Arxiv:Quant-Ph/0105127V3 19 Jun 2003

DECOHERENCE, EINSELECTION, AND THE QUANTUM ORIGINS OF THE CLASSICAL Wojciech Hubert Zurek Theory Division, LANL, Mail Stop B288 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 Decoherence is caused by the interaction with the en- A. The problem: Hilbert space is big 2 vironment which in effect monitors certain observables 1. Copenhagen Interpretation 2 of the system, destroying coherence between the pointer 2. Many Worlds Interpretation 3 B. Decoherence and einselection 3 states corresponding to their eigenvalues. This leads C. The nature of the resolution and the role of envariance4 to environment-induced superselection or einselection, a quantum process associated with selective loss of infor- D. Existential Interpretation and ‘Quantum Darwinism’4 mation. Einselected pointer states are stable. They can retain correlations with the rest of the Universe in spite II. QUANTUM MEASUREMENTS 5 of the environment. Einselection enforces classicality by A. Quantum conditional dynamics 5 imposing an effective ban on the vast majority of the 1. Controlled not and a bit-by-bit measurement 6 Hilbert space, eliminating especially the flagrantly non- 2. Measurements and controlled shifts. 7 local “Schrödinger cat” states. Classical structure of 3. Amplification 7 B. Information transfer in measurements 9 phase space emerges from the quantum Hilbert space in 1. Action per bit 9 the appropriate macroscopic limit: Combination of einse- C. “Collapse” analogue in a classical measurement 9 lection with dynamics leads to the idealizations of a point and of a classical trajectory. In measurements, einselec- III. CHAOS AND LOSS OF CORRESPONDENCE 11 tion replaces quantum entanglement between the appa- A. Loss of the quantum-classical correspondence 11 B. Moyal bracket and Liouville flow 12 ratus and the measured system with the classical corre- C. Symptoms of correspondence loss 13 lation. Only the preferred pointer observable of the ap- 1. Expectation values 13 paratus can store information that has predictive power. 2. Structure saturation 13 When the measured quantum system is microscopic and IV. ENVIRONMENT – INDUCED SUPERSELECTION14 isolated, this restriction on the predictive utility of its correlations with the macroscopic apparatus results in A. Models of einselection 14 the effective “collapse of the wavepacket”. Existential in- 1. Decoherence of a single qubit 15 terpretation implied by einselection regards observers as 2. The classical domain and a quantum halo 16 open quantum systems, distinguished only by their abil- 3. Einselection and controlled shifts 16 B. Einselection as the selective loss of information 17 ity to acquire, store, and process information. Spreading 1. Mutual information and discord 18 of the correlations with the effectively classical pointer C. Decoherence, entanglement, dephasing, and noise 19 states throughout the environment allows one to under- D. Predictability sieve and einselection 20 stand ‘classical reality’ as a property based on the rela- V. EINSELECTION IN PHASE SPACE 21 tively objective existence of the einselected states: They A. Quantum Brownian motion 21 arXiv:quant-ph/0105127v3 19 Jun 2003 can be “found out” without being re-prepared, e.g, by B. Decoherence in quantum Brownian motion 23 intercepting the information already present in the envi- 1. Decoherence timescale 24 ronment. The redundancy of the records of pointer states 2. Phase space view of decoherence 25 in the environment (which can be thought of as their ‘fit- C. Predictability sieve in phase space 26 D. Classical limit in phase space 26 ness’ in the Darwinian sense) is a measure of their clas- 1. Mathematical approach (¯h → 0) 27 sicality. A new symmetry appears in this setting: Envi- 2. Physical approach: The macroscopic limit 27 ronment - assisted invariance or envariance sheds a new 3. Ignorance inspires confidence in classicality 28 light on the nature of ignorance of the state of the system E. Decoherence, chaos, and the Second Law 28 due to quantum correlations with the environment, and 1. Restoration of correspondence 28 2. Entropy production 29 leads to Born’s rules and to the reduced density matri- 3. Quantum predictability horizon 30 ces, ultimately justifying basic principles of the program of decoherence and einselection. VI. EINSELECTION AND MEASUREMENTS 30 A. Objective existence of einselected states 30 B. Measurements and memories 31 C. Axioms of quantum measurement theory 32 1. Observables are Hermitean – axiom (iiia) 32 Contents 2. Eigenvalues as outcomes – axiom (iiib) 33 3. Immediate repeatability, axiom (iv) 33 I. INTRODUCTION 2 4. Probabilities, einselection and records 34 2 D. Probabilities from Envariance 34 A. The problem: Hilbert space is big 1. Envariance 35 2. Born’s rule from envariance 36 3. Relative frequencies from envariance 38 The interpretation problem stems from the vastness of 4. Other approaches to probabilities 39 the Hilbert space, which, by the principle of superposition, admits arbitrary linear combinations of any states VII. ENVIRONMENT AS A WITNESS 40 as a possible quantum state. This law, thoroughly tested A. Quantum Darwinism 40 in the microscopic domain, bears consequences that defy 1. Consensus and algorithmic simplicity 41 2. Action distance 41 classical intuition: It appears to imply that the familiar 3. Redundancy and mutual information 42 classical states should be an exceedingly rare exception. 4. Redundancy ratio rate 43 And, naively, one may guess that superposition principle B. Observers and the Existential Interpretation 43 should always apply literally: Everything is ultimately C. Events, Records, and Histories 44 made out of quantum “stuff”. Therefore, there is no 1. Relatively Objective Past 45 a priori reason for macroscopic objects to have definite 1 VIII. DECOHERENCE IN THE LABORATORY 46 position or momentum. As Einstein noted localization A. Decoherence due to entangling interactions 46 with respect to macrocoordinates is not just independent, B. Simulating decoherence with classical noise 47 but incompatible with quantum theory. How can one then 1. Decoherence, Noise, and Quantum Chaos 48 establish correspondence between the quantum and the C. Analogue of decoherence in a classical system 48 D. Taming decoherence 49 familiar classical reality? 1. Pointer states and noiseless subsystems 49 2. Environment engineering 49 3. Error correction and resilient computing 50 1. Copenhagen Interpretation IX. CONCLUDING REMARKS 51 X. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 52 Bohr’s solution was to draw a border between the quantum and the classical and to keep certain objects – References 52 especially measuring devices and observers – on the classical side (Bohr, 1928; 1949). The principle of superposition was suspended “by decree” in the classical domain. I. INTRODUCTION The exact location of this border was difficult to pinpoint, but measurements “brought to a close” quantum events. The issue of interpretation is as old as quantum the- Indeed, in Bohr’s view the classical domain was more ory. It dates back to the discussions of Niels Bohr, fundamental: Its laws were self-contained (they could be Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, (Bohr, 1928; confirmed from within) and established the framework 1949; Heisenberg, 1927; Schrödinger, 1926; 1935a,b; see necessary to define the quantum. also Jammer, 1974; Wheeler and Zurek, 1983). Perhaps The first breach in the quantum-classical border ap- the most incisive critique of the (then new) theory was peared early: In the famous Bohr – Einstein double-slit due to Albert Einstein, who, searching for inconsisten- debate, quantum Heisenberg uncertainty was invoked by cies, distilled the essence of the conceptual difficulties of Bohr at the macroscopic level to preserve wave-particle quantum mechanics through ingenious “gedankenexper- duality. Indeed, as the ultimate components of classical iments”. We owe him and Bohr clarification of the sig- objects are quantum, Bohr emphasized that the bound- nificance of the quantum indeterminacy in course of the ary must be moveable, so that even the human nervous Solvay congress debates (see Bohr, 1949) and elucidation system could be regarded as quantum provided that suit- of the nature of quantum entanglement (Einstein, Podol- able classical devices to detect its quantum features were sky, and Rosen, 1935; Bohr, 1935, Schrödinger, 1935a,b). available. In the words of John Archibald Wheeler (1978; Issues identified then are still a part of the subject. 1983) who has elucidated Bohr’s position and decisively Within the past two decades the focus of the re- contributed to the revival of interest in these matters, search on the fundamental aspects of quantum theory has “No [quantum] phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is shifted from esoteric and philosophical to more “down to a recorded (observed) phenomenon”. earth” as a result of three developments. To begin with, many of the old gedankenexperiments (such as the EPR “paradox”) became compelling demonstrations of quantum physics. More or less simultaneously the role of de- 1 In a letter dated 1954, Albert Einstein wrote to Max Born “Let coherence begun to be appreciated and einselection was ψ1 and ψ2 be solutions of the same Schrödinger equation..... recognized as key in the emergence of classicality. Last When the system is a macrosystem and when ψ1 and ψ2 are not least, various developments have led to a new view ‘narrow’ with respect to the macrocoordinates, then in by far the of the role of information in physics. This paper reviews greater number of cases this is no longer true for ψ = ψ1

Load more