Relative States and the Environment


Zurek, W. (2007). Relative States and the Environment. Perimeter Institute. https://pirsa.org/07090070


Zurek, Wojciech. Relative States and the Environment. Perimeter Institute, Sep. 21, 2007, https://pirsa.org/07090070


          @misc{ pirsa_PIRSA:07090070,
            doi = {10.48660/07090070},
            url = {https://pirsa.org/07090070},
            author = {Zurek, Wojciech},
            keywords = {},
            language = {en},
            title = {Relative States and the Environment},
            publisher = {Perimeter Institute},
            year = {2007},
            month = {sep},
            note = {PIRSA:07090070 see, \url{https://pirsa.org}}

Wojciech Zurek Los Alamos National Laboratory

Talk Type Conference


Everett explained “collapse of the wavepacket” by noting that observer will perceive the state of the measured quantum system relative to the state of his own records. Two elements (missing in this simple and compelling explanation of effective collapse) are required to complete relative state interpretation: (i) A preferred basis for states of at least some systems in the wholly quantum Universe must be identified, so that apparatus pointers and other recording devices can persist over time. This implies breaking of the unitary symmetry in the original (more egalitarian) relative state interpretation, so that it can successfully account for classicality of macroscopic objects in accord with Bohr’s view of the role of measuring apparatus, and with our everyday experience. It is now widely accepted that decoherence (caused by the monitoring of systems by their environments) leads to einselection of pointer states, accounting for the emergence of preferred states. However, tools used by decoherence rely on the second missing link between quantum substrate and reality; (ii) A prescription that connects probabilities of outcomes with amplitudes of quantum states – such as Born’s rule is still needed. Born’s rule could be in principle postulated, but as Everett noted fifty years ago this should not be necessary. I show that both (i) einselection and (ii) Born’s rule follow from symmetries of entangled quantum states. Entanglement represents information transfer between the to-be-classical quantum systems and their environments. Information transfer in course of decoherence produces multiple copies of the state of the system: its redundant imprints in the environment. This multiplicity of records can account for the objective existence of preferred pointer states: (iii) Quantum Darwinism singles out the “fittest observable” of the system (the observable that produces the most information-theoretic “offspring” of its state, i.e. the most copies in the environment). These fittest observables exist objectively: information about them can be found out indirectly, from the environment, without perturbing the underlying state of the system. The objective existence of pointer states is the foundation of the existential interpretation. The existential interpretation recognizes with Everett the relative nature of quantum states, but accounts for the effectively classical states (which unlike quantum states of isolated systems – can be found out without getting disrupted in the process) through quantum Darwinism