A Born's probability in decoherence

Sr1
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
How does Born's probability enter the decoherence theory?
Suppose we have a quantum system ##S##, an apparatus ##A##, and an observer, say Alice, ##O##. WLOG let ##S## be a spin-##1/2##particle in a state ##0.6|\uparrow\rangle+0.8|\downarrow\rangle##. The apparatus measure it in the ##\sigma_z## basis. Then the observer sees the result.

According to the decoherence theory, what happens in this measurement process is:

$$

\begin{align}

&\quad \psi_{before}=(0.6|\uparrow\rangle+0.8|\downarrow\rangle)\otimes|A_{init}\rangle\otimes|O_{init}\rangle\\

&\overset{\text{S,A interaction}}{\to}

\big(0.6|\uparrow\rangle(|A_{pointer \uparrow}\rangle+\delta |A_{pointer \downarrow}\rangle)+0.8|\downarrow\rangle(|A_{pointer \downarrow}\rangle+\delta |A_{pointer \uparrow}\rangle)\big)\otimes|O_{init}\rangle \\

&\overset{\text{A,O interaction}}{\to}

\psi_{after}=0.6|\uparrow\rangle|A_{pointer \uparrow}\rangle|\text{Alice thinks she observes}\uparrow\rangle

\\ &\quad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad

+0.8|\downarrow\rangle|A_{pointer \downarrow}\rangle|\text{Alice thinks she observes}\downarrow\rangle

\\

&\qquad\qquad

+\delta|\uparrow\rangle|A_{\uparrow}\rangle|O_\downarrow\rangle

+\delta|\uparrow\rangle|A_{\downarrow}\rangle|O_\downarrow\rangle

+\delta|\uparrow\rangle|A_{\downarrow}\rangle|O_\uparrow\rangle

+\cdots

+\delta|\uparrow\rangle|A_{\uparrow}\rangle|O_{neither \uparrow nor \downarrow }\rangle

+\cdots

\end{align}
$$
I have included error terms since decoherence takes nonzero time, and ##\delta## may differ at different places. If Alice tells Bob the result of the experiment, then Bob will be entangled with the state written above.

My first question: where does Born's rule play its role in claiming that ##Pr(O_\uparrow)=0.36## and ##Pr(O_\downarrow)=0.64##? In the first step S,A interaction, or in the second step A,O interaction? Suppose afterward Alice communicates with Bob, should we apply Born's rule in the third step Alice,Bob interaction?

My second question: Born's rule claims that if ##\psi_{after}=0.6|\uparrow\rangle|A_{\uparrow}\rangle|O_\uparrow\rangle

+0.8|\downarrow\rangle|A_{\downarrow}\rangle|O_\downarrow\rangle##, then ##Pr(O_\uparrow)=0.36## and ##Pr(O_\downarrow)=0.64## hold. However, in reality, there are error terms of forms ##|\uparrow\rangle|A_{\uparrow}\rangle|O_\downarrow\rangle##, or even ##|\uparrow\rangle|A_{\uparrow}\rangle|\text{Alice is neither }O_{\uparrow} \text{ nor } O_{\downarrow}\rangle##. How should Born's rule deal with those error terms?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In practice, there is no much difference between applying the Born rule at the apparatus level and at the (conscious) observer level. So you can choose either. If the error terms are sufficiently small, you don't need to worry about them too. Of course, there are always measurement errors, even in classical physics, but if you are not able to quantitatively compute them, you just accept that there are various uncontrollable measurement errors when you compare theory with experiments, and learn to live with them.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and pines-demon
I'm actually asking about theory, not practice
 
Sr1 said:
I'm actually asking about theory, not practice
Well, the Born rule is a theory telling how to compute the probability in practice. :oldbiggrin:
More seriously, the quantum theory in its standard minimal form does not tell precisely whether the Born rule should be applied at the apparatus level or the observer level.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...

Similar threads

Back
Top