Completing the Cooper–Van Vechten account of quantum measurement: thermodynamic irreversibility, basis selection, and reversible measurements within unitary quantum theory

In 1969, Leon N. Cooper and Deborah Van Vechten proposed that quantum measurement can be described wholly within unitary quantum theory: the observed system, the apparatus, and the mind of the observer all evolve according to the Schrödinger equation, and the apparent loss of interference and the 'reduction' of the wave function follow from the thermodynamic irreversibility of the measurement interaction. The account leaves open four linked questions: (1) a precise quantum-mechanical characterization of 'irreversible' interactions — how entropy production and decoherence guarantee orthogonality of the measurement branches and exclude reversal in realistic measurements; (2) the mechanism that selects the measurement basis, including the observer's definite cognitive states; (3) whether reversible measurements can be realized in practice once amplification and recording have occurred, and their experimental signatures; (4) the uniqueness and consistency of the account relative to Everett's relative-state formulation, including the Born probabilities. Parts of the question have since been resolved: decoherence theory supplies the standard mechanism of pointer-basis selection for apparatus variables, and quantum-eraser and measurement-reversal experiments have realized the reversal of non-amplified measurements. No completion of the account is known in the literature to date: the preferred-basis problem is still contested (Hemmo and Shenker 2022), no quantum-mechanical model of the observer's cognition exists, the thermodynamic-irreversibility criterion remains model-by-model, and direct experimental tests of the measurement boundary are active or proposed (Xing, Cooper and Maris 2022; Renkel 2026). The open core is the quantum measurement problem in the Cooper–Van Vechten formulation.

Background

The quantum measurement problem is the question of how, within quantum mechanics, an interaction between a microscopic system and a macroscopic apparatus comes to yield a single definite, recordable outcome. In von Neumann's standard formalization the state vector evolves in two ways: a 'type II' process — the continuous, deterministic, unitary evolution generated by the Schrödinger equation — and a 'type I' process — the discontinuous, stochastic 'reduction' (collapse) of a superposition to one of its terms upon measurement. The reduction postulate is difficult to reconcile with the universal validity of the Schrödinger equation and introduces a split between the observer and the observed.

Cooper and Van Vechten (1969) proposed an interpretation that removes the type I process: the entire system — observed object, apparatus, and the mind of the observer — develops according to the Schrödinger equation alone. In their model, an electron traverses a double slit (upper slit $U$, lower slit $L$) and interacts with a two-component detector $A$ whose macroscopically distinct states $A_U$ and $A_L$ are triggered by the respective amplitudes; a subsequent coupling to the observer's mind $M$ produces the entangled state $\alpha\,\psi_U A_U M_U + \beta\,\psi_L A_L M_L$. The interference that would distinguish this superposition from a statistical mixture is destroyed, they argued, because the detector interaction is thermodynamically irreversible: triggering involves an enormous entropy increase in many degrees of freedom, so $A_U$ and $A_L$ remain orthogonal for all subsequent times and cannot evolve into interfering states; 'wave function reduction' is then merely a permissible renormalization of the description, not a dynamical process. The formalism is completed by conditional probability amplitudes for sequences of observations, which reproduce standard quantum statistics without projecting the state. Crucially, the authors show by toy examples what would happen if the interactions were reversible — for instance, a mind modeled as a two-level quantum system oscillating between the cognition states $M_U$ and $M_L$ — namely that all branches must be retained to reproduce interference in later experiments, so the permissibility of discarding branches stands or falls with the irreversibility of the interaction. This places their proposal adjacent to Everett's relative-state formulation (Everett 1957), in which all branches of the entangled state are retained and no collapse occurs (the 'many-worlds' reading).

The subsequent half-century developed the neighboring concepts. Decoherence is the destruction of phase relations between branches of a superposition by interaction with an environment of many degrees of freedom; pointer states and einselection name the selection, by the form of the system–environment interaction Hamiltonian, of the robust quasi-classical states that survive environmental monitoring (Zeh 1970; Zurek 1981, 1982; Joos and Zeh 1985). The quantum eraser is the restoration of interference by erasing which-path information after a measurement-like interaction (Scully and Drühl 1982). Landauer's principle states that erasing one bit of information dissipates at least $kT\ln 2$ of heat, tying information processing to the second law of thermodynamics (Landauer 1961). An electron bubble is the ~2-nm cavity that forms around a free electron injected into liquid helium, whose mobility in the liquid can be used to test whether the many-particle helium environment performs a measurement of the electron's presence. Whether these ingredients jointly suffice to complete the Cooper–Van Vechten program — with no residual collapse postulate and no observer outside the wave function — is the subject of the present question.

Problem Statement

Cooper and Van Vechten's proposal stands on the claim that thermodynamically irreversible interactions make the branches of the post-measurement state permanently orthogonal and make reversal practically impossible, so that a wholly unitary quantum theory needs no collapse postulate. Completing this account requires answering four linked questions, which together decide whether the program succeeds:

1. Irreversible-interaction criterion. Give a precise quantum-mechanical characterization of when a measurement interaction is 'thermodynamically irreversible' in the required sense: quantitative conditions — in terms of entropy production, amplification, number of degrees of freedom, decoherence rates, or information flow to the environment and its retention by an observer — under which the apparatus branches become and remain orthogonal, and under which no procedure available to an observer who retains a record can restore the pre-measurement superposition. The characterization must cover realistic amplifying detectors, not only idealized models, and must be connected explicitly to the second law of thermodynamics.

2. Basis selection. Explain, within unitary quantum theory, what selects the basis in which system, apparatus, and observer become correlated — the analog of the detector states $A_U$ versus $A_L$ and the cognition states $M_U$ versus $M_L$ — including the definite states of the observer, and why other decompositions of the same entangled state do not correspond to possible experience.

3. Reversibility in practice. Determine whether a completed measurement whose outcome has been amplified and recorded can in principle be reversed — the apparatus and, in the extreme case, the observing agent returned to the pre-measurement state — and specify the experimental signatures by which genuine reversal could be distinguished from re-preparation or from a genuine collapse, in the regime beyond the demonstrated reversal of non-amplified weak measurements.

4. Uniqueness and consistency. Establish whether the completed account is unique and internally consistent, in particular whether it coincides with, refines, or contradicts Everett's relative-state formulation and its many-worlds and many-minds readings, and whether it reproduces the Born probabilities (the standard quantum rule that assigns each outcome a probability equal to the squared magnitude of its amplitude) without an additional postulate.

These four questions jointly support one scientific objective: to decide whether thermodynamic irreversibility within unitary quantum mechanics suffices as a complete account of quantum measurement, with no residual collapse postulate and no observer outside the wave function.

References

1. Leon N. Cooper and Deborah Van Vechten, "On the Interpretation of Measurement within the Quantum Theory", American Journal of Physics 37(12), 1212–1220 (1969). DOI: 10.1119/1.1975279. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1975279
2. Hugh Everett III, ""Relative State" Formulation of Quantum Mechanics", Reviews of Modern Physics 29, 454–462 (1957). DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.29.454. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.29.454
3. H. D. Zeh, "On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory", Foundations of Physics 1, 69–76 (1970). DOI: 10.1007/BF00708656. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00708656
4. W. H. Zurek, "Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: Into what mixture does the wave packet collapse?", Physical Review D 24, 1516–1525 (1981). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.24.1516. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.24.1516
5. W. H. Zurek, "Environment-induced superselection rules", Physical Review D 26, 1862–1880 (1982). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.26.1862. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.26.1862
6. E. Joos and H. D. Zeh, "The emergence of classical properties through interaction with the environment", Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter 59, 223–243 (1985). DOI: 10.1007/BF01725541. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01725541
7. Marlan O. Scully and Kai Drühl, "Quantum eraser: A proposed photon correlation experiment concerning observation and 'delayed choice' in quantum mechanics", Physical Review A 25, 2208–2213 (1982). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.25.2208. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.25.2208
8. Yoon-Ho Kim, Rong Yu, Sergei P. Kulik, Yanhua Shih, and Marlan O. Scully, "Delayed 'Choice' Quantum Eraser", Physical Review Letters 84, 1–5 (2000). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1
9. Nadav Katz, Matthew Neeley, M. Ansmann, Radoslaw C. Bialczak, M. Hofheinz, Erik Lucero, A. O'Connell, H. Wang, A. N. Cleland, John M. Martinis, and Alexander N. Korotkov, "Reversal of the Weak Measurement of a Quantum State in a Superconducting Phase Qubit", Physical Review Letters 101, 200401 (2008). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.200401. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.200401
10. Jong-Chan Lee, Youn-Chang Jeong, Yong-Su Kim, and Yoon-Ho Kim, "Experimental demonstration of decoherence suppression via quantum measurement reversal", Optics Express 19, 16309 (2011). DOI: 10.1364/OE.19.016309. https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.19.016309
11. Max Tegmark, "Apparent wave function collapse caused by scattering", Foundations of Physics Letters 6, 571–590 (1993). DOI: 10.1007/BF00662807. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00662807
12. R. Landauer, "Irreversibility and Heat Generation in the Computing Process", IBM Journal of Research and Development 5, 183–191 (1961). DOI: 10.1147/rd.53.0183. https://doi.org/10.1147/rd.53.0183
13. Antoine Bérut, Artak Arakelyan, Artyom Petrosyan, Sergio Ciliberto, Raoul Dillenschneider, and Eric Lutz, "Experimental verification of Landauer's principle linking information and thermodynamics", Nature 483, 187–189 (2012). DOI: 10.1038/nature10872. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10872
14. H. Narnhofer and W. F. Wreszinski, "On reduction of the wave-packet, decoherence, irreversibility and the second law of thermodynamics", Physics Reports 541, 249–278 (2014). DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.03.001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2014.03.001
15. Maximilian Schlosshauer, "Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics", Reviews of Modern Physics 76, 1267–1305 (2005). DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1267. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1267
16. Wojciech Hubert Zurek, "Quantum Darwinism", Nature Physics 5, 181–188 (2009). DOI: 10.1038/nphys1202. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1202
17. Mario A. Ciampini, Giorgia Pinna, Paolo Mataloni, and Mauro Paternostro, "Experimental signature of quantum Darwinism in photonic cluster states", Physical Review A 98, 020101(R) (2018). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.020101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.020101
18. J. K. Korbicz, "Roads to objectivity: Quantum Darwinism, Spectrum Broadcast Structures, and Strong quantum Darwinism – a review", Quantum 5, 571 (2021). DOI: 10.22331/q-2021-11-08-571. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-11-08-571
19. Wojciech H. Zurek, "Quantum Reversibility Is Relative, Or Do Quantum Measurements Reset Initial Conditions?", arXiv:1808.08598 (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.08598
20. David Albert and Barry Loewer, "Interpreting the many worlds interpretation", Synthese 77, 195–213 (1988). DOI: 10.1007/BF00869434. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00869434
21. Aurélien Drezet, "Making sense of Born's rule $p_α=‖Ψ_α‖^2$ with the many-minds interpretation", arXiv:2011.11501 (2020). https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.11501
22. David Wallace, "The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory According to the Everett Interpretation", Oxford University Press (2012). ISBN 978-0-19-954696-1, DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546961.001.0001. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546961.001.0001
23. Meir Hemmo and Orly Shenker, "The preferred basis problem in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics: why decoherence does not solve it", Synthese 200 (2022). DOI: 10.1007/s11229-022-03713-y. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03713-y
24. Louis Marchildon, "Multiplicity in Everett's interpretation of quantum mechanics", Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 52, 274–284 (2015). DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsb.2015.08.010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2015.08.010 (preprint arXiv:1504.04835)
25. Fedor Herbut, "Does Unitary Measurement Theory Lead to an Everettian Interpretation?", arXiv:1510.05678 (2015). https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.05678
26. Denis Konstantinov and Humphrey J. Maris, "Detection of Excited-State Electron Bubbles in Superfluid Helium", Physical Review Letters 90, 025302 (2003). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.025302. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.025302
27. Ambarish Ghosh and Humphrey J. Maris, "Observation of a New Type of Electron Bubble in Superfluid Helium", Physical Review Letters 95, 265301 (2005). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.265301. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.265301
28. Wanchun Wei, Zhuolin Xie, Leon N. Cooper, and Humphrey J. Maris, "Exotic Ions in Superfluid Helium", Journal of Low Temperature Physics 185, 313–323 (2016). DOI: 10.1007/s10909-016-1599-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10909-016-1599-4
29. Y. Xing, S. Sirisky, W. Wei, L. N. Cooper, and H. J. Maris, "Experimental Investigation of the Quantum Measurement Process Using Electrons in Superfluid Helium", Journal of Low Temperature Physics 207, 11–41 (2022). DOI: 10.1007/s10909-022-02697-w. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10909-022-02697-w
30. Peter Renkel, "Can a Measurement Be Undone? Recovering the State of a Measured Microscopic System with a Reversible Measuring Apparatus", arXiv:2606.22707 (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.22707
31. Peter W. Evans, "What is it like to be unitarily reversed?", European Journal for Philosophy of Science 14 (2024). DOI: 10.1007/s13194-024-00613-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-024-00613-5
32. Armando Relaño, "Decoherence framework for Wigner's-friend experiments", Physical Review A 101, 032107 (2020). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.101.032107. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.101.032107
33. Leon N. Cooper, "Wavefunction and Observer in the Quantum Theory", in The Physicist's Conception of Nature (J. Mehra, ed.), D. Reidel, 668–683 (1973). DOI: 10.1007/978-94-010-2602-4_32. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2602-4_32
34. John Archibald Wheeler, "Include the Observer in the Wave Function?", in Quantum Mechanics, A Half Century Later, D. Reidel, 1–18 (1977). DOI: 10.1007/978-94-010-1196-9_1. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1196-9_1
35. M. A. B. Whitaker, "On the observability of 'many worlds'", Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 18, 1831–1834 (1985). DOI: 10.1088/0305-4470/18/10/035. https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/18/10/035
36. D. Home and M. A. B. Whitaker, "The many-worlds and relative states interpretations of quantum mechanics, and the quantum Zeno paradox", Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 20, 3339–3345 (1987). DOI: 10.1088/0305-4470/20/11/036. https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/20/11/036