, Volume 102, Issue 1, pp 61–97 | Cite as

Decoherence in unorthodox formulations of quantum mechanics

  • Vassilios Karakostas
  • Michael Dickson


The conceptual structure of orthodox quantum mechanics has not provided a fully satisfactory and coherent description of natural phenomena. With particular attention to the measurement problem, we review and investigate two unorthodox formulations. First, there is the model advanced by GRWP, a stochastic modification of the standard Schrödinger dynamics admitting statevector reduction as a real physical process. Second, there is the ontological interpretation of Bohm, a causal reformulation of the usual theory admitting no collapse of the statevector. Within these two seemingly quite different approaches, we discuss in a comparative manner, several points: The meaning of the state vector, the status of quantum probability, the legitimacy of attributing macro objective properties to physical systems, and the possibility of retrieving the classical limit. Finally, we consider aspects of non-locality and relevant difficulties with formulating a relativistic generalization of the two approaches.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aharonov, Y. and D. Albert: 1980, ‘States and Observables in Relativistic Quantum Field Theories’,Physical Review D 21, 3316–24.Google Scholar
  2. Belinfante, F. J.: 1973,A Survey of Hidden-Variable Theories, Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, J. S.: 1966, ‘On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics’,Reviews of Modern Physics 38, 447–52.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, J. S.: 1986,The Ghost in the Atom, P. C. W. Davies and J. R. Brown (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 45–57.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, J. S.: 1987, ‘Are There Quantum Jumps?’, inSpeakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 201–12.Google Scholar
  6. Bell, J. S.: 1989, ‘Towards an Exact Quantum Mechanics’, in S. Deser and R. J. Finkelstein (eds.),Themes in Contemporary Physics II, Essays in Honour of Julian Schwinger's 70th Birthday, World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, J. S.: 1990, ‘Against ‘Measurement’, in A. Miller (ed.), pp. 17–31.Google Scholar
  8. Benatti, F., G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Wever: 1988, ‘Operations Involving Momentum Variables in Non-Hamiltonian Evolution Equations’,Nuovo Cimento B 101, 333–55.Google Scholar
  9. Bohm, D.: 1952, ‘A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables, I and II’,Physical Review 85, 166–93.Google Scholar
  10. Bohm, D. and J. P. Vigier: 1954, ‘Model of the Causal Interpretation in Terms of a Fluid with Irregular Fluctuations’,Physical Review 96, 208–16.Google Scholar
  11. Bohm, D. and B. J. Hiley: 1984, ‘Measurement Understood Through the Quantum Potential Approach’,Foundations of Physics 14, 255–74.Google Scholar
  12. Bohm, D. and B. J. Hiley: 1989, ‘Nonlocality and Locality in the Stochastic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics’,Physics Reports 172, 94–122.Google Scholar
  13. Bohm, D. and B. J. Hiley: 1993,The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  14. Bohm, D., B. J. Hiley, and P. N. Kaloyerou: 1987, ‘An Ontological Basis for the Quantum Theory’,Physics Reports 144, 321–75.Google Scholar
  15. Bloch, I.: 1967, ‘Some Relativistic Oddities in the Quantum Theory of Observation’,Physical Review 156, 1377–84.Google Scholar
  16. Butterfield, J., G. N. Fleming, G. C. Ghirardi, and R. Grassi: 1993, ‘Parameter Dependence in Dynamical Models for Statevector Reduction’, to appear inInternational Journal of Theoretical Physics.Google Scholar
  17. Cushing, J. T.: 1991, ‘Quantum-Theory and Explanatory Discourse — Endgame for Understanding?’,Philosophy of Science 58, 337–58.Google Scholar
  18. Cvitanovic, P., I. Percival, and A. Wirzba (eds.): 1992,Quantum Chaos-Quantum Measurement, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  19. Dewdney, C., P. R. Holland, and A. Kyprianidis: 1986, ‘What Happens in a Spin Measurement?’,Physics Letters A 119, 259–67.Google Scholar
  20. Dewdney, C., R. P. Holland, and A. Kyprianidis: 1987, ‘A Causal Account of Nonlocal Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Spin Correlations’,Journal of Physics A 20, 4717–32.Google Scholar
  21. Dewdney, C., G. Horton, M. Lam, and Z. Malik: 1993, ‘Wave-Particle Dualism and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics’, Portsmouth Preprint.Google Scholar
  22. Dickson, M.: 1994, ‘The Quantum-Classical Connection in the Bohm Interpretation’, to be presented at the 4th International Drexel Symposium on Quantum Non-Integrability.Google Scholar
  23. Diosi, L.: 1992, ‘Quantum Measurement and Gravity for Each Other’, in Cvitanovic, P. et al. (eds.), pp. 299–304.Google Scholar
  24. Dürr, D., S. Goldstein, and N. Zanghi: 1992a, ‘Quantum Chaos, Classical Randomness and Bohmian Mechanics’,Journal of Statistical Physics 68, 259–70.Google Scholar
  25. Dürr, D., S. Goldstein, and N. Zanghi: 1992b, ‘Quantum Euilibrium and the Origin of Absolute Uncertainty’,Journal of Statistical Physics 67, 843–908.Google Scholar
  26. Fine, A.: 1970, ‘Insolubility of the Quantum Measurement Problem’,Physical Review D 2, 2783–87.Google Scholar
  27. Ford, J.: 1989, ‘What is Chaos, that we Should be Mindful of it?’, in Davies, P. (ed.),The New Physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 348–71.Google Scholar
  28. Ghirardi, G. C., A. Rimini, and T. Weber: 1986, ‘Unified Dynamics for Microscopic and Macroscopic Systems’,Physical Review D 34, 470–91.Google Scholar
  29. Ghirardi, G. C., P. Pearle, and A. Rimini: 1990, ‘Markov Processes in Hilbert Space and Continuous Spontaneous Localisation of Identical Particles’,Physical Review A 42, 78–89.Google Scholar
  30. Ghirardi, G. C., R. Grassi, and P. Pearle: 1990, ‘Relativistic Dynamical Reduction Models: General Framework and Examples’,Foundations of Physics 20, 1271–1316.Google Scholar
  31. Goldstein, H.: 1950,Classical Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Greenberger, D. M. (ed.): 1986,New Techniques and Ideas in Quantum Measurement Theory, New York Academy of Science, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Hardy, L.: 1992, ‘Quantum Mechanics, Local Realistic Theories, and Lorentz-Invariant Realistic Theories’,Physical Review Letters 68, 1981–4.Google Scholar
  34. Hardy, L. and E. J. Squires: 1992, ‘On the Violation of Lorentz-Invariance in Deterministic Hidden-Variables Interpretations of Quantum Theory’,Physics Letters A 168, 169–73.Google Scholar
  35. Holland, P. R.: 1993,The Quantum Theory of Motion: An Account of the De Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  36. Jarrett, J.: 1984, ‘On the Physical Significance of the Locality Conditions in the Bell Arguments’,Noûs 18, 569–89.Google Scholar
  37. Joos, E. and H. D. Zeh: 1985, ‘The Emergence of Classical Properties Through Interaction with the Environment’,Z. Physik B 59, 223–43.Google Scholar
  38. Kaloyerou, P. N.: 1985, ‘Investigation of the Quantum Potential in Relativistic Domain’, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
  39. Karakostas, V.: 1994, ‘Limitations on Stochastic Localisation Models of State Vector Reduction’,International Journal of Theoretical Physics 33, 1673–87.Google Scholar
  40. Lan, B. L. and Fox, R. F.: 1991, ‘Quantum-Classical Correspondence and Quantum Chaos in the Periodically Kicked Pendulumn’,Physical Review A 43, 646–55.Google Scholar
  41. Leavens, C. and G. Aers: 1991, ‘The Time-Modulated Barrier Approach to Traversal Times from the Bohm Trajectory Point of View’,Solid State Communications 78, 1015–23.Google Scholar
  42. Lopez-Arias, M., V. Manfredi, and L. Salasnich: 1994, ‘From Regular to Chaotic States in Atomic Nuclei’,Rivista Del Nuovo Cimento 17(5), 1–45.Google Scholar
  43. Miller, A. (ed.): 1990,Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty: Historical, Philosophical and Physical Inquiries into the Foundations of Quantum Physics, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  44. Nicrosini, O. and A. Rimini: 1990, ‘On the Relationship between Continuous and Discontinuous Stochastic Processes in Hilbert Space’,Foundations of Physics 20, 1317–28.Google Scholar
  45. Pearle, P.: 1985, ‘On the Time it Takes a Statevector to Reduce’,Journal of Statistical Physics 41, 719–27.Google Scholar
  46. Pearle, P.: 1989, ‘Combining Stochastic Dynamical Statevector Reduction with Spontaneous Localisation’,Physical Review A 39, 2277–89.Google Scholar
  47. Pearle, P.: 1990, ‘Towards a Relativistic Theory of State Reduction’, in Miller, A. (ed.), pp. 193–213.Google Scholar
  48. Pearle, P.: 1992, ‘Relativistic Model for Statevector Reduction’, in Cvitanovic, P. et al. (eds.), pp. 283–97.Google Scholar
  49. Pearle, P.: 1993, ‘Ways to Describe Dynamical Statevector Reduction’, Hamilton College Preprint.Google Scholar
  50. Primas, H.: 1990, ‘Induced Nonlinear Time Evolution of Open Quantum Objects’, in Miller, A. (ed.), pp. 259–80.Google Scholar
  51. Redhead, M.: 1987,Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  52. Shimony, A.: 1984, ‘Controllable and Uncontrollable Non-Locality’, in Kamefuchi, S. et al. (eds.),Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology, Physical Society of Japan, Tokyo, pp. 225–30.Google Scholar
  53. Shimony, A.: 1986, ‘Events and Processes in the Quantum World’, in Penrose, R. and Isham, C. J. (eds.),Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 182–203.Google Scholar
  54. Valentini, A.: 1991a, ‘Signal-Locality, Uncertainty, and the Subquantum H-Theorem. I’,Physics Letters A 156, 5–11.Google Scholar
  55. Valentini, A.: 1991b, ‘Signal-Locality, Uncertainty, and the Subquantum H-Theorem. II’,Physics Letters A 158, 1–8.Google Scholar
  56. Zeilinger, A.: 1986, ‘Testing Quantum Superposition with Cold Neutrons’, in Penrose, R. and Isham, C. J. (eds.),Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 16–27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vassilios Karakostas
    • 1
  • Michael Dickson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations