What condensed matter physics and statistical physics teach us about the limits of unitary time evolution

Barbara Drossel

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

What condensed matter physics and statistical physics teach us about the limits of unitary time evolution

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the Schrödinger equation is valid only up to the thermal wavelength and thermal time, and that the successful methods of condensed-matter and statistical physics show where unitary quantum mechanics fails.

desk verdict A well-written conceptual review that catalogs real tensions between condensed-matter practice and unitary evolution, but the inference from effective methods to fundamental limits is not established, and the paper offers no quantitative way to distinguish its view from decoherence. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10145 v1 pith:7EKGB4BZ submitted 2019-08-27 quant-ph cond-mat.other

Barbara Drossel This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.other MSC 81P0582B03 PACS 03.65.Ta03.65.Yz05.30.-d

keywords quantum-to-classicaltransitionunitarytimeevolutionthermalwavelengthstatisticalindependencemeasurementproblemcondensedmattermethodsentanglementcutoff

topics The Measurement Problem

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the Schrödinger equation is not the whole story for macroscopic, finite-temperature systems, and that the methods actually used in condensed matter and statistical physics reveal where quantum mechanics stops. It examines standard tools—Born-Oppenheimer wave functions, Hartree-Fock and Gross-Pitaevskii equations, molecular-dynamics wave packets, linear response, statistical independence, and maximum entropy—and shows that each one violates at least one of the three defining properties of unitary evolution: linearity, determinism, and time-reversal invariance. Because these tools work, the paper concludes that their violations are not mere approximation artifacts but signs that unitary evolution breaks down. If this is right, the quantum-classical boundary is not a mystery that interpretations of quantum mechanics must explain away; it is a physical limit set by temperature, with the thermal wavelength and thermal time fixing the scale.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the thermal wavelength, $\lambda_{\rm th} = h/\sqrt{2\pi m k_B T}$, and the thermal time, $\tau_{\rm th} \sim \hbar/k_B T$. The thermal wavelength is the width a thermal wave packet naturally has—it appears in the ideal-gas partition function and in the rule of thumb that Bose-Einstein condensation begins when interparticle spacing becomes comparable to $\lambda_{\rm th}$—and the thermal time is the corresponding Markovian time scale for open quantum systems. The paper's argument is that these quantities are not bookkeeping devices but mark the actual spatial and temporal cutoff of quantum coherence for heat-bath degrees of freedom. The supporting mechanism is the repeated appearance of product ansatze, localized wave packets, classical response functions, and stochastic probabilities in empirically successful calculations, which the paper reads as showing that entanglement is cut off beyond these scales.

What would settle it

An experiment showing stable, measurable quantum entanglement or a spatial superposition extending over many thermal wavelengths between two particles of an ordinary finite-temperature gas—without engineered isolation, cavities, or decoherence-free subspaces—would contradict the proposed cutoff; at room temperature the thermal wavelength for atoms is roughly a few tenths of a nanometre, so the relevant test would look for coherence at micrometre scales in a thermal ensemble.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the Schrödinger equation has a finite domain of validity, and that finite-temperature condensed-matter physics sits partly outside it. The author contends that every major calculational strategy in condensed matter and statistical physics—localizing ions in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, making product wave-function ansatze in Hartree and Hartree-Fock methods, treating atoms as Gaussian wave packets in molecular dynamics, assuming statistical independence of subsystems, and invoking maximum entropy with 'typical' environment states—introduces stochastic, nonlinear, irreversible, or classical elements that a many-particle Schrödinger equation cannot produce. Their empirical success is taken as evidence that no global wave function exists for a system plus heat bath, and that an ongoing localization process keeps particles and quasiparticles as wave packets of width set by the thermal wavelength. The paper therefore proposes that unitary time evolution and linear superposition fail beyond the thermal wavelength in space and the thermal time in duration for all degrees of freedom that belong to or exchange energy with the heat bath.

Load-bearing premise

The argument collapses if the empirical success of these condensed-matter and statistical methods only shows that they are good computational tools, not that they reveal what is really happening—the paper assumes a realist reading on which a method that works without a global wave function proves there is no global wave function.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the claim is right, the product ansatze and statistical-independence assumptions used across condensed matter are not approximations: they encode the actual absence of entanglement beyond thermal scales.
The quantum measurement problem and the irreversibility of statistical mechanics would share a single origin: energy exchange with a heat bath is intrinsically non-unitary, so there is no global wave function to be measured.
Decoherence theory alone would be insufficient to explain the classical world, because it still assumes unitary evolution for the combined system-plus-environment; the paper's claim replaces that with genuine stochastic localization.
Well-isolated quantum systems—nuclear or electron spins, entangled photons, and superconductors or superfluids protected by an energy gap—can remain coherent over long times, because their interaction with heat-bath degrees of freedom is weak; the limits apply to degrees of freedom in or in equilibrium with the bath.
Macroscopic quantum states such as superconducting wave functions would be understood as hybrid classical-quantum objects, since their equations are nonlinear and states with different particle numbers are not orthogonal.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the thermal wavelength is the coherence cutoff, objective collapse models acquire a thermodynamic anchor: their localization length or rate should be tied to temperature and particle mass through $\lambda_{\rm th}$, which could be tested against existing bounds from matter-wave interferometry.
A testable extension is that a thermal gas should show a sharp crossover in nonlocal correlations as separation crosses $\lambda_{\rm th}$, rather than the gradual exponential decay predicted by standard decoherence with the same thermal environment; the two functional forms can in principle be distinguished.
The paper's logic reaches into quantum technology: if finite-temperature coherence is bounded by the thermal wavelength and thermal time, then thermal isolation is not just an engineering concern but the condition for the unitary description of a qubit to hold at all.
If correct, the view implies that attempts to derive thermodynamics from a closed many-body Schrödinger equation must smuggle in non-unitary typicality assumptions; null results from precision quantum experiments would then calibrate how far the proposed limits extend.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Honestly? This is a useful paper to know about, but it doesn't do what its title promises. The individual observations are mostly correct: the Born-Oppenheimer ansatz, Hartree-Fock, molecular dynamics, linear response, and statistical independence all involve assumptions that don't follow from the bare many-particle Schrödinger equation. Drossel writes clearly about these, and she is upfront that this is a synthesis of positions she and Ellis have already published. So the value here is as an accessible survey of the mismatch between unitary evolution and how condensed matter people actually calculate.

The soft spot is the central inference, laid out in Sections 2.5 and 3.4. Because effective methods use localized wave packets and product states, and because those methods work, the paper concludes there must be ongoing localization not captured by the Schrödinger equation. But the success of those methods doesn't by itself show the wave function is wrong at the fundamental level. The Lindblad equation, which she cites, is normally derived from a unitary global evolution; the localizing, Markovian reduced dynamics is compatible with a fully unitary underlying theory. The thermal wavelength is a scale in the equilibrium state; it doesn't automatically become a limit on the dynamical law. The paper does not give a quantitative criterion or experimental prediction that would separate its view from standard unitary evolution plus decoherence. That means the title's 'limits' is an interpretation, not a demonstrated result.

I want to be fair: this is a legitimate position, not a crank paper. The critique that decoherence alone doesn't solve the measurement problem is standard, and the paper doesn't hide its realist starting point. The main issue is that the argument leans on that realism to convert methodological observations into ontological conclusions. If you already think the wave function must be about individual systems and that effective methods reveal ontology, the paper is coherent. If you don't, nothing here moves you.

Who should read it? Philosophers of physics and quantum-foundations people working on collapse models and the quantum-classical transition. It's a nice teaching piece. I don't think I'd cite it in my own papers; the load-bearing claims are better stated elsewhere. But I'd send it to a serious referee: the examples deserve comment, and the authors should be pushed to say exactly where and why the Schrödinger equation fails, and what experiment would distinguish that from decoherence.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper argues that the Schrödinger equation for a macroscopic number of particles, being linear, deterministic, and time-reversal invariant, is in fundamental tension with the methods actually used in condensed matter and statistical physics. The author surveys Born-Oppenheimer approximation, Hartree-Hartree-Fock and Kohn-Sham methods, molecular dynamics, linear response theory, statistical independence, probabilities, and the maximum entropy principle, and then introduces the thermal wavelength and thermal time as the scales at which unitary evolution and linear superposition break down for (quasi-)particles in thermal equilibrium. The paper concludes that there are limits of validity to the Schrödinger equation and to linear superposition, and advocates a contextual, top-down account of the quantum-classical transition, in which there is no global wave function for a system plus heat bath.

Significance. The paper is a clearly written and useful collection of conceptual tensions between the unitary many-particle Schrödinger equation and the effective, non-unitary methods of condensed matter and statistical physics. The individual examples—Born-Oppenheimer, Hartree-Fock, molecular dynamics, linear response—are accurately described and well illustrated, and the paper performs a service by bringing these tensions together in one place. If its central claim were established, it would have major consequences for quantum foundations and for the decoherence program, since it would imply that unitary quantum mechanics is not the correct dynamical description of finite-temperature macroscopic systems. However, the central conclusion is not derived from the evidence presented: the paper's strength is as a survey and a motivation for further work, not as a demonstration of limits. The paper is also honest about its reliance on the author's prior framework, and it does not disguise fitted parameters as predictions, which is to its credit.

major comments (3)

[§3.4, §2.5] The central inference, from the success of localized wave packets and stochastic methods to 'an ongoing process of localization must occur that is not captured by the Schrödinger equation' (§3.4), is not logically warranted. The paper itself cites the Lindblad equation as an example of a non-unitary, localizing time evolution, but the Lindblad equation is normally derived from a unitary global Schrödinger equation for the system plus environment; its Markovian, localizing behavior is an effective description of the reduced state, not evidence of a fundamental breakdown of unitarity. The paper does not provide an argument against this standard interpretation beyond the measurement problem, which is an interpretive stance rather than a demonstration. Since this step is load-bearing for the paper's conclusion that the Schrödinger equation has limits of validity, it requires either a substantial argument or a reframing of the claim as a conjecture.
[§3.4, §4] The thermal wavelength and thermal time are properties of an equilibrium state or of the canonical ensemble, not of the dynamical law. The observation that thermal states have limited coherence length can be reproduced by unitary evolution plus decoherence—for example, in quantum Brownian motion the position-space width of a reduced state can saturate at the thermal scale while the global state evolves unitarily. The paper offers no quantitative prediction that would distinguish its proposed fundamental breakdown from unitary open-quantum-system dynamics. For instance, it does not identify an experiment whose outcome would differ between the two pictures. This gap directly affects the paper's claim that the thermal wavelength 'sets the length and time scales for quantum coherence and linear superposition,' since that claim conflates a state property with a property of the time-evolution law.
[§2.1–§2.5] The argument repeatedly moves from the empirical success of calculations that use product ansatze, localized wave packets, and classical elements to the conclusion that the true physical state lacks entanglement or that ions are truly localized. This presumes a specific realist interpretation of effective methods. For example, the Born-Oppenheimer approximation (§2.1) and the Hartree-Fock product ansatz (§2.2) are approximations whose success is compatible with an exactly entangled many-body state; their usefulness does not establish that the exact state is a product state. The paper notes that philosophers of chemistry point out that the Born-Oppenheimer approximation mixes classical and quantum elements, but it does not explain why the empirical adequacy of these methods should be read ontologically rather than as evidence about the tractability of approximations. This is a load-bearing assumption for the paper's central claim and needs to be addressed explicitly.

minor comments (4)

[§1] In the sentence 'the initial state, combined with the Hamiltonian determines the future time evolution,' the verb should agree with the compound subject: 'determine' rather than 'determines.'
[References] In reference [24], 'Lifschitz' should be spelled 'Lifshitz.'
[§4] In the conclusion, 'the BSC state' should be corrected to 'the BCS state.'
[§3.4] The statement that the inverse of the thermal time occurs as the Matsubara frequency is imprecise: Matsubara frequencies are 2πn k_BT/ħ, so the numerical factor of 2π separates the two quantities. Please clarify the intended correspondence.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The central conclusion presupposes the realist interpretation of condensed-matter methods that the paper is arguing for; no fitted parameters or disguised predictions, but the key inference is interpretive rather than derived.

self definitional [Section 3.4, opening sentence; cf. Section 1 and Section 4]
"If we take seriously the principles of statistical independence, stochasticity, and maximum entropy on which statistical physics is based, we must conclude that unitary time evolution and linear superposition according to the Schrödinger equation are valid only under restricted conditions and are otherwise limited in length and time scale."

The inference is conditional on the phrase 'take seriously', i.e., on interpreting the principles of statistical mechanics as literal ontology rather than as effective descriptions of a reduced state within unitary quantum mechanics. The paper's own Section 1 states the same presupposition explicitly: 'it presumes that the existing descriptions of condensed-matter systems are the most appropriate ones, as they have proven to be empirically adequate.' The conclusion that there are limits of validity to the Schrödinger equation is therefore the initial realist premise restated, not a mathematical consequence of the cited methods.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted parameters disguised as predictions and no equation whose output is reused as an input. The circularity is interpretive and located in the central inference: the paper moves from the empirical success of non-unitary methods in condensed matter and statistical physics to the claim that unitary time evolution has fundamental limits, but that move requires the unargued premise that those methods describe actual ontology rather than being effective calculational tools. The paper openly states this premise ('it presumes that the existing descriptions of condensed-matter systems are the most appropriate ones') and then presents the conclusion as 'the most natural.' Self-citations [13,14,15] support the contextual-collapse framework, but the central argument does not reduce to them, and external citations (e.g., [31]) are also used; hence the self-referential burden is mild. The paper itself admits in Section 4 that 'the challenge remains to figure out where the limits of the Schrödinger equation are,' further indicating that the thermal scales are proposed rather than derived. Overall score 3: mild self-referential and interpretive circularity, not a derivation-level equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on a realist interpretation of effective methods plus the assumption that no global wave function exists for system and heat bath. These are domain assumptions rather than derived results. The thermal wavelength is used as a cutoff scale, but its role as a fundamental limit is posited rather than demonstrated. No free parameters are fitted to data.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The empirically successful methods of condensed matter and statistical physics reveal how nature actually behaves, including the absence of entanglement beyond short scales.
The paper infers from the success of these methods that unitary evolution has limits (Sections 2.5 and 3.4). Without this realist reading, the incompatibilities could be dismissed as effective descriptions.
domain assumption A many-particle Schrödinger equation always produces entanglement and superposition, so any description that cuts entanglement or localizes particles must lie outside its domain.
Used throughout Sections 2 and 3 to contrast condensed matter and statistical physics methods with unitary evolution.
ad hoc to paper There is no global wave function for a system plus heat bath; the bath evolves stochastically and localizes the system's wave packets.
Stated in Section 3.4 as the view advocated here, and it is the positive content of the paper's proposed alternative.
ad hoc to paper The thermal wavelength and thermal time, defined by h/sqrt(2π m kBT) and ħ/kBT, set the spatiotemporal scales for quantum coherence.
This is the paper's central quantitative claim, supported only by heuristic examples (BEC density, MD wave packets, equipartition), not derived from a more fundamental theory.

invented entities (1)

Ongoing localization process for finite-temperature (quasi-)particles
purpose: Keeps thermal wave packets from spreading, so particles remain localized at the thermal wavelength without a global wave function.
The paper asserts such a process must occur (Section 3.4) by analogy with Lindblad and collapse models, but does not propose a specific mechanism or falsifiable signature.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What condensed matter physics and statistical physics teach us about the limits of unitary time evolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7EKGB4BZ

@misc{pith2026190810145,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What condensed matter physics and statistical physics teach us about the limits of unitary time evolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7EKGB4BZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10145}
}

read the original abstract

The Schrodinger equation for a macroscopic number of particles is linear in the wave function, deterministic, and invariant under time reversal. In contrast, the concepts used and calculations done in statistical physics and condensed matter physics involve stochasticity, nonlinearities, irreversibility, top-down effects, and elements from classical physics. This paper analyzes several methods used in condensed matter physics and statistical physics and explains how they are in fundamental ways incompatible with the above properties of the Schrodinger equation. The problems posed by reconciling these approaches to unitary quantum mechanics are of a similar type as the quantum measurement problem. This paper therefore argues that rather than aiming at reconciling these contrasts one should use them to identify the limits of quantum mechanics. The thermal wave length and thermal time indicate where these limits are for (quasi-)particles that constitute the thermal degrees of freedom.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[1]

The theory of everythi ng

Robert B Laughlin and David Pines. The theory of everythi ng. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , pages 28–31, 2000

work page 2000
[2]

”relative state” formulation of quant um mechanics

Hugh Everett III. ”relative state” formulation of quant um mechanics. Reviews of modern physics , 29(3):454, 1957

work page 1957
[3]

Relational quantum mechanics

Carlo Rovelli. Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics , 35(8):1637–1678, 1996

work page 1996
[4]

Consistent histories and the interpr etation of quantum mechanics

Robert B Grifﬁths. Consistent histories and the interpr etation of quantum mechanics. Journal of Statistical Physics, 36(1-2):219–272, 1984

work page 1984
[5]

L. E. Ballentine. The statistical interpretation of qua ntum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys., 42:358–381, Oct 1970

work page 1970
[6]

Space is blue and birds ﬂy through it

Carlo Rovelli. Space is blue and birds ﬂy through it. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A , 376:2017.0312, 2018

work page arXiv 2017
[7]

Qbism, the perimeter of quantum bay esianism

Christopher A Fuchs. Qbism, the perimeter of quantum bay esianism. arXiv preprint arXiv:1003.5209, 2010

arXiv 2010
[8]

Decoherence, d iscord, and the quantum master equation for cosmological perturbations

Timothy J Hollowood and Jamie I McDonald. Decoherence, d iscord, and the quantum master equation for cosmological perturbations. Physical Review D, 95(10):103521, 2017

work page 2017

Show all 41 references

[9]

On the nature of research in condensed -state physics

Anthony J Leggett. On the nature of research in condensed -state physics. F oundations of Physics, 22(2):221–233, 1992

1992
[10]

Models of wave-function collapse, underlying theories, and experimental tests

Angelo Bassi, Kinjalk Lochan, Seema Satin, Tejinder P S ingh, and Hendrik Ulbricht. Models of wave-function collapse, underlying theories, and experimental tests. Reviews of Modern Physics , 85(2):471, 2013

2013
[11]

Collapse

Nicolas Gisin. Collapse. what else? In Shan Gao, editor , Collapse of the W ave Function: Models, Ontology, Origin, and Implications , pages 207–224. Cambridge University Press, 2018

2018
[12]

On the limits of quantum theory: Contex tuality and the quantum–classical cut

George FR Ellis. On the limits of quantum theory: Contex tuality and the quantum–classical cut. Annals of Physics, 327(7):1890–1932, 2012

1932
[13]

Contextual wavefunc tion collapse: An integrated theory of quantum measure- ment

Barbara Drossel and George Ellis. Contextual wavefunc tion collapse: An integrated theory of quantum measure- ment. New Journal of Physics , 20(11):113025, 2018

2018
[14]

Ten reasons why a thermalized system c annot be described by a many-particle wave function

Barbara Drossel. Ten reasons why a thermalized system c annot be described by a many-particle wave function. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics , 58:12–21, 2017

2017
[15]

Connecting the quantum and classical worlds

Barbara Drossel. Connecting the quantum and classical worlds. Annalen der Physik , 529(3):1600256, 2017

2017
[16]

Advanced quantum mechanics

Franz Schwabl. Advanced quantum mechanics . Springer Science & Business Media, 2005

2005
[17]

Chemistry, quantum mechanics and reductionism: perspecti ves in theoretical chemistry , vol- ume 24

Hans Primas. Chemistry, quantum mechanics and reductionism: perspecti ves in theoretical chemistry , vol- ume 24. Springer-V erlag Heidelberg Berlin, 2013

2013
[18]

Reductionism, emergence and levels of reality, Ch

Sergio Chibbaro, Lamberto Rondoni, and Angelo Vulpian i. Reductionism, emergence and levels of reality, Ch
[19]

Pre-born-oppenheimer molecular structu re theory

Edit Matyus. Pre-born-oppenheimer molecular structu re theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.05885, 2018

2018 arXiv
[20]

Self-consistent equations including exchange and correlation effects

Walter Kohn and Lu Jeu Sham. Self-consistent equations including exchange and correlation effects. Physical Review, 140(4A):A1133, 1965

1965
[21]

Understanding mod ern molecular dynamics: techniques and applica- tions

Mark E Tuckerman and Glenn J Martyna. Understanding mod ern molecular dynamics: techniques and applica- tions. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B , 104(2):159–178, 2000

2000
[22]

Ab initio molecular dynam ics: Theory and implementation

Dominik Marx and Jurg Hutter. Ab initio molecular dynam ics: Theory and implementation. Modern methods and algorithms of quantum chemistry , 1:301–449, 2000

2000
[23]

A review of wave packet molecular dyna mics

Paul E Grabowski. A review of wave packet molecular dyna mics. In Frontiers and Challenges in W arm Dense Matter, pages 265–282. Springer, 2014. 12 A PREPRINT - A UGUST 28, 2019

2014
[24]

Course of theoretical physics

Lev Davidovich Landau and Evgenii Mikhailovich Lifshi tz. Course of theoretical physics . Elsevier, 2013

2013
[25]

Schwabl and W .D

F. Schwabl and W .D. Brewer. Statistical Mechanics . Advanced Texts in Physics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006

2006
[26]

Thermal physics

Charles Kittel and Herbert Kroemer. Thermal physics. Macmillan, 1980

1980
[27]

Decoherence, einselection, an d the quantum origins of the classical

Wojciech Hubert Zurek. Decoherence, einselection, an d the quantum origins of the classical. Reviews of modern physics, 75(3):715, 2003

2003
[28]

The theory of open quantum systems

Heinz-Peter Breuer and Francesco Petruccione. The theory of open quantum systems . Oxford University Press on Demand, 2002

2002
[29]

Quantum m any-body systems out of equilibrium

J Eisert, M Friesdorf, and Christian Gogolin. Quantum m any-body systems out of equilibrium. Nature Physics, 11(2):124–130, 2015

2015
[30]

Information theory and statistical mec hanics

Edwin T Jaynes. Information theory and statistical mec hanics. Physical Review, 106(4):620, 1957

1957
[31]

Indeterminism in physics, classical ch aos and bohmian mechanics

Nicolas Gisin. Indeterminism in physics, classical ch aos and bohmian mechanics. are real numbers really real? arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.06824, 2018

2018 arXiv
[32]

Ent anglement and the foundations of statistical mechan- ics

Sandu Popescu, Anthony J Short, and Andreas Winter. Ent anglement and the foundations of statistical mechan- ics. Nature Physics, 2(11):754–758, 2006

2006
[33]

What is quantu m in quantum randomness? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer ing Sciences, 376(2123):20170322, 2018

Philippe Grangier and Alexia Auff` eves. What is quantu m in quantum randomness? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer ing Sciences, 376(2123):20170322, 2018

2018
[34]

How can physics underlie the mind?: top-down causation in th e human context

George Ellis. How can physics underlie the mind?: top-down causation in th e human context. Springer Heidel- berg, 2016

2016
[35]

Equilibration, the rmalisation, and the emergence of statistical mechanics in closed quantum systems

Christian Gogolin and Jens Eisert. Equilibration, the rmalisation, and the emergence of statistical mechanics in closed quantum systems. Reports on Progress in Physics , 79(5):056001, 2016

2016
[36]

Quantum versus classical foundation of statistical mechanics under experimentally realistic conditions

Peter Reimann and Mykhaylo Evstigneev. Quantum versus classical foundation of statistical mechanics under experimentally realistic conditions. Physical Review E, 88(5):052114, 2013

2013
[37]

Chaos and quantum thermalization

Mark Srednicki. Chaos and quantum thermalization. Physical Review E, 50(2):888, 1994

1994
[38]

Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed s ystem

JM Deutsch. Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed s ystem. Physical Review A, 43(4):2046, 1991

1991
[39]

Quantum dissipative systems, volume 13

Ulrich Weiss. Quantum dissipative systems, volume 13. World scientiﬁc, 2012

2012
[40]

Why decoherence has not solved the meas urement problem: a response to p.w

Stephen L Adler. Why decoherence has not solved the meas urement problem: a response to p.w. anderson. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics , 34(1):135–142, 2003

2003
[41]

Decoherence, the measureme nt problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics

Maximilian Schlosshauer. Decoherence, the measureme nt problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics , 76(4):1267, 2005. 13

2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The theory of everythi ng

Robert B Laughlin and David Pines. The theory of everythi ng. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , pages 28–31, 2000

work page 2000

[2] [2]

”relative state” formulation of quant um mechanics

Hugh Everett III. ”relative state” formulation of quant um mechanics. Reviews of modern physics , 29(3):454, 1957

work page 1957

[3] [3]

Relational quantum mechanics

Carlo Rovelli. Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics , 35(8):1637–1678, 1996

work page 1996

[4] [4]

Consistent histories and the interpr etation of quantum mechanics

Robert B Grifﬁths. Consistent histories and the interpr etation of quantum mechanics. Journal of Statistical Physics, 36(1-2):219–272, 1984

work page 1984

[5] [5]

L. E. Ballentine. The statistical interpretation of qua ntum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys., 42:358–381, Oct 1970

work page 1970

[6] [6]

Space is blue and birds ﬂy through it

Carlo Rovelli. Space is blue and birds ﬂy through it. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A , 376:2017.0312, 2018

work page arXiv 2017

[7] [7]

Qbism, the perimeter of quantum bay esianism

Christopher A Fuchs. Qbism, the perimeter of quantum bay esianism. arXiv preprint arXiv:1003.5209, 2010

arXiv 2010

[8] [8]

Decoherence, d iscord, and the quantum master equation for cosmological perturbations

Timothy J Hollowood and Jamie I McDonald. Decoherence, d iscord, and the quantum master equation for cosmological perturbations. Physical Review D, 95(10):103521, 2017

work page 2017