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]
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]
To my friend and mentor, Professor Attilio Rigamonti. Unperformed experiments have no results. Asher Peres Introduction More than a century after its birth, quantum mechanics (QM) remains mysterious. We still don't have general principles from which to derive its remarkable mathematical framework, as happened for the amazing Lorentz transformations, which were rederived by Einstein from the invariance of physical laws in inertial frames and from the constancy of the speed of light. Despite the utmost relevance of the problem of deriving QM from operational principles, research efforts in this direction have been sporadic. The deepest of the early attacks on the problem were the works of Birkhoff, von Neumann, Jordan, and Wigner, attempting to derive QM from a set of axioms with as much physical significance as possible. The general idea in Ref. is to regard QM as a new kind of prepositional calculus , a proposal that spawned the research line of quantum logic , which is based on von Neumann's observation that the two-valued observables – represented in his formulation of QM by orthogonal projection operators – constitute a kind of “logic” of experimental propositions. After a hiatus of two decades of neglect, interest in quantum logic was revived by Varadarajan, and most notably by Mackey, who axiomatized QM within an operational framework, with the single exception of an admittedly ad hoc postulate, which represents the propositional calculus mathematically in the form of an orthomodular lattice. The most significant extension of Mackey's work is the general representation theorem of Piron.
This chapter contains a brief introduction to mathematical formalism and QM axiomatics. It is oriented to non-physicists. Since QM is a statistical theory it is natural to start with the classical probability model (Kolmogorov [ 191 ], 1933). Then we present the basics of the theory of Hilbert spaces and Hermitian operators and the representation of pure and mixed states by normalized vectors and density operators. This introduction is sufficient to formulate the axiomatics of QM in the form of five postulates. The projection postulate (the most questionable postulate of QM) is presented in a separate section. We sharply distinguish between the cases of quantum observables represented by Hermitian operators with nondegenerate and degenerate spectra, von Neumann’s and Ltiders’s forms of the projection postulate. The axiomatics is completed by a short section on the main interpretations of QM. The projection postulate (LUders’s form) plays a crucial role in the definition of quantum conditional (transition) probability. By operating with the latter we consider interference of probabilities for two incompatible observables as a modification of the formula of total probability by adding the interference term. This viewpoint to interference of probabilities was elaborated in a series of works by Khrennikov. Since classical probability theory is based on the 142 Boolean algebra of events, a violation of the law of total probability can be treated as the probabilistic sign of a violation of the laws of the Boolean logics. From this viewpoint, quantum theory can be considered as representing a new kind of logic, so-called quantum logic. The latter is also briefly presented in a separate section. We continue this review with a new portion of quantum mathematics, namely the notion of the tensor product of Hilbert spaces and the tensor product of operators. After the section on Dirac’s notation with ket and bra vector, we discuss briefly the notion of qubit and entanglement of a few qubits. This chapter concludes with a presentation of the detailed analysis of the probabilistic structure of the two-slit experiment in a bunch of different experimental contexts. This contextual structure leads to a violation of the law of total probability and non-Kolmogorovean probabilistic structure of this experiment.
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.
The debate on the nature of quantum probabilities in relation to Quantum Non Locality has elevated Quantum Mechanics to the level of an "Operational Epistemic Theory". In such context the quantum superposition principle has an extraneous non epistemic nature. This leads us to seek purely operational foundations for Quantum Mechanics, from which to derive the current mathematical axiomatization based on Hilbert spaces. In the present work I present a set of axioms of purely operational nature, based on a general definition of "the experiment", the operational/epistemic archetype of information retrieval from reality. As we will see, this starting point logically entails a series of notions [state, conditional state, local state, pure state, faithful state, instrument, propensity (i.e. "effect"), dynamical and informational equivalence, dynamical and informational compatibility, predictability, discriminability, programmability, locality, a-causality, rank of the state, maximally chaotic state, maximally entangled state, informationally complete propensity, etc. ], along with a set of rules (addition, convex combination, partial orderings, ...), which, far from being of quantum origin as often considered, instead constitute the universal "syntactic manual" of the operational/epistemic approach. The missing ingredient is, of course, the quantum superposition axiom for probability amplitudes: for this I propose some substitute candidates of purely operational/epistemic nature.
The debate on the nature of quantum probabilities in relation to Quantum Non Locality has elevated Quantum Mechanics to the level of an Operational Epistemic Theory. In such context the quantum superposition principle has an extraneous non epistemic nature. This leads us to seek purely operational foundations for Quantum Mechanics, from which to derive the current mathematical axiomatization based on Hilbert spaces.In the present work I present a set of axioms of purely operational nature, based on a general definition of “the experiment”, the operational/epistemic archetype of information retrieval from reality. As we will see, this starting point logically entails a series of notions [state, conditional state, local state, pure state, faithful state, instrument, propensity (i.e. “effect”), dynamical and informational equivalence, dynamical and informational compatibility, predictability, discriminability, programmability, locality, a‐causality, rank of the state, maximally chaotic state, maximally entangled state, informationally complete propensity, etc.], along with a set of rules (addition, convex combination, partial orderings, … ), which, far from being of quantum origin as often considered, instead constitute the universal syntactic manual of the operational/epistemic approach. The missing ingredient is, of course, the quantum superposition axiom for probability amplitudes: for this I propose some substitute candidates of purely operational/epistemic nature.