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:2601.04880

Quantenlogische Systeme und Tensorproduktraeume

Tobias Starke

quant-phmath-phSubmitted Jan 8, 2026• Announced Jan 9, 2026• 0 citations• Revised Jan 9, 2026 (v2)
v1 · Jan 8, 2026v2 · Jan 9, 2026
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In this work we present an intuitive construction of the quantum logical axiomatic system provided by George Mackey. The goal of this work is a detailed discussion of the results from the paper 'Physical justification for using the tensor product to describe two quantum systems as one joint system' [1] published by Diederik Aerts and Ingrid Daubechies. This means that we want to show how certain composed physical systems from classical and quantum mechanics should be described logically. To reach this goal, we will, like in [1], discuss a special class of axiomatically defined composed physical systems. With the help of certain results from lattice and c-morphism theory (see [2] and [23]), we will present a detailed proof of the statement, that in the quantum mechanical case, a composed physical system must be described via a tensor product space.

Comments
in German language

Related papers

Tensor product of quantum logics

Sylvia Pulmannová

A quantum logic is the couple (L,M) where L is an orthomodular σ-lattice and M is a strong set of states on L. The Jauch–Piron property in the σ-form is also supposed for any state of M. A ‘‘tensor product’’ of quantum logics is defined. This definition is compared with the definition of a free orthodistributive product of orthomodular σ-lattices. The existence and uniqueness of the tensor product in special cases of Hilbert space quantum logics and one quantum and one classical logic are studied.

Journal of Mathematical Physics•Jan 1, 1985•46 citations

Composite systems and the role of the complex numbers in quantum mechanics

Gerd Niestegge

An axiomatic approach to the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, based upon a certain concept of conditional probability, has been proposed in two recent papers by the author. It leads to Jordan operator algebras and thus comes rather close to the standard Hilbert space model of quantum mechanics, but still includes the so-called exceptional Jordan algebras, for which a Hilbert space representation does not exist. This approach is now extended by defining a mathematical model of composite systems. Such a model is required for the study of the joint distribution of two quantum observables. A very general type of observables (not only the real-valued observables corresponding to the self-adjoint operators) is considered. The joint distribution is defined, using the concept of conditional probability, and exhibits a certain dependence on the succession of the observations which is different from the classical case and unknown so far in quantum mechanics. Finally, it turns out that, at least in the finite-dimensional case, a really satisfying model of the composite system exists only if each single system is modeled by a complex Jordan matrix algebra (or a direct sum), and the model then becomes the tensor product. This provides some reasoning why the exceptional Jordan algebras can be ruled out, why quantum mechanics needs the complex numbers and the complex Hilbert space, and why the tensor product is the right choice for the model of a composite system.

Journal of Mathematical Physics•Nov 12, 2004•16 citations

Construction of the tensor product for the lattices of properties of physical entities

Dirk Aerts

We construct the tensor product for the property lattices of two entities. We give a physical interpretation for this tensor product. We show that the tensor product is never an orthocomplemented lattice if both entities are nontrivial. It also never satisfies the covering law. This is the reason why this tensor product does not exist in quantum mechanics and does not exist in quantum logic. We analyze the relation of the tensor product with the usual description of two entities in quantum mechanics. At the end, we give a mathematical way of constructing this tensor product.

Journal of Mathematical Physics•May 1, 1984•39 citations

THE SEMILATTICE, BOX, AND LATTICE-TENSOR PRODUCTS IN QUANTUM LOGIC

Boris Ischi

Abstract. Given two complete atomistic lattices L1 and L2, we define a set S = S(L1, L2) of complete atomistic lattices by means of three axioms (natural regarding the description of quantum compound systems), or in terms of a universal property with respect to a given class of bimorphisms. We prove that S is a complete lattice. The bottom element L1 ∧○L2 is the separated product of Aerts. For atomistic lattices with 1 (not complete), L1 ∧○L2 ∼ = L1□L2 the box product of Grätzer and Wehrung, and, in case L1 and L2 are moreover coatomistic, L1 ∧○L2 ∼ = L1 ⊠ L2 the lattice tensor product. The top element L1 ∨○L2 is the (complete) join-semilattice tensor product of Fraser, which is isomorphic to the tensor products of Chu and Shmuely. With some additional hypotheses on L1 and L2 (true if L1 and L2 are moreover orthomodular with the covering property), we prove that S is a singleton if and only if L1 or L2 is distributive, if and only if L1 ∨○L2 has the covering property. Our main result reads: L ∈ S admits an orthocomplementation if and only if L = L1 ∧○L2. For L1 and L2 moreover irreducible, we characterize the automorphisms of each L ∈ S in terms of those of L1 and L2. At the end, we construct an example L1 ⇓○L2 in S which has the covering property. 1.

arXiv:math/0304350•Jan 1, 2005•3 citations

Quantum Relativity: A Synthesis of the Ideas of Einstein and Heisenberg

Marek Czachor

Standard Boolean logic is based on ideas taken from classical, first-order set theory. The first-order logic of quantum mechanics introduced by von Neumann is not a classical one. It is therefore natural to ask whether it is possible to formulate the corresponding theory of quantum sets, their (quantum) topology and higher-order structures. Once we have quantum sets and quantum topologies we can try to quantize essentially anything: phase space, groups, spacetime, etc. In his book Finkelstein reports results of some 40 years of studies in this direction. The book is not addressed to specialists, but to `thoughtful students of physics, mathematics and philosophy', which may justify the fact that this review is written by a person who is not actively working in the field of quantum logic. From this layman's position I must say that the book does not read very well. First of all, the standard language of physics is not naturally suited for speaking about such problems, so Finkelstein invents a new one. Obviously, it is not easy to read a difficult text which, in addition, is written in a language we do not know. It seems that the author should have tried to depart as little as possible from the standard terminology, but he could not resist coining new terms even for things we already know under different names. When I first looked into the table of contents I felt both curiosity and some intimidation since I did not understand the words. To give an example, we find there spinors, cospinors, anti-spinors, anti-cospinors, ambi-spinors, ambi-cospinors, etc. It turned out that they are simply upper- and lower-index, primed or unprimed ordinary spinors, or their second-rank tensor products. Fortunately higher-rank spinors were not needed. The notation also does not help to understand the text. For example, on p 148 the symbol denotes a spacetime index, but three lines later, in equation (11), it is a gauge group parameter, and no comment is made on this. On the other hand, the same object is often denoted in different ways (see, for instance, equation (1) on p 44 and (7) on p 47) and if we add a number of typographical errors the first reading of the book is really tiring. A general philosophy advocated in the book is to use a kind of two-time description which replaces continuous dynamics with discrete algebraic `activity'. The construction begins with a bi-modal logic of initial and final actions and the preclusion (or `occlusion' ) relation ` ' (essentially iff a transition between and is forbidden). A Hilbert space and a field of coefficients are derived from . Discretization of time goes hand-in-hand with the idea that spacetime should be quantized and, finally, an outline of its construction is given. An intriguing consequence of the Finkelstein formalism is the appearance of internal local gauge groups of the standard model just from the spacetime structure. It seems that some results presented in the book are subject to limitations which are not mentioned by the author. For example, the construction based on will not work correctly if the dynamics between the initial and final acts is nonlinear. This is so because mutually precluding acts do not have to correspond to orthogonal vectors if we use nonlinear eigenvalue problems. So details of evolution between initial and final acts may be more important than one would expect naively. The same concerns the proof that transition probabilities must be of the form . Such subtleties can be ignored in standard quantum mechanics but here we aim at generalization. I find some parts of the text misleading. A canonical example illustrating mathematical and physical meanings of the Finkelstein formalism is a Malusian experiment (i.e. the one involving photons and polarizers), but the Bell theorem given on p 251 cannot distinguish between its single-photon and two-photon versions. Physically the two systems are essentially different and a purely classical Aerts model that gives the Malus law for a single particle is known, even though the theorems and discussion on pp 251 - 3 suggest that this is impossible. Perhaps the original work the theorems were taken from clarifies this point but a reader will not find it for two reasons. First, the name of its author is misprinted. Second, there is no reference to the paper. This is quite typical of the book; the results which are regarded as inessential from the viewpoint of the main argument are oversimplified and quoted without references to original works. The clarity of the presentation would be improved if the author did not try to briefly summarize what he knows about physics (and certainly he knows a lot) but, instead, were more detailed about the material that is really new. In spite of all these minor critical remarks I think the book may be inspiring and opens an entirely new perspective on physics. Many of the problems discussed by Finkelstein remain unsolved but the strategy he proposes looks at least promising and, hopefully, some readers will join the author in his brave attack on the most difficult questions of modern science.

Classical and Quantum Gravity•Apr 1, 1997•18 citations

Tensor product spaces

Helmut Bez, Tony Croft

The study of quantum systems involving two or more qubits necessitates the development of mathematical tools which capture the interactions between the qubits. This leads to the construction of objects called tensors which are elements of a vector space called a tensor product space. This material is essential since tensors are required for defining the means of data representation in quantum computation. The tensor product is the result of combining two vectors in a particular way designed to capture the interaction between the various parts of the individual vectors. The results of finding tensor products reside in a vector space called the tensor product space, the elements of which are called tensors. The formal construction of a tensor product space is somewhat abstract and can be difficult for the student to understand.

Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks•Jan 6, 2023•0 citations
In this work we present an intuitive construction of the quantum logical axiomatic system provided by George Mackey. The goal of this work is a detailed discussion of the results from the paper 'Physical justification for using the tensor product to describe two quantum systems as one joint system' [1] published by Diederik Aerts and Ingrid Daubechies. This means that we want to show how certain composed physical systems from classical and quantum mechanics should be described logically. To reach this goal, we will, like in [1], discuss a special class of axiomatically defined composed physical systems. With the help of certain results from lattice and c-morphism theory (see [2] and [23]), we will present a detailed proof of the statement, that in the quantum mechanical case, a composed physical system must be described via a tensor product space.
A quantum logic is the couple (L,M) where L is an orthomodular σ-lattice and M is a strong set of states on L. The Jauch–Piron property in the σ-form is also supposed for any state of M. A ‘‘tensor product’’ of quantum logics is defined. This definition is compared with the definition of a free orthodistributive product of orthomodular σ-lattices. The existence and uniqueness of the tensor product in special cases of Hilbert space quantum logics and one quantum and one classical logic are studied.
An axiomatic approach to the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, based upon a certain concept of conditional probability, has been proposed in two recent papers by the author. It leads to Jordan operator algebras and thus comes rather close to the standard Hilbert space model of quantum mechanics, but still includes the so-called exceptional Jordan algebras, for which a Hilbert space representation does not exist. This approach is now extended by defining a mathematical model of composite systems. Such a model is required for the study of the joint distribution of two quantum observables. A very general type of observables (not only the real-valued observables corresponding to the self-adjoint operators) is considered. The joint distribution is defined, using the concept of conditional probability, and exhibits a certain dependence on the succession of the observations which is different from the classical case and unknown so far in quantum mechanics. Finally, it turns out that, at least in the finite-dimensional case, a really satisfying model of the composite system exists only if each single system is modeled by a complex Jordan matrix algebra (or a direct sum), and the model then becomes the tensor product. This provides some reasoning why the exceptional Jordan algebras can be ruled out, why quantum mechanics needs the complex numbers and the complex Hilbert space, and why the tensor product is the right choice for the model of a composite system.
We construct the tensor product for the property lattices of two entities. We give a physical interpretation for this tensor product. We show that the tensor product is never an orthocomplemented lattice if both entities are nontrivial. It also never satisfies the covering law. This is the reason why this tensor product does not exist in quantum mechanics and does not exist in quantum logic. We analyze the relation of the tensor product with the usual description of two entities in quantum mechanics. At the end, we give a mathematical way of constructing this tensor product.
Abstract. Given two complete atomistic lattices L1 and L2, we define a set S = S(L1, L2) of complete atomistic lattices by means of three axioms (natural regarding the description of quantum compound systems), or in terms of a universal property with respect to a given class of bimorphisms. We prove that S is a complete lattice. The bottom element L1 ∧○L2 is the separated product of Aerts. For atomistic lattices with 1 (not complete), L1 ∧○L2 ∼ = L1□L2 the box product of Grätzer and Wehrung, and, in case L1 and L2 are moreover coatomistic, L1 ∧○L2 ∼ = L1 ⊠ L2 the lattice tensor product. The top element L1 ∨○L2 is the (complete) join-semilattice tensor product of Fraser, which is isomorphic to the tensor products of Chu and Shmuely. With some additional hypotheses on L1 and L2 (true if L1 and L2 are moreover orthomodular with the covering property), we prove that S is a singleton if and only if L1 or L2 is distributive, if and only if L1 ∨○L2 has the covering property. Our main result reads: L ∈ S admits an orthocomplementation if and only if L = L1 ∧○L2. For L1 and L2 moreover irreducible, we characterize the automorphisms of each L ∈ S in terms of those of L1 and L2. At the end, we construct an example L1 ⇓○L2 in S which has the covering property. 1.
Standard Boolean logic is based on ideas taken from classical, first-order set theory. The first-order logic of quantum mechanics introduced by von Neumann is not a classical one. It is therefore natural to ask whether it is possible to formulate the corresponding theory of quantum sets, their (quantum) topology and higher-order structures. Once we have quantum sets and quantum topologies we can try to quantize essentially anything: phase space, groups, spacetime, etc. In his book Finkelstein reports results of some 40 years of studies in this direction. The book is not addressed to specialists, but to `thoughtful students of physics, mathematics and philosophy', which may justify the fact that this review is written by a person who is not actively working in the field of quantum logic. From this layman's position I must say that the book does not read very well. First of all, the standard language of physics is not naturally suited for speaking about such problems, so Finkelstein invents a new one. Obviously, it is not easy to read a difficult text which, in addition, is written in a language we do not know. It seems that the author should have tried to depart as little as possible from the standard terminology, but he could not resist coining new terms even for things we already know under different names. When I first looked into the table of contents I felt both curiosity and some intimidation since I did not understand the words. To give an example, we find there spinors, cospinors, anti-spinors, anti-cospinors, ambi-spinors, ambi-cospinors, etc. It turned out that they are simply upper- and lower-index, primed or unprimed ordinary spinors, or their second-rank tensor products. Fortunately higher-rank spinors were not needed. The notation also does not help to understand the text. For example, on p 148 the symbol denotes a spacetime index, but three lines later, in equation (11), it is a gauge group parameter, and no comment is made on this. On the other hand, the same object is often denoted in different ways (see, for instance, equation (1) on p 44 and (7) on p 47) and if we add a number of typographical errors the first reading of the book is really tiring. A general philosophy advocated in the book is to use a kind of two-time description which replaces continuous dynamics with discrete algebraic `activity'. The construction begins with a bi-modal logic of initial and final actions and the preclusion (or `occlusion' ) relation ` ' (essentially iff a transition between and is forbidden). A Hilbert space and a field of coefficients are derived from . Discretization of time goes hand-in-hand with the idea that spacetime should be quantized and, finally, an outline of its construction is given. An intriguing consequence of the Finkelstein formalism is the appearance of internal local gauge groups of the standard model just from the spacetime structure. It seems that some results presented in the book are subject to limitations which are not mentioned by the author. For example, the construction based on will not work correctly if the dynamics between the initial and final acts is nonlinear. This is so because mutually precluding acts do not have to correspond to orthogonal vectors if we use nonlinear eigenvalue problems. So details of evolution between initial and final acts may be more important than one would expect naively. The same concerns the proof that transition probabilities must be of the form . Such subtleties can be ignored in standard quantum mechanics but here we aim at generalization. I find some parts of the text misleading. A canonical example illustrating mathematical and physical meanings of the Finkelstein formalism is a Malusian experiment (i.e. the one involving photons and polarizers), but the Bell theorem given on p 251 cannot distinguish between its single-photon and two-photon versions. Physically the two systems are essentially different and a purely classical Aerts model that gives the Malus law for a single particle is known, even though the theorems and discussion on pp 251 - 3 suggest that this is impossible. Perhaps the original work the theorems were taken from clarifies this point but a reader will not find it for two reasons. First, the name of its author is misprinted. Second, there is no reference to the paper. This is quite typical of the book; the results which are regarded as inessential from the viewpoint of the main argument are oversimplified and quoted without references to original works. The clarity of the presentation would be improved if the author did not try to briefly summarize what he knows about physics (and certainly he knows a lot) but, instead, were more detailed about the material that is really new. In spite of all these minor critical remarks I think the book may be inspiring and opens an entirely new perspective on physics. Many of the problems discussed by Finkelstein remain unsolved but the strategy he proposes looks at least promising and, hopefully, some readers will join the author in his brave attack on the most difficult questions of modern science.
The study of quantum systems involving two or more qubits necessitates the development of mathematical tools which capture the interactions between the qubits. This leads to the construction of objects called tensors which are elements of a vector space called a tensor product space. This material is essential since tensors are required for defining the means of data representation in quantum computation. The tensor product is the result of combining two vectors in a particular way designed to capture the interaction between the various parts of the individual vectors. The results of finding tensor products reside in a vector space called the tensor product space, the elements of which are called tensors. The formal construction of a tensor product space is somewhat abstract and can be difficult for the student to understand.