Foundations of Physics Letters

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 175–185 | Cite as

Symmetry breaking and measurement theory

  • G. T. Zimanyi
  • K. Vladar


For studying the problem of measurement we accept the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics, but we take into account, that in a sequence of measurements, offdiagonal terms arise which cannot obviously be interpreted as the probability of a sequence of macroscopic events. We demonstrate, however, their vanishing for ordinary measurement processes by observing that the measurement apparatus undergoes a symmetry breaking transition during the measurement.

Key words

measurement theory symmetry breaking macroscopic limit 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    See, e.g., E. P. Wigner,Am. J. Phys. 31, 6 (1963).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    As pointed out, e.g., by L. E. Ballentine, some classes of measurements (e.g., the destructive ones) are described by a more general form; however, this does not modify the basic problem; see Ref. 3.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. E. Ballentine,Rev. Mod. Phys. 42, 358 (1970).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. J. Leggett,Contemp. Phys. 25, 583 (1984), and references therein.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. d'Espagnat,Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Benjamin, New York, 1976).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Daneri, A. Loinger, and G. M. Prosperi,Nucl. Phys. 33, 297 (1962).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Bub,Il Nuovo Cimento 57, 503 (1968).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. P. Wigner, inQuantum Theory of Measurement, J. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek, eds. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983), p. 286.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    This type of description obviously has its limitations, but it covers a sufficiently wide class of macroscopic bodies. The spirit of the argument is the same as of Ref. 4, p. 589.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Without this amplification, the measurement cannot be regarded as complete. For example, in one-photon production measurements the observer's eye, and in Wigner's Stern-Gerlach experiment (Ref. 1), a photoplate should be understood as part of the apparatus.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. T. Zimanyi and K. Vladar,Phys. Rev. A 34, 3496 (1986).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. W. Anderson,Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 1049 (1967).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. J. Leggettet al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 1 (1987), and references therein.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. Guinea, V. Hakim, and A. Muramatsu,Phys. Rev. B 32, 4410 (1985).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Recent investigations show that in the SQUID example, ifJ(ω) ∼ω s,s < 1, then an arbitrary small coupling already induces the phase transition, thus there are exceptions to this rule. See, e.g., K. Itai,Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 602 (1987).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    An additional problem, as pointed out by B. d'Espagnat (Ref. 5), is that the choice of the allowed wave functions in Ref. 6 is too restrictive to describe every possible sequence of measurements.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. Hepp,Helv. Phys. Acta 45, 237 (1972).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    E. Joos and H. D. Zeh,Z. Phys. B 59, 223 (1985).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. T. Zimanyi
    • 1
  • K. Vladar
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsState University of New York at Stony BrookNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Central Research Institute for PhysicsBudapesstHungary

Personalised recommendations