Abstract
Bohm’s interpretation of quantum mechanics can be regarded as a modal interpretation in which a fixed preferred observable — for Bohm, configuration space position — is taken as determinate in all quantum states. i show how the phenomenon of decoherence that arises in the interaction of a measuring instrument with its environment plays a crucial rôle in Bohm’s solution to the measurement problem. The significance of decoherence in Bohm’s interpretation and in Dieks-type modal interpretations turns out to be very different from its significance in the orthodox interpretation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
G. Bacciagaluppi and M. Hemmo (1996), ‘Modal Interpretations, Decoherence and Measurements,’ Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modem Physics 27B, 239–277.
J.S. Bell (1987), Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
D. Bohm (1952), ‘A Suggested Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of “Hidden Variables”,’ Parts I and II, Physical Review 85, 166–179
D. Bohm (1952), ‘A Suggested Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of “Hidden Variables”,’ Parts I and II, Physical Review 85, 180–193.
D. Bohm and B.J. Hiley (1993), The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory (London: Routledge).
J. Bub (1997), Interpreting the Quantum World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
J. Bub and R. Clifton (1996), ‘A Uniqueness Theorem for “No Collapse” Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics,’ Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 27, 181–219.
R. Clifton (1995), ‘Independently Motivating the Kochen-Dieks Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46, 33–57.
D. Dieks (1989), ‘Quantum Mechanics Without the Projection Postulate and Its Realistic Interpretation,’ Foundations of Physics 19, 1397–1423.
D. Dieks (1994), ‘Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Measurements, and Macroscopic Behavior,’ Physical Review A 49, 2290–2300.
E. Joos and H.D. Zeh (1985), ‘The Emergence of Classical Properties Through Interaction with the Environment,’ Zeitschrift für Physik B59, 223–243.
S. Kochen (1985), ‘A New Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,’ in P. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt (eds.), Symposium on the Foundations of Modem Physics (Singapore: World Scientific), pp. 151–169.
R. Omnès (1994), The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
P. Vermaas and D. Dieks (1995), ‘The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and its Generalization to Density Operators,’ Foundations of Physics 25, 145–158.
J. Vink (1993), ‘Quantum Mechanics in Terms of Discrete Beables,’ Physical Review A 48, 1808–1818.
W.H. Zurek (1991), ‘Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical,’ Physics Today 44 (October), 36–44.
W.H. Zurek (1993), ‘Negotiating the Tricky Border Between Quantum and Classical,’ Physics Today 46 (April), 86–90.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bub, J. (1998). Decoherence in Bohmian Modal Interpretations. In: Dieks, D., Vermaas, P.E. (eds) The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. The Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, vol 60. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5084-2_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5084-2_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-6135-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-5084-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive