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

BRILL eBooks

The Unsharp Approaches to Quantum Mechanics

Gianpiero Cattaneo, María Luisa Dalla Chiara, Roberto Giuntini

Published Jan 1, 1995• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

A basic aim of the unsharp approaches to quantum mechanics is to provide a mathematization of some ambigous aspects, that seem to be characteristic of the “concrete reality”. This has suggesten different forms of paraconsistent quantum logic. We work in the framework of a general semantics for physical theories, which concerns both the classical and quantum case.

DOI
10.1163/9789004457430_024

Related papers

Quantum Entanglement Through the Lens of Paraconsistent Logic

Pouria ABBASALINEJAD, Hamid Tebyanian

This paper presents an alternative approach to quantum entanglement, one that effectively resolves the logical inconsistencies without leading to logical contradictions. By addressing some of the inconsistencies within quantum mechanics, such as state superposition and non-locality, that challenge classical causal explanations, our method is constructed on the principles of paraconsistent logic. Our aim is to develop a para-consistent framework that supports the features of quantum mechanics while remaining faithful to its fundamental principles. In this pursuit, we scrutinize the philosophical and mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics in relation to classical logic systems. This method is designed to untangle theoretical puzzle spaces and promote coherence in the discussion of quantum theory. Ultimately, our approach offers a potential solution for interpreting quantum mechanics in a more coherent manner.

arXiv:2405.08775•May 14, 2024•1 citation

The basic ideas of quantum mechanics

David Ellerman

For a century, quantum theorists have been reading the mathematical entrails of quantum mechanics (QM) to divine the nature of quantum reality. But to little avail. In this paper a different approach is taken, namely to identify and explain the basic intuitive ideas involved in QM. This does not tell one how those basic `gears' all mesh together in the beautiful mathematics of QM. But this does give one some intuitive (\textit{anschaulich})) ideas about the quantum reality described in the seemingly hard-to-interpret mathematical framework.

arXiv:2509.15819•Sep 19, 2025•0 citations

Consistent Interpretation of Quantum and Classical Mechanics

Andrew Das Arulsamy

Interpreting quantum mechanics is a hard problem basically because it means explaining why and how the mathematics exploited to formulate wave-particle duality are related to observations or reality in classical physics. Consequently, interpretation of quantum mechanics and its formalism should involve proper physical mathematics, physical logic and classical physics, which is not the case from the Copenhagen interpretation. Here, we shall revisit all the postulates of quantum mechanics with proper physics and physical logic and reconstruct them to establish the less-complex interpretation of quantum mechanics with additional new postulates from classical physics. A new quantum mechanical postulate (Postulate 9) is also introduced to understand the meaning of the forbidden gap between discrete energy levels and/or electron orbitals in atoms that is valid for molecules and condensed matter based on quantum mechanics that is technically well-defined and experimentally observable. Here, we tackle all the problems arise from the Copenhagen interpretation systematically by revising and/or extending them with proper classical and quantum physics without violating established experiments and without proposing ideas that violate physical reality.

•May 2, 2023•0 citations

Quantum mechanics

Peter Szekeres

Our purpose in this chapter is to present the key concepts of quantum mechanics in the language of Hilbert spaces. The reader who has not previously met the physical ideas motivating quantum mechanics, and some of the more elementary applications of Schrödinger's equation, is encouraged to read any of a number of excellent texts on the subject such as [1–4]. Otherwise, the statements given here must to a large extent be taken on trust – not an altogether easy thing to do, since the basic assertions of quantum theory are frequently counterintuitive to anyone steeped in the classical view of physics. Quantum mechanics is frequently presented in the form of several postulates, as though it were an axiomatic system such as Euclidean geometry. As often presented, these postulates may not meet the standards of mathematical rigour required for a strictly logical set of axioms, so that little is gained by such an approach. We will do things a little more informally here. For those only interested in the mathematical aspects of quantum mechanics and the role of Hilbert space see [5–8]. Many of the standard applications, such as the hydrogen atom, will be omitted here as they can be found in all standard textbooks, and we leave aside the enormous topic of measurement theory and interpretations of quantum mechanics. This is not to say that we need be totally comfortable with quantum theory as it stands. Undoubtedly, there are some philosophically disquieting features in the theory, often expressed in the form of socalled paradoxes.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Dec 16, 2004•0 citations

Old Quantum Theory: A Paraconsistent Approach

Bryson Brown

Just what forms do (or should) our cognitive attitudes towards scientific theories take? The nature of cognitive commitment becomes particularly puzzling when scientists' commitments are) inconsistent. And inconsistencies have often infected our best efforts in science and mathematics. Since there are no models of inconsistent sets of sentences, straightforward semantic accounts fail. And syntactic accounts based on classical logic also collapse, since the closure of any inconsistent set under classical logic includes every sentence. In this essay I present some evidence that there really was a substantial cognitive commitment to OQT, and that some of its characteristics have a simple and straightforward explanation in terms of a model based on a form of paraconsistent logic.

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association•Jan 1, 1992•52 citations

Unsharp measurements and the conceptual problems of Quantum Theory

Ioan Sturzu

The paper emphasis the role of unsharpness in the body of Quantum Theory and the relations to the conceptual problems of the Theory. Key words: quantum measurement, unsharpness, effect, positive operator-valued measure

arXiv:quant-ph/9906004•Jun 1, 1999•1 citation
A basic aim of the unsharp approaches to quantum mechanics is to provide a mathematization of some ambigous aspects, that seem to be characteristic of the “concrete reality”. This has suggesten different forms of paraconsistent quantum logic. We work in the framework of a general semantics for physical theories, which concerns both the classical and quantum case.
This paper presents an alternative approach to quantum entanglement, one that effectively resolves the logical inconsistencies without leading to logical contradictions. By addressing some of the inconsistencies within quantum mechanics, such as state superposition and non-locality, that challenge classical causal explanations, our method is constructed on the principles of paraconsistent logic. Our aim is to develop a para-consistent framework that supports the features of quantum mechanics while remaining faithful to its fundamental principles. In this pursuit, we scrutinize the philosophical and mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics in relation to classical logic systems. This method is designed to untangle theoretical puzzle spaces and promote coherence in the discussion of quantum theory. Ultimately, our approach offers a potential solution for interpreting quantum mechanics in a more coherent manner.
For a century, quantum theorists have been reading the mathematical entrails of quantum mechanics (QM) to divine the nature of quantum reality. But to little avail. In this paper a different approach is taken, namely to identify and explain the basic intuitive ideas involved in QM. This does not tell one how those basic `gears' all mesh together in the beautiful mathematics of QM. But this does give one some intuitive (\textit{anschaulich})) ideas about the quantum reality described in the seemingly hard-to-interpret mathematical framework.
Interpreting quantum mechanics is a hard problem basically because it means explaining why and how the mathematics exploited to formulate wave-particle duality are related to observations or reality in classical physics. Consequently, interpretation of quantum mechanics and its formalism should involve proper physical mathematics, physical logic and classical physics, which is not the case from the Copenhagen interpretation. Here, we shall revisit all the postulates of quantum mechanics with proper physics and physical logic and reconstruct them to establish the less-complex interpretation of quantum mechanics with additional new postulates from classical physics. A new quantum mechanical postulate (Postulate 9) is also introduced to understand the meaning of the forbidden gap between discrete energy levels and/or electron orbitals in atoms that is valid for molecules and condensed matter based on quantum mechanics that is technically well-defined and experimentally observable. Here, we tackle all the problems arise from the Copenhagen interpretation systematically by revising and/or extending them with proper classical and quantum physics without violating established experiments and without proposing ideas that violate physical reality.
Our purpose in this chapter is to present the key concepts of quantum mechanics in the language of Hilbert spaces. The reader who has not previously met the physical ideas motivating quantum mechanics, and some of the more elementary applications of Schrödinger's equation, is encouraged to read any of a number of excellent texts on the subject such as [1–4]. Otherwise, the statements given here must to a large extent be taken on trust – not an altogether easy thing to do, since the basic assertions of quantum theory are frequently counterintuitive to anyone steeped in the classical view of physics. Quantum mechanics is frequently presented in the form of several postulates, as though it were an axiomatic system such as Euclidean geometry. As often presented, these postulates may not meet the standards of mathematical rigour required for a strictly logical set of axioms, so that little is gained by such an approach. We will do things a little more informally here. For those only interested in the mathematical aspects of quantum mechanics and the role of Hilbert space see [5–8]. Many of the standard applications, such as the hydrogen atom, will be omitted here as they can be found in all standard textbooks, and we leave aside the enormous topic of measurement theory and interpretations of quantum mechanics. This is not to say that we need be totally comfortable with quantum theory as it stands. Undoubtedly, there are some philosophically disquieting features in the theory, often expressed in the form of socalled paradoxes.
Just what forms do (or should) our cognitive attitudes towards scientific theories take? The nature of cognitive commitment becomes particularly puzzling when scientists' commitments are) inconsistent. And inconsistencies have often infected our best efforts in science and mathematics. Since there are no models of inconsistent sets of sentences, straightforward semantic accounts fail. And syntactic accounts based on classical logic also collapse, since the closure of any inconsistent set under classical logic includes every sentence. In this essay I present some evidence that there really was a substantial cognitive commitment to OQT, and that some of its characteristics have a simple and straightforward explanation in terms of a model based on a form of paraconsistent logic.