Double-Exponential Quasi-Orthogonality: The Geometry of Decoherence

Karl Svozil

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

High-dimensional Hilbert space packs exponentially many nearly orthogonal states, so typical environmental records make macroscopic interference FAPP invisible.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 19:12 UTC pith:JABUU4K3

load-bearing objection Clean, modest packaging of standard high-dimensional geometry into explicit quasi-orthogonality bounds for decoherence branches; useful and correctly limited. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.03807 v2 pith:JABUU4K3 submitted 2026-05-05 quant-ph

Double-Exponential Quasi-Orthogonality: The Geometry of Decoherence

Karl Svozil This is my paper

classification quant-ph

keywords decoherencequasi-orthogonalityhigh-dimensional geometryconcentration of measureenvironmental recordsLévy's lemmatypicalitypointer basis

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper isolates a geometric reason why macroscopic quantum alternatives do not blur into one another. In a Hilbert space of dimension D, only D states can be exactly orthogonal, yet a fixed small overlap tolerance already allows exponentially many mutually quasi-orthogonal pure states. For an environment built from N local factors the capacity is therefore double-exponential in N. Once measurement-like dynamics place environmental records in a typical region of a large accessible subspace, their mutual overlaps become exponentially small in the subspace entropy, suppressing off-diagonal coherences for all practical purposes. Geometry does not choose the preferred pointer basis and does not turn an improper mixture into a proper one; it only shows that the Hilbert-space reservoir of non-interfering directions is vast enough to answer Schrödinger’s “jellification” worry operationally.

Core claim

In a D-dimensional Hilbert space a fixed squared-overlap tolerance ε permits M_ε(D) ≳ exp(c_ε D) mutually quasi-orthogonal pure states; for N local q-level factors the capacity is therefore double-exponential, M_ε(q^N) ≳ exp(c_ε q^N). For Haar-random states the exact law is P(|⟨φ|ψ⟩|² ≥ ε) = (1−ε)^{D−1}, so typical squared overlaps are of order 1/D. Applied to decoherence, once environmental branch states are typical in an accessible subspace of dimension d_eff ∼ e^S their pairwise squared overlaps are ∼ e^{−S}, rendering macroscopic interference invisible for all practical purposes. The claim is kinematic and conditional on that typicality; it neither selects a pointer basis nor resolves th

What carries the argument

ε-quasi-orthogonality (squared overlap at most ε) together with the exact Beta tail for Haar overlaps, P(|⟨φ|ψ⟩|² ≥ ε) = (1−ε)^{D−1}, and Lévy concentration of regular observables about their mean 1/D. These supply both the exponential packing lower bound and the typical-overlap estimates for finite decoherence branch families.

Load-bearing premise

The actual environmental branches generated by the Hamiltonian must behave like typical random vectors in the accessible subspace; if the dynamics keep them atypical, the geometric suppression does not apply.

What would settle it

In a controllable many-body environment, continuously tune from chaotic to many-body-localized dynamics and measure branch-overlap suppression; suppression slower than e^{−S} once localization sets in would show that geometry alone does not produce the claimed FAPP effect under ordinary conditions.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

Macroscopic environmental records can coexist with typical overlap amplitudes of order e^{−S/2} without producing visible interference.
The number of mutually quasi-orthogonal records available grows double-exponentially with the number of environmental degrees of freedom.
Environments that fail typicality (integrable, many-body-localized, or strongly constrained) are predicted to decohere more slowly than e^{−S}, giving a quantitative diagnostic.
Finite-dimensional decoherence is the quantitative companion of exact sectorization in infinite tensor products: overlaps are exponentially small rather than exactly zero.
The same packing and concentration bounds extend to finite families of mixed environmental states and collective weak coherences under the typicality assumption.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Capacity is essentially never the bottleneck: even modest environments can host far more quasi-orthogonal records than there are distinct classical macroscopic configurations.
Platforms with tunable integrability (cold atoms, superconducting arrays) can test the predicted crossover from e^{−S} suppression to slower rates when typicality is deliberately broken.
The same geometric reservoir can underwrite the robustness of classical records without extra dynamical assumptions beyond the paper’s pair-typicality condition.
Because the argument is purely kinematic, any complete account of decoherence still needs an independent dynamical explanation of how the Hamiltonian populates the typical set.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

Clean, modest packaging of standard high-dimensional geometry into explicit quasi-orthogonality bounds for decoherence branches; useful and correctly limited.

read the letter

The punchline is simple: once environmental records are typical in a high-dimensional accessible subspace, their mutual overlaps are automatically of order e^{-S}, so macroscopic interference is FAPP invisible. The paper turns textbook concentration (Levy, Beta(1,D-1) tails, random-coding spherical codes) into simultaneous overlap and trace-distance bounds for finite branch families, including mixed environments. That packaging is the real contribution; the double-exponential slogan for D=q^N is a clean way to say it.

What it does well is honesty and execution. Appendix A is a short, correct union-bound lower bound from the exact survival probability (1-ε)^{D-1}. The Lipschitz argument for the overlap function is standard and clean. The author repeatedly flags the two things geometry cannot do: it does not select the pointer basis and it does not turn an improper mixture into a proper one. The dynamical assumption (pair-typicality of the conditional unitaries) is stated as an external input that can fail for integrable or MBL environments. That is the right soft spot, and it is already labeled as such.

Novelty is moderate. Kabatiansky–Levenshtein, Levy, and the Beta law predate the paper; the author himself says the application to environmental records is underemphasized rather than unknown. There is no new theorem that changes the foundations landscape. But the note is transparent, the math is solid, the citations are appropriate, and the interpretive claims stay inside the geometry. No circularity, no free parameters, no over-claim.

This is for people who work on decoherence, quantum chaos, or foundations and want a crisp geometric half of the FAPP story. It is not a dynamical paper and does not pretend to be. I would send it to a serious referee; the scope is right for a short foundations note and the execution is careful enough to deserve the time. Worth reading and, for the right audience, worth citing when you need the packing-capacity statement in one place.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript isolates a kinematic geometric contribution to environmental decoherence. In a D-dimensional Hilbert space at most D states are exactly orthogonal, yet a fixed squared-overlap tolerance ε admits families of size M_ε(D)≳exp(c_ε D) that are mutually ε-quasi-orthogonal (Appendix A, union bound on the exact Beta tail). For a composite environment of N q-level factors this capacity is therefore double-exponential. Lévy’s lemma applied to the Lipschitz overlap function, together with the exact survival law P(|⟨φ|ψ⟩|^{2}≥ε)=(1-ε)^{D-1}, shows that Haar-typical pure states concentrate near mutual orthogonality. Under the additional dynamical assumption that measurement-generated environmental branches behave like typical vectors in an accessible subspace of dimension d_eff~e^S (Sec. IV, Eq. (30)), pairwise squared overlaps are of order e^{-S}, rendering macroscopic off-diagonal terms in the reduced density matrix FAPP invisible. The paper repeatedly stresses that geometry alone neither selects a pointer basis nor converts an improper mixture into a proper one.

Significance. The central geometric facts (exponential packing, exact Beta tail, concentration near 1/D) are standard, yet their explicit packaging as a quantitative reservoir of quasi-orthogonal environmental records is pedagogically useful and sharpens the FAPP side of the decoherence argument. Strengths include the clean probabilistic construction in Appendix A, the exact rather than merely asymptotic survival probability, the transparent separation of kinematic capacity from dynamical pair-typicality, and the honest list of limitations (no pointer selection, failure for integrable/MBL environments, no resolution of the measurement problem). If the modest claim is accepted, the paper supplies a precise geometric reason why Schrödinger’s “jellification” does not occur once typical records form, without overclaiming interpretive consequences.

major comments (2)

The abstract asserts that the geometric facts are turned into “simultaneous overlap and trace-distance bounds for finite decoherence branch families, including mixed environments and collective weak coherences,” and also invokes Johnson–Lindenstrauss scaling. The body (Secs. II–IV and Appendices) derives only pure-state overlaps, the reduced-density-matrix weighting by ⟨E_j|E_i⟩, and the packing lower bound; no explicit trace-distance estimates, mixed-state extensions, collective-coherence bounds, or JL argument appear. Either the missing derivations must be added or the abstract must be rewritten to match the delivered content.
Sec. IV, Eq. (30) and the surrounding paragraph introduce the pair-typicality assumption |||⟨E_j(t)|E_i(t)⟩|^{2} ~ d_eff^{-1} as an external dynamical input. While the paper correctly flags that integrable or MBL environments may violate it, the quantitative claims about macroscopic suppression rest entirely on this assumption. A short, self-contained estimate (or reference to a concrete chaotic model) showing how rapidly the conditional unitaries U_i(t) approach the typical-overlap regime would make the load-bearing step less schematic.

minor comments (4)

The manuscript title (“The Geometric Part of Decoherence…”) differs from the arXiv title used in the submission metadata; align them.
Several displayed equations in the supplied text contain OCR-like artifacts (e.g., d�2, e�S). Ensure the final PDF renders all exponents and subscripts cleanly.
Appendix B usefully links d_eff to microcanonical entropy; a one-sentence cross-reference back to the main-text claim (28) would help the reader.
The phrase “for all practical purposes” is used both with and without the Bell acronym FAPP; pick one convention after the first occurrence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: standard high-dimensional geometry applied under an explicitly external pair-typicality assumption; one non-load-bearing self-citation for contextual comparison only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The core packing lower bound M_ε(d) ≳ exp(c_ε d) is obtained in Appendix A by the standard probabilistic method (independent Haar samples + exact Beta(1,d-1) tail (1-ε)^{d-1} + union bound); the double-exponential claim is the trivial substitution d = q^N. Lévy concentration and the exact survival law P(|⟨φ|ψ⟩|^2 ≥ ε) = (1-ε)^{D-1} are classical facts, not redefined. Application to decoherence (Sec. IV) is explicitly conditional on the external dynamical input of pair-typicality (Eq. (30): |⟨E_j|E_i⟩|^2 ∼ d_eff^{-1}), which the author flags as potentially false for integrable/MBL environments and does not derive from the geometry. No parameters are fitted to data and then re-predicted; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the author’s prior work to force the result. The sole self-citation ([26]) appears only as a non-load-bearing comparison to the infinite-tensor-product limit and is not used to establish any quantitative claim. The paper therefore reduces neither its packing capacity nor its FAPP-suppression estimates to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central packing and concentration claims rest only on standard measure theory on the unit sphere and the definition of ε-quasi-orthogonality. The sole non-mathematical load-bearing premise is the dynamical pair-typicality assumption that actual environmental branches behave like Haar-typical vectors; everything else is either textbook or definitional. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (4)

standard math Haar measure on the unit sphere of a D-dimensional Hilbert space yields the exact Beta(1,D-1) law for squared overlaps of pure states.
Used for the survival probability (1-ε)^{D-1} and the mean 1/D (Sec. III, Eqs. 21-22).
standard math Levy's lemma: Lipschitz functions on the high-dimensional sphere concentrate about their mean with Gaussian tails of width ~1/sqrt(D).
Invoked to obtain the general concentration bound before the sharper Beta calculation (Sec. III, Eq. 16).
domain assumption Pair-typicality: after pointer selection the conditional environmental states satisfy |⟨E_j|E_i⟩|^2 ~ d_eff^{-1} for i eq j.
Explicitly declared as the minimal dynamical input that lets geometry apply to actual branches (Sec. IV, Eq. 30); the paper notes it may fail for integrable or localized environments.
domain assumption Accessible subspace dimension d_eff is given by the microcanonical entropy, d_eff ~ e^{S}.
Standard thermodynamic identification used to convert geometric 1/d into e^{-S} (Sec. IV and Appendix B).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 12374 in / 2792 out tokens · 31774 ms · 2026-07-14T19:12:38.499470+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

A composite system of N local q-level factors has dimension D=q^N. Although at most D vectors can be exactly orthogonal, a fixed squared-overlap tolerance \eps permits M_\eps(D)\gtrsim\exp(c_\eps D) mutually quasi-orthogonal directions. Consequently M_\eps(q^N)\gtrsim\exp(c_\eps q^N): the dimension grows exponentially in N, but its quasi-orthogonal capacity grows doubly exponentially. L\'evy's lemma explains the accompanying concentration of regular observables, and Johnson--Lindenstrauss scaling gives the complementary finite-set account of exponential capacity. For Haar-random pure states the sharper exact law is \mathbb P(|\langle\phi|\psi\rangle|^2\geq\eps)=(1-\eps)^{D-1}, while typical Fubini--Study angles lie within O(D^{-1/2}) of \pi/2: capacity explodes as angular structure homogenizes. We turn these facts into simultaneous overlap and trace-distance bounds for finite decoherence branch families, including mixed environments and collective weak coherences. The results are conditional on typical relative environmental dynamics. They neither select a pointer basis nor identify coherence suppression with readable or redundant records.

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

The Blessing of Dimensionality: How Near-Orthogonality in High-Dimensional Spaces Explains Temporal Portability
cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

Fine-tuned LoRA patches still work when applied to a language model that has gone through ten more rounds of continual pretraining, and the paper attributes this portability to near-orthogonality of high-dimensional p...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Schlosshauer,Decoherence and the Quantum-To- Classical Transition, The Frontiers Collection (Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, 2007)

M. Schlosshauer,Decoherence and the Quantum-To- Classical Transition, The Frontiers Collection (Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, 2007)

2007
[2]

Schlosshauer, Quantum decoherence, Physics Reports 831, 1 (2019), arXiv:1911.06282

M. Schlosshauer, Quantum decoherence, Physics Reports 831, 1 (2019), arXiv:1911.06282

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[3]

Schr¨ odinger,The Interpretation of Quantum Mechan- ics

E. Schr¨ odinger,The Interpretation of Quantum Mechan- ics. Dublin Seminars (1949-1955) and Other Unpublished Essays(Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, Connecticut, USA,

1949
[4]

edited by Michel Bitbol
[5]

J. S. Bell, Against ‘measurement’, Physics World3, 33 (1990)

1990
[6]

Joos and H

E. Joos and H. D. Zeh, The emergence of classical proper- ties through interaction with the environment, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter59, 223 (1985)

1985
[7]

W. H. Zurek, Decoherence, einselection, and the quan- tum origins of the classical, Reviews of Modern Physics 75, 715 (2003)

2003
[8]

E. Joos, H. D. Zeh, C. Kiefer, D. Giulini, J. Kupsch, and I.-O. Stamatescu,Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003)

2003
[9]

P. C. Kainen, Quasi-orthogonal dimension of euclidean spaces, Applied Mathematics Letters6, 7 (1993)

1993
[10]

Tao,Topics in random matrix theory, Graduate Stud- ies in Mathematics, Vol

T. Tao,Topics in random matrix theory, Graduate Stud- ies in Mathematics, Vol. 132 (American Mathematical Society, 2012)

2012
[11]

Vershynin,High-Dimensional Probability: An Intro- duction with Applications in Data Science(Cambridge University Press, 2018)

R. Vershynin,High-Dimensional Probability: An Intro- duction with Applications in Data Science(Cambridge University Press, 2018)

2018
[12]

Ledoux,The Concentration of Measure Phenomenon (American Mathematical Society, 2001)

M. Ledoux,The Concentration of Measure Phenomenon (American Mathematical Society, 2001)

2001
[13]

V. D. Milman and G. Schechtman,Asymptotic Theory of Finite Dimensional Normed Spaces, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1200 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1986)

1986
[14]

G. A. Kabatiansky and V. I. Levenshtein, Bounds for packings on a sphere and in space, Problems of Informa- tion Transmission14, 1 (1978)

1978
[15]

J. H. Conway and N. J. A. Sloane,Sphere Packings, Lat- tices and Groups, 3rd ed. (Springer, New York, 1999)

1999
[16]

Hayden, D

P. Hayden, D. W. Leung, and A. Winter, Aspects of generic entanglement, Communications in Mathematical Physics265, 95 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0407049

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[17]

Peres, Recurrence phenomena in quantum dynamics, Physical Review Letters49, 1118 (1982)

A. Peres, Recurrence phenomena in quantum dynamics, Physical Review Letters49, 1118 (1982)

1982
[18]

Wallace, Recurrence theorems: a unified account, Journal of Mathematical Physics56, 022105 (2015)

D. Wallace, Recurrence theorems: a unified account, Journal of Mathematical Physics56, 022105 (2015)

2015
[19]

Popescu, A

S. Popescu, A. J. Short, and A. Winter, Entanglement and the foundations of statistical mechanics, Nature Physics2, 754 (2006)

2006
[20]

Goldstein, J

S. Goldstein, J. L. Lebowitz, R. Tumulka, and N. Zangh` ı, Canonical typicality, Physical Review Letters96, 050403 (2006)

2006
[21]

Reimann, Foundation of statistical mechanics under experimentally realistic conditions, Physical Review Let- ters101, 190403 (2008)

P. Reimann, Foundation of statistical mechanics under experimentally realistic conditions, Physical Review Let- ters101, 190403 (2008)

2008
[22]

Rigol, V

M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum systems, Nature452, 854 (2008)

2008
[23]

D’Alessio, Y

L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, Advances in Physics65, 239 (2016)

2016
[24]

von Neumann, On infinite direct products, Compo- sitio Mathematica6, 1 (1939), reprinted in�� , A

J. von Neumann, On infinite direct products, Compo- sitio Mathematica6, 1 (1939), reprinted in�� , A. H. Taub, edi- tor, Pergamon Press, New York, 1961, nr. 6, p. 323–399

1939
[25]

Hepp, Quantum theory of measurement and macro- scopic observables, Helvetica Physica Acta45, 237 (1972)

K. Hepp, Quantum theory of measurement and macro- scopic observables, Helvetica Physica Acta45, 237 (1972)

1972
[26]

Van Den Bossche and P

M. Van Den Bossche and P. Grangier, Contextual unifi- cation of classical and quantum physics, Foundations of Physics53, 1 (2023), arXiv:2209.01463

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[27]

Svozil, From unitarity to irreversibility: The role of in- finite tensor products and nested wigner’s friends, Foun- dations of Physics56, 4 (2026)

K. Svozil, From unitarity to irreversibility: The role of in- finite tensor products and nested wigner’s friends, Foun- dations of Physics56, 4 (2026)

2026

[1] [1]

Schlosshauer,Decoherence and the Quantum-To- Classical Transition, The Frontiers Collection (Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, 2007)

M. Schlosshauer,Decoherence and the Quantum-To- Classical Transition, The Frontiers Collection (Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, 2007)

2007

[2] [2]

Schlosshauer, Quantum decoherence, Physics Reports 831, 1 (2019), arXiv:1911.06282

M. Schlosshauer, Quantum decoherence, Physics Reports 831, 1 (2019), arXiv:1911.06282

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

[3] [3]

Schr¨ odinger,The Interpretation of Quantum Mechan- ics

E. Schr¨ odinger,The Interpretation of Quantum Mechan- ics. Dublin Seminars (1949-1955) and Other Unpublished Essays(Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, Connecticut, USA,

1949

[4] [4]

edited by Michel Bitbol

[5] [5]

J. S. Bell, Against ‘measurement’, Physics World3, 33 (1990)

1990

[6] [6]

Joos and H

E. Joos and H. D. Zeh, The emergence of classical proper- ties through interaction with the environment, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter59, 223 (1985)

1985

[7] [7]

W. H. Zurek, Decoherence, einselection, and the quan- tum origins of the classical, Reviews of Modern Physics 75, 715 (2003)

2003

[8] [8]

E. Joos, H. D. Zeh, C. Kiefer, D. Giulini, J. Kupsch, and I.-O. Stamatescu,Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003)

2003

[9] [9]

P. C. Kainen, Quasi-orthogonal dimension of euclidean spaces, Applied Mathematics Letters6, 7 (1993)

1993

[10] [10]

Tao,Topics in random matrix theory, Graduate Stud- ies in Mathematics, Vol

T. Tao,Topics in random matrix theory, Graduate Stud- ies in Mathematics, Vol. 132 (American Mathematical Society, 2012)

2012

[11] [11]

Vershynin,High-Dimensional Probability: An Intro- duction with Applications in Data Science(Cambridge University Press, 2018)

R. Vershynin,High-Dimensional Probability: An Intro- duction with Applications in Data Science(Cambridge University Press, 2018)

2018

[12] [12]

Ledoux,The Concentration of Measure Phenomenon (American Mathematical Society, 2001)

M. Ledoux,The Concentration of Measure Phenomenon (American Mathematical Society, 2001)

2001

[13] [13]

V. D. Milman and G. Schechtman,Asymptotic Theory of Finite Dimensional Normed Spaces, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1200 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1986)

1986

[14] [14]

G. A. Kabatiansky and V. I. Levenshtein, Bounds for packings on a sphere and in space, Problems of Informa- tion Transmission14, 1 (1978)

1978

[15] [15]

J. H. Conway and N. J. A. Sloane,Sphere Packings, Lat- tices and Groups, 3rd ed. (Springer, New York, 1999)

1999

[16] [16]

Hayden, D

P. Hayden, D. W. Leung, and A. Winter, Aspects of generic entanglement, Communications in Mathematical Physics265, 95 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0407049

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

[17] [17]

Peres, Recurrence phenomena in quantum dynamics, Physical Review Letters49, 1118 (1982)

A. Peres, Recurrence phenomena in quantum dynamics, Physical Review Letters49, 1118 (1982)

1982

[18] [18]

Wallace, Recurrence theorems: a unified account, Journal of Mathematical Physics56, 022105 (2015)

D. Wallace, Recurrence theorems: a unified account, Journal of Mathematical Physics56, 022105 (2015)

2015

[19] [19]

Popescu, A

S. Popescu, A. J. Short, and A. Winter, Entanglement and the foundations of statistical mechanics, Nature Physics2, 754 (2006)

2006

[20] [20]

Goldstein, J

S. Goldstein, J. L. Lebowitz, R. Tumulka, and N. Zangh` ı, Canonical typicality, Physical Review Letters96, 050403 (2006)

2006

[21] [21]

Reimann, Foundation of statistical mechanics under experimentally realistic conditions, Physical Review Let- ters101, 190403 (2008)

P. Reimann, Foundation of statistical mechanics under experimentally realistic conditions, Physical Review Let- ters101, 190403 (2008)

2008

[22] [22]

Rigol, V

M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum systems, Nature452, 854 (2008)

2008

[23] [23]

D’Alessio, Y

L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, Advances in Physics65, 239 (2016)

2016

[24] [24]

von Neumann, On infinite direct products, Compo- sitio Mathematica6, 1 (1939), reprinted in�� , A

J. von Neumann, On infinite direct products, Compo- sitio Mathematica6, 1 (1939), reprinted in�� , A. H. Taub, edi- tor, Pergamon Press, New York, 1961, nr. 6, p. 323–399

1939

[25] [25]

Hepp, Quantum theory of measurement and macro- scopic observables, Helvetica Physica Acta45, 237 (1972)

K. Hepp, Quantum theory of measurement and macro- scopic observables, Helvetica Physica Acta45, 237 (1972)

1972

[26] [26]

Van Den Bossche and P

M. Van Den Bossche and P. Grangier, Contextual unifi- cation of classical and quantum physics, Foundations of Physics53, 1 (2023), arXiv:2209.01463

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

[27] [27]

Svozil, From unitarity to irreversibility: The role of in- finite tensor products and nested wigner’s friends, Foun- dations of Physics56, 4 (2026)

K. Svozil, From unitarity to irreversibility: The role of in- finite tensor products and nested wigner’s friends, Foun- dations of Physics56, 4 (2026)

2026