Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0710.1448

Operational axioms for C*-algebra representation of transformations

Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano

Published Oct 7, 2007• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

It is shown how a C*-algebra representation of the transformations of a physical system can be derived from two operational postulates: 1) the existence of dynamically independent systems}; 2) the existence of symmetric faithful states. Both notions are crucial for the possibility of performing experiments on the system, in preventing remote instantaneous influences and in allowing calibration of apparatuses. The case of Quantum Mechanics is thoroughly analyzed. The possibility that other no-signaling theories admit a C*-algebra formulation is discussed.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.0710.1448

Related papers

Operational Axioms for C[sup ∗]-algebra Representation of Transformations

Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano, Guillaume Adenier, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov +3 more

It is shown how a C*‐algebra representation of the transformations of a physical system can be derived from two operational postulates: 1) the existence of dynamically independent systems; 2) the existence of symmetric faithful states. Both notions are crucial for the possibility of performing experiments on the system, in preventing remote instantaneous influences and in allowing calibration of apparatuses. The case of Quantum Mechanics is thoroughly analyzed. The possibility that other no‐signaling theories admit a C*‐algebra formulation is discussed.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2007•4 citations

Operational axioms for C ∗ -algebra representation of transformations 1

A. Volta

It is shown how a C ∗ -algebra representation of the transformations of a physic al sys- tem can be derived from two operational postulates: 1) the existence of dynamically independent systems; 2) the existence of symmetric faithful states. Both notions are crucial for the possibility of performing experiments on the system, in preventing remote instantaneous influences and in al- lowing calibration of apparatuses. The case of Quantum Mechanics is thoroughly analyzed. The possibility that other no-signaling theories admit a C ∗ -algebra formulation is discussed.

•Jan 1, 2007•0 citations

Operational axioms for a C*-algebraic formulation of Quantum Mechanics

Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano

A C*-algebra formulation of Quantum Mechanics is derived from purely operational axioms in which the primary role is played by the "transformations" that the system undergoes in the course of an "experiment". The notion of the {\em adjoint} of a transformation is based on the postulated existence of "faithful states" that allows one to calibrate the experimental apparatus.

arXiv:quant-ph/0701219•Jan 29, 2007•2 citations

Operational Axioms for Quantum Mechanics

Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano

The mathematical formulation of Quantum Mechanics in terms of complex Hilbert space is derived for finite dimensions, starting from a general definition of physical experiment and from five simple Postulates concerning experimental accessibility and simplicity. For the infinite dimensional case, on the other hand, a C*‐algebra representation of physical transformations is derived, starting from just four of the five Postulates via a Gelfand‐Naimark‐Segal (GNS) construction. The present paper simplifies and sharpens the previous derivation in Ref. [1]. The main ingredient of the axiomatization is the postulated existence of faithful states that allows one to calibrate the experimental apparatus. Such notion is at the basis of the operational definitions of the scalar product and of the transposed of a physical transformation. What is new in the present paper with respect to Ref. [1], is the operational deduction of an involution corresponding to the complex‐conjugation for effects, whose extension to transformations allows to define the adjoint of a transformation when the extension is composition‐preserving. The existence of such composition‐preserving extension among possible extensions is analyzed.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2007•41 citations

Operational Axioms for Quantum Mechanics

Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano

The mathematical formulation of Quantum Mechanics in terms of complex Hilbert space is derived for finite dimensions, starting from a general definition of "physical experiment" and from five simple Postulates concerning "experimental accessibility and simplicity". For the infinite dimensional case, on the other hand, a C*-algebra representation of physical transformations is derived, starting from just four of the five Postulates via a Gelfand-Naimark-Segal (GNS) construction. The present paper simplifies and sharpens the previous derivation in version 1. The main ingredient of the axiomatization is the postulated existence of "faithful states" that allows one to calibrate the experimental apparatus. Such notion is at the basis of the operational definitions of the scalar product and of the "transposed" of a physical transformation. What is new in the present paper with respect to quant-ph/0603011 is the operational deduction of an involution corresponding to the "complex-conjugation" for effects, whose extension to transformations allows to define the "adjoint" of a transformation when the extension is composition-preserving.

arXiv:quant-ph/0611094•Nov 8, 2006•2 citations

Probabilistic theories: what is special about Quantum Mechanics?

Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is a very special probabilistic theory, yet we don't know which operational principles make it so. All axiomatization attempts suffer at least one postulate of a mathematical nature. Here I will analyze the possibility of deriving QM as the mathematical representation of a "fair operational framework", i.e. a set of rules which allows the experimenter to make predictions on future "events" on the basis of suitable "tests", e.g. without interference from uncontrollable sources. Two postulates need to be satisfied by any fair operational framework: NSF: "no-signaling from the future"--for the possibility of making predictions on the basis of past tests; PFAITH: "existence of a preparationally faithful state"--for the possibility of preparing any state and calibrating any test. I will show that all theories satisfying NSF admit a C*-algebra representation of events as linear transformations of effects. Based on a very general notion of dynamical independence, it is easy to see that all such probabilistic theories are "non-signaling without interaction" ("non-signaling" for short)--another requirement for a fair operational framework. Postulate PFAITH then implies the "local observability principle", the tensor-product structure for the linear spaces of states and effects, the impossibility of bit commitment and additional features, such an operational definition of transpose, a scalar product for effects, weak-selfduality of the theory, and more. Dual to Postulate PFAITH an analogous postulate for effects would give additional quantum features, such as teleportation. However, all possible consequences of these postulates still need to be investigated, and it is not clear yet if we can derive QM from the present postulates only. [CONTINUES on manuscript]

arXiv:0807.4383•Jul 28, 2008•1 citation
It is shown how a C*-algebra representation of the transformations of a physical system can be derived from two operational postulates: 1) the existence of dynamically independent systems}; 2) the existence of symmetric faithful states. Both notions are crucial for the possibility of performing experiments on the system, in preventing remote instantaneous influences and in allowing calibration of apparatuses. The case of Quantum Mechanics is thoroughly analyzed. The possibility that other no-signaling theories admit a C*-algebra formulation is discussed.
It is shown how a C*‐algebra representation of the transformations of a physical system can be derived from two operational postulates: 1) the existence of dynamically independent systems; 2) the existence of symmetric faithful states. Both notions are crucial for the possibility of performing experiments on the system, in preventing remote instantaneous influences and in allowing calibration of apparatuses. The case of Quantum Mechanics is thoroughly analyzed. The possibility that other no‐signaling theories admit a C*‐algebra formulation is discussed.
It is shown how a C ∗ -algebra representation of the transformations of a physic al sys- tem can be derived from two operational postulates: 1) the existence of dynamically independent systems; 2) the existence of symmetric faithful states. Both notions are crucial for the possibility of performing experiments on the system, in preventing remote instantaneous influences and in al- lowing calibration of apparatuses. The case of Quantum Mechanics is thoroughly analyzed. The possibility that other no-signaling theories admit a C ∗ -algebra formulation is discussed.
The mathematical formulation of Quantum Mechanics in terms of complex Hilbert space is derived for finite dimensions, starting from a general definition of physical experiment and from five simple Postulates concerning experimental accessibility and simplicity. For the infinite dimensional case, on the other hand, a C*‐algebra representation of physical transformations is derived, starting from just four of the five Postulates via a Gelfand‐Naimark‐Segal (GNS) construction. The present paper simplifies and sharpens the previous derivation in Ref. [1]. The main ingredient of the axiomatization is the postulated existence of faithful states that allows one to calibrate the experimental apparatus. Such notion is at the basis of the operational definitions of the scalar product and of the transposed of a physical transformation. What is new in the present paper with respect to Ref. [1], is the operational deduction of an involution corresponding to the complex‐conjugation for effects, whose extension to transformations allows to define the adjoint of a transformation when the extension is composition‐preserving. The existence of such composition‐preserving extension among possible extensions is analyzed.
The mathematical formulation of Quantum Mechanics in terms of complex Hilbert space is derived for finite dimensions, starting from a general definition of "physical experiment" and from five simple Postulates concerning "experimental accessibility and simplicity". For the infinite dimensional case, on the other hand, a C*-algebra representation of physical transformations is derived, starting from just four of the five Postulates via a Gelfand-Naimark-Segal (GNS) construction. The present paper simplifies and sharpens the previous derivation in version 1. The main ingredient of the axiomatization is the postulated existence of "faithful states" that allows one to calibrate the experimental apparatus. Such notion is at the basis of the operational definitions of the scalar product and of the "transposed" of a physical transformation. What is new in the present paper with respect to quant-ph/0603011 is the operational deduction of an involution corresponding to the "complex-conjugation" for effects, whose extension to transformations allows to define the "adjoint" of a transformation when the extension is composition-preserving.
Quantum Mechanics (QM) is a very special probabilistic theory, yet we don't know which operational principles make it so. All axiomatization attempts suffer at least one postulate of a mathematical nature. Here I will analyze the possibility of deriving QM as the mathematical representation of a "fair operational framework", i.e. a set of rules which allows the experimenter to make predictions on future "events" on the basis of suitable "tests", e.g. without interference from uncontrollable sources. Two postulates need to be satisfied by any fair operational framework: NSF: "no-signaling from the future"--for the possibility of making predictions on the basis of past tests; PFAITH: "existence of a preparationally faithful state"--for the possibility of preparing any state and calibrating any test. I will show that all theories satisfying NSF admit a C*-algebra representation of events as linear transformations of effects. Based on a very general notion of dynamical independence, it is easy to see that all such probabilistic theories are "non-signaling without interaction" ("non-signaling" for short)--another requirement for a fair operational framework. Postulate PFAITH then implies the "local observability principle", the tensor-product structure for the linear spaces of states and effects, the impossibility of bit commitment and additional features, such an operational definition of transpose, a scalar product for effects, weak-selfduality of the theory, and more. Dual to Postulate PFAITH an analogous postulate for effects would give additional quantum features, such as teleportation. However, all possible consequences of these postulates still need to be investigated, and it is not clear yet if we can derive QM from the present postulates only. [CONTINUES on manuscript]