We discuss a novel framework for physical theories that is based on the principles of locality and operationalism. It generalizes and unifies previous frameworks, including the standard formulation of quantum theory, the convex operational framework and Segal's approach to quantum field theory. It is capable of encoding both classical and quantum (field) theories, implements spacetime locality in a manifest way and contains the complete modern notion of measurement in the quantum case. Its mathematical content can be condensed into a set of axioms that are similar to those of Atiyah and Segal. This is supplemented by two basic rules for extracting probabilities or expectation values for measurement processes. The framework, called the positive formalism, is derived in three completely different ways. One derivation is from first principles, one starts with classical field theory and one with quantum field theory. The latter derivation arose previously in the programme of the general boundary formulation of quantum theory. As in the convex operational framework, the difference between classical and quantum theories essentially arises from certain partially ordered vector spaces being either lattices or anti-lattices. If we add the ad hoc ingredient of imposing anti-lattice structures, the derivation from first principles may be seen as a reconstruction of quantum theory. Among other things, the positive formalism suggests a statistical approach to classical field theories with dynamical metric, provides a common ground for quantum information theory and quantum field theory, introduces a notion of local measurement into quantum field theory, and suggests a new perspective on quantum gravity by removing the incompatibility with general relativistic principles.
We discuss a novel framework for physical theories that is based on the principles of locality and operationalism. It generalizes and unifies previous frameworks, including the standard formulation of quantum theory, the convex operational framework and Segal's approach to quantum field theory. It is capable of encoding both classical and quantum (field) theories, implements spacetime locality in a manifest way and contains the complete modern notion of measurement in the quantum case. Its mathematical content can be condensed into a set of axioms that are similar to those of Atiyah and Segal. This is supplemented by two basic rules for extracting probabilities or expectation values for measurement processes. The framework, called the positive formalism, is derived in three completely different ways. One derivation is from first principles, one starts with classical field theory and one with quantum field theory. The latter derivation arose previously in the programme of the general boundary formulation of quantum theory. As in the convex operational framework, the difference between classical and quantum theories essentially arises from certain partially ordered vector spaces being either lattices or anti-lattices. If we add the ad hoc ingredient of imposing anti-lattice structures, the derivation from first principles may be seen as a reconstruction of quantum theory. Among other things, the positive formalism suggests a statistical approach to classical field theories with dynamical metric, provides a common ground for quantum information theory and quantum field theory, introduces a notion of local measurement into quantum field theory, and suggests a new perspective on quantum gravity by removing the incompatibility with general relativistic principles.
Abstract A concise review of the derivation of the Born rule and Schroedinger equation from first principles is provided. The starting point is a formalization of fundamental notions of measurement and composition, leading to a general framework for physical theories known as the positive formalism. Consecutively adding notions of spacetime, locality, absolute time and causality recovers the well established convex operational framework for classical and quantum theory. Requiring the partially ordered vector space of states to be an anti-lattice one obtains quantum theory in its standard formulation. This includes Born rule and Schroedinger equation.
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.
We give a brief introduction to the so-called general boundary formulation (GBF) of quantum theory. This new axiomatic formulation provides a description of the quantum dynamics which is manifestly local and does not rely on a metric background structure for its definition. We present the basic ingredients of the GBF, in particular we review the core axioms that assign algebraic structures to geometric ones, the two quantisation schemes so far developed for the GBF and the probability interpretation which generalizes the standard Born rule. Finally we briefly discuss some of the results obtained studying specific quantum field theories within the GBF.
Rovelli’s relational interpretation of quantum mechanics tells us that the description of a system in the formalism of quantum mechanics is not an absolute but is relative to the observer itself. The interpretation goes further and proposes a set of axioms. In standard non-relational language, one of them states that an observer can only retrieve a finite amount information from a system by means of measurement. Our contribution starts with the observation that quantum mechanics, i.e., quantum field theory (QFT) in dimension 1, radically differs from QFT in higher dimensions. In higher dimensions, boundary data (or initial data) cannot be characterized by finitely many measurements. This calls for a notion of measuring scale, which we provide. At a given measuring scale, the observer has partial information about the system. Our notion of measuring scale generalizes the one implicitly used in Wilsonian QFT. At each measuring scale, there are effective theories, which may be corrected, and if the theory turns out to be renormalizable, the mentioned corrections converge to determine a completely corrected (or renormalized) theory at the given measuring scale. The notion of a measuring scale is the cornerstone of Wilsonian QFT; this notion tells us that we are not describing a system from an absolute perspective. An effective theory at that scale describes the system with respect to the observer, which may retrieve information from the system by means of measurement in a specific way determined by our notion of measuring scale. We claim that a relational interpretation of quantum physics for spacetimes of dimensions greater than 1 is Wilsonian.
Quantum physics consists of a formal core that is universally agreed upon (basically being a piece of mathematics with suggestive names for concepts matching related concepts of experimental culture) and an interpretational halo (trying to make this relation more precise) that remains highly disputed even after more than 90 years of modern quantum physics. The latter is the subject of the interpretation of quantum mechanics (see Part II), where many interpretations coexist and compete for the attention of those interested in what quantum physics really means. In this chapter, an axiomatic introduction to the undisputed formal core of quantum physics is given. The axioms described present nonrelativistic quantum statistical mechanics in the Schrödinger picture. The relativistic case is outside the scope of these axioms, as it must be treated by quantum field theory; see Chapter 7. As in any axiomatic setting (necessary for a formal discipline), there are a number of different but equivalent sets of axioms or postulates that can be used to define formal quantum physics. Since they are equivalent, their choice is a matter of convenience. The choice presented here is a formulation featuring three aspects: It emphasises the similarity of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, gives most direct access to statistical mechanics, and is free from allusions to measurement. The reason for the first is that this similarity serves as a guide to meaning. From the axiomatic setting for quantum mechanics presented below, classical mechanics (in the Koopman setting discussed in Section 7.10) is obtained by simply restricting the operators to be diagonal, so that all operations happen pointwise on the diagonal elements. Thus, multiplication is commutative, and one can identify operators and functions. In particular, the density operator degenerates into a probability density. Therefore, the quantum case appears as a generalization of the classical case allowing for noncommutativity, so that both q-observables and the density operator are (usually infinite-dimensional) operators. The reason for the second is that statistical mechanics is the main tool for applications of quantum physics to the macroscopic systems we are familiar with. The reason for the third is that realistic measurements constitute a complex process involving macroscopic detectors, hence should be explained by quantum statistical mechanics rather than be part of the axiomatic foundations themselves. (This is in marked contrast to other foundations, and distinguishes the present system of axioms.)