Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical -- REVISITED · HackerPapers discussions

Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical -- REVISITED — mentioned by japanuspus

Wed, 09 Mar 2022 07:53:41 GMT

As a former quantum physicist who has just decided to go back into quantum computing, this was my take as well: Introductory quantum physics courses may still include wave-function collapse and all that nonsense, but I have not met many physicists who use this as a mental model. To be a bit more specific as to how _decoherence_ solves this, one way to see it is that classicality (i.e. observables having specific values) is an emergent property in the limit of near-infinite degrees of freedom in the same way that e.g. thermodynamic properties (temperature etc.) are emergent properties of…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical -- REVISITED — mentioned by lisper

Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:22:30 GMT

> inflating small fragments HN comments don't lend themselves well to long-form writing. But in this case it wasn't really necessary to go past that one small fragment to see that Motl had not in fact paid attention to the details because he's attacking a straw man. > Your interpretation No, not mine. Nicolas Cerf and Chris Adami's 9http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9605002v2.pdf). And W.H. Zurek's (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306072). And David Mermin's (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609013). And Hugh Everett's (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett/#3, though I do put a slightly…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical -- REVISITED — mentioned by lisper

Wed, 21 Oct 2015 22:45:29 GMT

My paper is based on this one: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9605002v2.pdf I don't know if that exact paper was ever published, but an earlier version was formally published here: C. H. Adami and N. J. Cerf, “Information Theory of Quantum Entanglement and Measurement,” Physica D 120 (1998) 62-81. But this paper turns out to be a rehash of an older result (Zurek, 1991) http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306072 which in turn is more or less a rehash of an even older result (1955) by von Neuman: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.7649v1.pdf (See the references for the original source.) And there is some…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.