Skip to main content

Symmetry breaking and measurement theory

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

1. On leave from the Central Research Institute for Physics, Budapest, Hungary.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zimanyi, G.T., Vladar, K. Symmetry breaking and measurement theory. Found Phys Lett 1, 175–185 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00661858

Download citation

Key words

  • measurement theory
  • symmetry breaking
  • macroscopic limit