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:1707.05633

The Algebra of the Pseudo-Observables I: Why Quantum Mechanics is the ultimate description of Reality

Edoardo Piparo

Published Jul 16, 2017• 2 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

This paper is the first of several parts introducing a new powerful algebra: the algebra of the pseudo-observables. This is a C*-algebra whose set is formed by formal expressions involving observables. The algebra is constructed by applying the Occam's razor principle, in order to obtain the minimal description of physical reality. Proceeding in such a manner, every aspect of quantum mechanics acquires a clear physical interpretation or a logical explanation, providing, for instance, in a natural way the reason for the structure of complex algebra and the matrix structure of the formulation of Werner Heisenberg of quantum mechanics. Last but not least, the very general hypotheses assumed, allow one to state that quantum mechanics is the unique minimal description of physical reality.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1707.05633

Related papers

The Algebra of the Pseudo-Observables II: The Measurement Problem

Edoardo Piparo

In this second paper, we develop the full mathematical structure of the algebra of the pseudo-observables, in order to solve the quantum measurement problem. Quantum state vectors are recovered but as auxiliary pseudo-observables storing the information acquired in a set of observations. The whole process of measurement is deeply reanalyzed in the conclusive section, evidencing original aspects. The relation of the theory with some popular interpretations of Quantum Mechanics is also discussed, showing that both Relational Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Bayesianism may be regarded as compatible interpretations of the theory. A final discussion on reality, tries to bring a new insight on it.

arXiv:1708.01170•Aug 3, 2017•1 citation

Noncommutative analysis and quantum physics I. States and ensembles

Arnold Neumaier

In this sequence of papers, noncommutative analysis is used to give a consistent axiomatic approach to a unified conceptual foundation of classical and quantum physics. The present Part I defines the concepts of observables, states and ensembles, clarifies the logical relations and operations for them, and shows how they give rise to dynamics and probabilities. States are identified with maximal consistent sets of weak equalities in the algebra of observables (instead of, as usual, with the rays in a Hilbert space). This leads to a concise foundation of quantum mechanics, free of undefined terms, separating in a clear way the deterministic and the stochastic features of quantum physics. The traditional postulates of quantum mechanics are derived from well-motivated axiomatic assumptions. No special quantum logic is needed to handle the peculiarities of quantum mechanics. Foundational problems associated with the measurement process, such as the reduction of the state vector, disappear. The new interpretation of quantum mechanics contains `elements of physical reality' without the need to introduce a classical framework with hidden variables. In particular, one may talk about the state of the universe without the need of an external observer and without the need to assume the existence of multiple universes.

arXiv:quant-ph/9909080•Sep 26, 1999•0 citations

Quantum mechanics

Carlo Rovelli C

Quantum mechanics (QM) is not just a theory of micro-objects: it is our current fundamental theory of motion. It expresses a deeper understanding of Nature than classical mechanics. Precisely as classical mechanics, the conventional formulation of QM describes evolution of states and observables in time. Precisely as classical mechanics, this is not sufficient to deal with general relativistic systems, because these systems do not describe evolution in time; they describe correlations between observables. Therefore, a formulation of QM slightly more general than the conventional one – or a quantum version of the relativistic classical mechanics discussed in the previous chapter – is needed. In this chapter I discuss the possibility of such a formulation. In the last section I discuss the general physical interpretation of QM. QM can be formulated in a number of more or less equivalent formalisms: canonical (Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators), covariant (Feynman's sum-over-histories), algebraic (states as linear functionals over an abstract algebra of observables) and others. Generally, but not always, we are able to translate these formalisms into one another, but often what is easy in one formulation is difficult in another. A generalrelativistic sum-over-histories formalism has been developed by Jim Hartle. Here I focus on the canonical formalism, because the canonical formalism has provided the mathematical completeness and precision needed to explicitly construct the mathematical apparatus of quantum gravity. Later I will consider alternative formalisms.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 15, 2004•0 citations

Generalized Uncertainty Relations in Quantum Mechanics and the Principles of Completeness in Physics

P. G. Castro, J. R. Croca, Marisa Della Gatta +1 more

Focusing on the initial development of quantum mechanics, we will give a brief historical synopsis of the theory foundations, based on the Fourier framework and stating the philosophical conclusions inspired by that same mathematical formalism. We will then proceed, introducing an alternative way of describing the undulatory aspects of quantum entities, using local Gaussian Morlet wavelets. As we shall see, this change implies different philosophical interpretations about quantum reality and, even more, about the contemporary accepted differences between the quantum and the macroscopic realms. From these we will witness the formal and heuristic power of wavelet local analysis applied to the physical description of Nature. The ideas presented in this paper are initial standpoints of what can hopefully be expected to be a more mature and unifying physical theory, still undergoing development.

Physical Science International Journal•Dec 18, 2017•5 citations

Spectral Methods for a Generalized Probability Theory

Stanley Gudder

A generalized probability theory arises naturally from an attempt to formulate a statistical model for quantum mechanics.One soon finds that the probability theory of Kolmogorov is inadequate for the description of a quantum mechanical system mainly because the quantum mechanical events fail to form a er-algebra of subsets of a set.Instead, they have a much less richly endowed algebraic structure which we shall a "logic".We therefore look upon generalized probability as a stochastic theory in which the events form a logic.Besides being useful in the study of quantum mechanics, this theory has a purely mathematical interest since it constructs a stochastic formalism on an algebraic structure and at the same time gives an abstract generalization of Hubert space theory.The first formulation of this theory is due to G. Bodiou [1], [2].More recently, V. S. Varadarajan [8] has emphasized the stochastic properties of an axiomatic formulation of quantum mechanics due to G. W. Mackey [5] and has proved some important results in this theory.The author heartily recommends these references for the background and motivation of this study.In this paper, the main interest centers on the spectral theory of the subject.The spectrum is important physically since it represents the "allowable" values of a quantum mechanical observable.It is also mathematically useful since it introduces topological methods into the formalism.2. Definitions and notation.Let L be a complemented lattice.That is, L is a lattice with first and last elements, 0,1 respectively and a-*a' satisfying the conditions (i) ia'Y = a for all a eL;(ii) a z% b implies b' zi a'; (iii) a V a ' -1 for all a e L.

Transactions of the American Mathematical Society•Jan 1, 1965•69 citations

An Axiomatic Approach to the Formalism of Quantum Mechanics. II.

Eduard Prugovečki

Another axiom has to be introduced to make the formalism given in Part I physically equivalent to the conventional Hilbert-space formalism. Then it is shown that, given a certain fundamental set of observables, a B*-algebra A can be built into which the set 𝒪b of all bounded observables can be mapped injectively. The closure of the algebra generated by the image of 𝒪b into A is A itself. A Hilbert space ℋ exists into which the set 𝒪0 of all pure physical states can be mapped injectively. The closure of the subset of ℋ which is the image of this mapping is ℋ itself. The algebra A can be mapped in such a fashion into the C*-algebra B(ℋ) of all bounded observables that these mappings provide, essentially, just a translation of the original formalism in a Hilbert-space formalism.

Journal of Mathematical Physics•Jun 1, 1966•12 citations
This paper is the first of several parts introducing a new powerful algebra: the algebra of the pseudo-observables. This is a C*-algebra whose set is formed by formal expressions involving observables. The algebra is constructed by applying the Occam's razor principle, in order to obtain the minimal description of physical reality. Proceeding in such a manner, every aspect of quantum mechanics acquires a clear physical interpretation or a logical explanation, providing, for instance, in a natural way the reason for the structure of complex algebra and the matrix structure of the formulation of Werner Heisenberg of quantum mechanics. Last but not least, the very general hypotheses assumed, allow one to state that quantum mechanics is the unique minimal description of physical reality.
In this second paper, we develop the full mathematical structure of the algebra of the pseudo-observables, in order to solve the quantum measurement problem. Quantum state vectors are recovered but as auxiliary pseudo-observables storing the information acquired in a set of observations. The whole process of measurement is deeply reanalyzed in the conclusive section, evidencing original aspects. The relation of the theory with some popular interpretations of Quantum Mechanics is also discussed, showing that both Relational Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Bayesianism may be regarded as compatible interpretations of the theory. A final discussion on reality, tries to bring a new insight on it.
In this sequence of papers, noncommutative analysis is used to give a consistent axiomatic approach to a unified conceptual foundation of classical and quantum physics. The present Part I defines the concepts of observables, states and ensembles, clarifies the logical relations and operations for them, and shows how they give rise to dynamics and probabilities. States are identified with maximal consistent sets of weak equalities in the algebra of observables (instead of, as usual, with the rays in a Hilbert space). This leads to a concise foundation of quantum mechanics, free of undefined terms, separating in a clear way the deterministic and the stochastic features of quantum physics. The traditional postulates of quantum mechanics are derived from well-motivated axiomatic assumptions. No special quantum logic is needed to handle the peculiarities of quantum mechanics. Foundational problems associated with the measurement process, such as the reduction of the state vector, disappear. The new interpretation of quantum mechanics contains `elements of physical reality' without the need to introduce a classical framework with hidden variables. In particular, one may talk about the state of the universe without the need of an external observer and without the need to assume the existence of multiple universes.
Quantum mechanics (QM) is not just a theory of micro-objects: it is our current fundamental theory of motion. It expresses a deeper understanding of Nature than classical mechanics. Precisely as classical mechanics, the conventional formulation of QM describes evolution of states and observables in time. Precisely as classical mechanics, this is not sufficient to deal with general relativistic systems, because these systems do not describe evolution in time; they describe correlations between observables. Therefore, a formulation of QM slightly more general than the conventional one – or a quantum version of the relativistic classical mechanics discussed in the previous chapter – is needed. In this chapter I discuss the possibility of such a formulation. In the last section I discuss the general physical interpretation of QM. QM can be formulated in a number of more or less equivalent formalisms: canonical (Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators), covariant (Feynman's sum-over-histories), algebraic (states as linear functionals over an abstract algebra of observables) and others. Generally, but not always, we are able to translate these formalisms into one another, but often what is easy in one formulation is difficult in another. A generalrelativistic sum-over-histories formalism has been developed by Jim Hartle. Here I focus on the canonical formalism, because the canonical formalism has provided the mathematical completeness and precision needed to explicitly construct the mathematical apparatus of quantum gravity. Later I will consider alternative formalisms.
Focusing on the initial development of quantum mechanics, we will give a brief historical synopsis of the theory foundations, based on the Fourier framework and stating the philosophical conclusions inspired by that same mathematical formalism. We will then proceed, introducing an alternative way of describing the undulatory aspects of quantum entities, using local Gaussian Morlet wavelets. As we shall see, this change implies different philosophical interpretations about quantum reality and, even more, about the contemporary accepted differences between the quantum and the macroscopic realms. From these we will witness the formal and heuristic power of wavelet local analysis applied to the physical description of Nature. The ideas presented in this paper are initial standpoints of what can hopefully be expected to be a more mature and unifying physical theory, still undergoing development.
A generalized probability theory arises naturally from an attempt to formulate a statistical model for quantum mechanics.One soon finds that the probability theory of Kolmogorov is inadequate for the description of a quantum mechanical system mainly because the quantum mechanical events fail to form a er-algebra of subsets of a set.Instead, they have a much less richly endowed algebraic structure which we shall a "logic".We therefore look upon generalized probability as a stochastic theory in which the events form a logic.Besides being useful in the study of quantum mechanics, this theory has a purely mathematical interest since it constructs a stochastic formalism on an algebraic structure and at the same time gives an abstract generalization of Hubert space theory.The first formulation of this theory is due to G. Bodiou [1], [2].More recently, V. S. Varadarajan [8] has emphasized the stochastic properties of an axiomatic formulation of quantum mechanics due to G. W. Mackey [5] and has proved some important results in this theory.The author heartily recommends these references for the background and motivation of this study.In this paper, the main interest centers on the spectral theory of the subject.The spectrum is important physically since it represents the "allowable" values of a quantum mechanical observable.It is also mathematically useful since it introduces topological methods into the formalism.2. Definitions and notation.Let L be a complemented lattice.That is, L is a lattice with first and last elements, 0,1 respectively and a-*a' satisfying the conditions (i) ia'Y = a for all a eL;(ii) a z% b implies b' zi a'; (iii) a V a ' -1 for all a e L.
Another axiom has to be introduced to make the formalism given in Part I physically equivalent to the conventional Hilbert-space formalism. Then it is shown that, given a certain fundamental set of observables, a B*-algebra A can be built into which the set 𝒪b of all bounded observables can be mapped injectively. The closure of the algebra generated by the image of 𝒪b into A is A itself. A Hilbert space ℋ exists into which the set 𝒪0 of all pure physical states can be mapped injectively. The closure of the subset of ℋ which is the image of this mapping is ℋ itself. The algebra A can be mapped in such a fashion into the C*-algebra B(ℋ) of all bounded observables that these mappings provide, essentially, just a translation of the original formalism in a Hilbert-space formalism.