Interpretation neutrality in the classical domain of quantum theory |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Institute of Geography, University of Cologne, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, 50923, Cologne (Köln), Germany;2. Department for Geology, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand;1. Department of Humanities and Philosophy, University of Florence, Italy;2. Unit for HPS, University of Sydney, Australia;1. College of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum, Beijing, China;2. State Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources and Prospecting, China University of Petroleum, Beijing, China;3. Department of Chemistry, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States;1. Geology and Mineralogy, Department of Natural Sciences, Åbo Akademi University, Finland;2. Art History, Faculty of Art, Åbo Akademi University, Finland;3. Diocese of Lund, Church of Sweden, Sweden;5. Accelerator Laboratory, Turku PET Centre, Åbo Akademi University, Finland;1. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver Federal Center, Box 25046, MS-974, Denver, CO 80225, USA;2. Native American Research and Preservation, Inc., Salida, CO 81201, USA;3. P.O. Box 704, Crestone, CO 81131, USA;1. Department of Geology, University at Buffalo, 411 Cooke Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA;2. Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550, USA;3. University of California, Irvine, Department of Earth System Science, Croul Hall, Irvine, CA 92697-3100, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | I show explicitly how concerns about wave function collapse and ontology can be decoupled from the bulk of technical analysis necessary to recover localized, approximately Newtonian trajectories from quantum theory. In doing so, I demonstrate that the account of classical behavior provided by decoherence theory can be straightforwardly tailored to give accounts of classical behavior on multiple interpretations of quantum theory, including the Everett, de Broglie–Bohm and GRW interpretations. I further show that this interpretation-neutral, decoherence-based account conforms to a general view of inter-theoretic reduction in physics that I have elaborated elsewhere, which differs from the oversimplified picture that treats reduction as a matter of simply taking limits. This interpretation-neutral account rests on a general three-pronged strategy for reduction between quantum and classical theories that combines decoherence, an appropriate form of Ehrenfest׳s Theorem, and a decoherence-compatible mechanism for collapse. It also incorporates a novel argument as to why branch-relative trajectories should be approximately Newtonian, which is based on a little-discussed extension of Ehrenfest׳s Theorem to open systems, rather than on the more commonly cited but less germane closed-systems version. In the Conclusion, I briefly suggest how the strategy for quantum-classical reduction described here might be extended to reduction between other classical and quantum theories, including classical and quantum field theory and classical and quantum gravity. |
| |
| Keywords: | Quantum Classical Classical limit Classical domain Decoherence Measurement problem Branching Collapse Reduction Emergence Correspondence principle Interpretation Interpretations of quantum mechanics Everett de Broglie–Bohm Bohm GRW |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
