Does decoherence violate decoupling?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract Recent calculations in both flat and de Sitter spacetimes have highlighted a tension between the decoupling of high-energy physics from low-energy degrees of freedom and the expectation that quantum systems decohere due to interactions with unknown environments. In effective field theory (EFT), integrating out heavy fields should lead to Hamiltonian time evolution, which preserves the purity of low-energy states. This is consistent with the fact that we never observe isolated quantum states spontaneously decohering in the vacuum due to unknown high-energy physics. However, when a heavy scalar of mass M is traced out, the resulting purity of a light scalar with mass m typically appears to scale as a power of 1/ M (when m ≪ M ), an effect that cannot be captured by a local effective Hamiltonian. We resolve this apparent paradox by showing that the purity depends on the resolution scale of the EFT and how the environment is traced out. We provide a practical method for diagnosing the purity of low-energy states consistent with EFT expectations, and briefly discuss some of the implications these observations have for how ultraviolet divergences can appear in decoherence calculations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".