiogenesis are supported by research and experiments, At present the science of abiogenesis is incomplete, but not without significant evidence, The problem here is NOT in this thread.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
From the very same page:

An obvious question, then, would be: is time divided up into discrete quanta? According to quantum mechanics, the answer appears to be “no”, and time appears to be in fact smooth and continuous (contrary to common belief, not everything in quantum theory is quantized). [my emphasis]​

The clue in the passage you quoted was the "Some quantum physicists....". We are again talking about speculative hypotheses, not standard quantum mechanics as you have claimed. On that, the above quote from the same page flatly contradicts your claim.

I want to clarify a point you make above is that your proposal that, though not in fact, that the transition or difference between Quantum Particle behavior and time to classical physics time is smooth and continuous (contrary to common belief, not everything in quantum theory is quantized).. Regardless Continuous time has NOT been demonstrated to exist at the Quantum particle level. Being smooth and continuous transition is not an issue, because there is indeed a transition. Being quantized does not translate to having continuous time.

The following article describes the decoherence in terms of the difference between the classical and the Quantum world including the issue of time.

Quantum decoherence​

In memory of H. Dieter Zeh (1932–2018)
Author links open overlay panelMaximilian Schlosshauer
Show more
Add to Mendeley
Share
Cite
RedirectingGet rights and content

Abstract​

Quantum decoherence plays a pivotal role in the dynamical description of the quantum-to-classical transition and is the main impediment to the realization of devices for quantum information processing. This paper gives an overview of the theory and experimental observation of the decoherence mechanism. We introduce the essential concepts and the mathematical formalism of decoherence, focusing on the picture of the decoherence process as a continuous monitoring of a quantum system by its environment. We review several classes of decoherence models and discuss the description of the decoherence dynamics in terms of master equations. We survey methods for avoiding and mitigating decoherence and give an overview of several experiments that have studied decoherence processes. We also comment on the role decoherence may play in interpretations of quantum mechanics and in addressing foundational questions.

Introduction​

Hilbert space is a vast and seemingly egalitarian place. If �1 and �2 represent two possible physical states of a quantum system, then quantum mechanics postulates that an arbitrary superposition ��1+��2 constitutes another possible physical state. The question, then, is why most such states, especially for mesoscopic and macroscopic systems, are found to be very difficult to prepare and observe, often prohibitively so. For example, it turns out to be extremely challenging to prepare a macroscopic quantum system in a spatial superposition of two macroscopically separated, narrow wave packets, with each individual wave packet approximately representing the kind of spatial localization familiar from the classical world of our experience. Even if one succeeded in generating such a superposition and confirming its existence – for example, by measuring fringes arising from interference between the wave-packet components – one would find that it becomes very rapidly unobservable. Thus, we arrive at the dynamical problem of the quantum-to-classical transition: Why are certain “nonclassical” quantum states so fragile and easily degraded? The question is of immense importance not only from a fundamental point of view, but also because quantum information processing and quantum technologies crucially depend on our ability to generate, maintain, and manipulate such nonclassical superposition states.

The key insight in addressing the problem of the quantum-to-classical transition was first spelled out almost fifty years ago by Zeh [1], and it gave birth to the theory of quantum decoherence, sometimes also called dynamical decoherence or environment-induced decoherence [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. The insight is that realistic quantum systems are never completely isolated from their environment, and that when a quantum system interacts with its environment, it will in general become rapidly and strongly entangled with a large number of environmental degrees of freedom. This entanglement dramatically influences what we can locally observe upon measuring the system, even when from a classical point of view the influence of the environment on the system (in terms of dissipation, perturbations, noise, etc.) is negligibly small. In particular, quantum interference effects with respect to certain physical quantities (most notably, “classical” quantities such as position) become effectively suppressed, making them prohibitively difficult to observe in most cases of practical interest.

This, in a nutshell, is the process of decoherence [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Stated in general and interpretation-neutral terms, decoherence describes how entangling interactions with the environment influence the statistics of future measurements on the system. Formally, decoherence can be viewed as a dynamical filter on the space of quantum states, singling out those states that, for a given system, can be stably prepared and maintained, while effectively excluding most other states, in particular, nonclassical superposition states of the kind epitomized by Schrödinger’s cat [10]. In this way, decoherence lies at the heart of the quantum-to-classical transition. It ensures consistency between quantum and classical predictions for systems observed to behave classically. It provides a quantitative, dynamical account of the boundary between quantum and classical physics. In any concrete experimental situation, decoherence theory specifies the physical requirements, both qualitatively and quantitatively, for pushing the quantum–classical boundary toward the quantum realm. Decoherence is a genuinely quantum-mechanical effect, to be carefully distinguished from classical dissipation and stochastic fluctuations.

One of the most surprising aspects of the decoherence process is its extreme efficiency, especially for mesoscopic and macroscopic quantum systems. Furthermore, due to the many uncontrollable degrees of freedom of the environment, the dynamically created entanglement between system and environment is usually irreversible for all practical purposes; indeed, this effective irreversibility is a hallmark of decoherence. Increasingly realistic models of decoherence processes have been developed, progressing from toy models to complex models tailored to specific experiments (see Section 4). Advances in experimental techniques have made it possible to observe the gradual action of decoherence in experiments such as cavity QED [11], matter-wave interferometry [12], superconducting systems [13], and ion traps [14], [15] (see Section 6).
The superposition states necessary for quantum information processing are typically also those most susceptible to decoherence. Thus, decoherence is a major barrier to the implementation of devices for quantum information processing such as quantum computers. Qubit systems must be engineered to minimize environmental interactions detrimental to the preparation and longevity of the desired superposition states. At the same time, these systems must remain sufficiently open to allow for their control. Strategies for combatting the adverse effects of decoherence include decoherence avoidance, such as the encoding of information in decoherence-free subspaces (see Section 5.1), and quantum error correction [16], which can undo the decoherence-induced degradation of the superposition state (see Section 5.3). Such strategies will be an integral part of quantum computers. Not only is decoherence relevant to quantum information, but also vice versa. An information-centric view of quantum mechanics proves helpful in conveying the essence of the decoherence process and is also used in recent explorations of the role of the environment as an information channel (see Sections 2.2 Environmental monitoring and information transfer, 2.5 Proliferation of information and quantum Darwinism).

Decoherence is a technical result concerning the dynamics and measurement statistics of open quantum systems. From this view, decoherence merely addresses a consistency problem, by explaining how and when the quantum probability distributions approach the classically expected distributions. Since decoherence follows directly from an application of the quantum formalism to interacting quantum systems, it is not tied to any particular interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it neither supplies such an interpretation nor amounts to a theory that could make predictions beyond those of standard quantum mechanics. However, the bearing decoherence has on the problem of the relation between quantum and classical has been frequently invoked to assess or support various interpretations of quantum mechanics, and the implications of decoherence for the so-called quantum measurement problem have been analyzed extensively (see Section 7). Indeed, historically decoherence theory arose in the context of Zeh’s independent formulation of an Everett-style interpretation [1]; see Ref. [17] for an analysis of the connections between the roots of decoherence and matters of interpretation.

Read on . . .
 
Last edited:
Top