AIP conference proceedings

Weak Quantum Theory: Formal Framework and Selected Applications

Harald Atmanspacher A

Published Jan 1, 2006• 45 citations

Abstract

Two key concepts of quantum theory, complementarity and entanglement, are considered with respect to their significance in and beyond physics. An axiomatically formalized, weak version of quantum theory, more general than the ordinary quantum theory of physical systems, is described. Its mathematical structure generalizes the algebraic approach to ordinary quantum theory. The crucial formal feature leading to complementarity and entanglement is the non‐commutativity of observables.The ordinary Hilbert space quantum mechanics can be recovered by stepwise adding the necessary features. This provides a hierarchy of formal frameworks of decreasing generality and increasing specificity. Two concrete applications, more specific than weak quantum theory and more general than ordinary quantum theory, are discussed: (i) complementarity and entanglement in classical dynamical systems, and (ii) complementarity and entanglement in the bistable perception of ambiguous stimuli.

DOI: 10.1063/1.2158709

Related papers

Entanglement and Information in Algebraic Quantum Theories

Giovanni Valente

The algebraic approach to physical theories provides a general framework encompassing both classical and quantum mechanics. Accordingly, by looking at the behaviour of the relevant algebras of observables one can investigate structural and conceptual differences between the theories. Interesting foundational questions can be formulated algebraically and their answers are then given in a mathematically compelling way. My dissertation focuses on some philosophical issues concerning entanglement and quantum information as they arise in the algebraic. These two concepts are connected in that one can exploit the non-local character of quantum theory to construct protocols of information theory which are not realized in the classical world. I first introduce the basic concepts of the algebraic formalism, by reviewing von Neumann's work on the mathematical foundations of quantum theories. After presenting the reasons why von Neumann abandoned the standard Hilbert space formulation in favour of the algebraic approach, I show how his axiomatic program remained a mathematical "utopia" in mathematical physics. The Bayesian interpretation of quantum mechanics is grounded in information-theoretical considerations. I take on some specific problems concerning the extension of Bayesian statistical inference in infinite dimensional Hilbert space. I demonstrate that the failure of a stability condition, formulated as a rationality constraint for classical Bayesian conditional probabilities, does not undermine the Bayesian interpretation of quantum probabilities. I then provide a solution to the problem of Bayesian noncommutative statistical inference in general probability spaces. Furthermore, I propose a derivation of the a priori probability state in quantum mechanics from symmetry considerations. Finally, Algebraic Quantum Field Theory offers a rigorous axiomatization of quantum field theory, namely the synthesis of quantum mechanics and special relativity. In such a framework one can raise the question of whether or not quantum correlations are made stronger by adding relativistic constraints. I argue that entanglement is more robust in the relativistic context than in ordinary quantum theory. In particular, I show how to generalize the claim that entanglement across space-like separated regions of Minkowski spacetime would persist, no matter how one acts locally.

Jan 1, 20081 citation

Generalized Quantum Theory: Overview and Latest Developments

Thomas Filk, Hartmann Römer

The main formal structures of generalized quantum theory are summarized. Recent progress has sharpened some of the concepts, in particular the notion of an observable, the action of an observable on states (putting more emphasis on the role of proposition observables), and the concept of generalized entanglement. Furthermore, the active role of the observer in the structure of observables and the partitioning of systems is emphasized.

arXiv:1202.1659AxiomathesNov 12, 201039 citations

From classical to quantum mechanics: “How to translate physical ideas into mathematical language”

Hervé Bergeron

Following previous works by E. Prugovečki [Physica A 91A, 202 (1978) and Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space–time (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)] on common features of classical and quantum mechanics, we develop a unified mathematical framework for classical and quantum mechanics (based on L2-spaces over classical phase space), in order to investigate to what extent quantum mechanics can be obtained as a simple modification of classical mechanics (on both logical and analytical levels). To obtain this unified framework, we split quantum theory in two parts: (i) general quantum axiomatics (a system is described by a state in a Hilbert space, observables are self-adjoints operators, and so on) and (ii) quantum mechanics proper that specifies the Hilbert space as L2(Rn); the Heisenberg rule [pi,qj]=−iℏδij with p=−iℏ∇, the free Hamiltonian H=−ℏ2Δ/2m and so on. We show that general quantum axiomatics (up to a supplementary “axiom of classicity”) can be used as a nonstandard mathematical ground to formulate physical ideas and equations of ordinary classical statistical mechanics. So, the question of a “true quantization” with “ℏ” must be seen as an independent physical problem not directly related with quantum formalism. At this stage, we show that this nonstandard formulation of classical mechanics exhibits a new kind of operation that has no classical counterpart: this operation is related to the “quantization process,” and we show why quantization physically depends on group theory (the Galilei group). This analytical procedure of quantization replaces the “correspondence principle” (or canonical quantization) and allows us to map classical mechanics into quantum mechanics, giving all operators of quantum dynamics and the Schrödinger equation. The great advantage of this point of view is that quantization is based on concrete physical arguments and not derived from some “pure algebraic rule” (we exhibit also some limit of the correspondence principle). Moreover spins for particles are naturally generated, including an approximation of their interaction with magnetic fields. We also recover by this approach the semi-classical formalism developed by E. Prugovečki [Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space–time (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)].

arXiv:quant-ph/0102084Journal of Mathematical PhysicsSep 1, 200112 citations

2 Generalized Quantum Theory: Overview and Latest Developments

Thomas Filk A

The main formal structures of Generalized Quantum Theory are summarized. Recent progress has sharpened some of the concepts, in particular the notion of an observable, the action of an observable on states (putting more emphasis on the role of proposition observables), and the concept of generalized entanglement. Furthermore, the active role of the observer in the structure of observables and the partitioning of systems is emphasized.

Aug 16, 201641 citations

The quantum formulation derived from assumptions of epistemic processes

Inge Svein Helland

Motivated by Quantum Bayesianism I give background for a general epistemic approach to quantum mechanics, where complementarity and symmetry are the only essential features. A general definition of a symmetric epistemic setting is introduced, and for this setting the basic Hilbert space formalism is arrived at under certain technical assumptions. Other aspects of ordinary quantum mechanics will be developed from the same basis elsewhere.

arXiv:1507.07701Journal of Physics Conference SeriesApr 13, 20150 citations

Discrete classical vs. continuous quantum data in abstract quantum mechanics

Samson Abramsky, Bob Coecke

``Quantum'' stands for for the concepts (both operational and formal) which had to be added to classical physics in order to understand otherwise unexplainable observed phenomena such as the structure of the spectral lines in atomic spectra. While the basic part of classical mechanics deals with the (essentially) reversible dynamics, quantum required adding the notions of ``measurement'' and (possibly non-local) ``correlations'' to the discussion. Crucially, all this comes with a ``probabilistic calculus''. The corresponding mathematical formalism was considered to have reached maturity in [von Neumann 1932], but there are some manifest problems with that formalism: (i) While measurements are applied to physical systems, application of their formal counterpart (i.e. a self-adjoint linear operator) to the vector representing that state of the system in no way reflects how the state changes during the act of measurement. Analogously, the composite of two self-adjoint operators has no physical significance while in practice measurements can be effectuated sequentially. More generally, the formal types in von Neumann's formalism do not reflect the nature of the corresponding underlying concept at all! (ii) Part of the problem regarding the measurements discussed above is that in the von Neumann formalism there is no place for storage, manipulation and exchange of the classical data obtained from measurements. Protocols such as quantum teleportation involving these cannot be given a full formal description. (iii) The behavioral properties of quantum entanglement which for example enable continuous data exchange using only finitary communication are hidden in the formalism. In [Abramsky and Coecke 2004] we addressed all these problems, and in addition provided a purely categorical axiomatization of quantum mechanics. The concepts of the abstract quantum mechanics are formulated relative to a strongly compact closed category with biproducts (of which the category FdHilb of finite dimensional Hilbert spaces and linear maps is an example). Preparations, measurements, either destructive or not, classical data exchange are all morphisms in that category, and their types fully reflect their kinds. Correctness properties of standard quantum protocols can be abstractly proven. Surprisingly, in this seemingly purely qualitative setting even the quantitative Born rule arises, that is the rule which tells you how to calculate the probabilities. Indeed, each such category has as endomorphism Hom of the tensor unit an abelian semiring of `scalars', and a special subset of these scalars will play the role of weights: each scalar induces a natural transformation which propagates through physical processes, and when a `state' undergoes a `measurement', the composition of the corresponding morphisms gives rise to the weight. Hence the probabilistic weights live within the category of processes. J. von Neumann. Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Springer-Verlag (1932). English translation in Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press (1955). S. Abramsky and B. Coecke. A categorical semantics of quantum protocols. In the proceedings of LiCS'04 (2004). An extended version is available at arXiv:quant-ph/0402130 A more reader friendly version entitled `Quantum information flow, concretely, abstractly' is at http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/Bob/Papers/QPL.pdf

Dagstuhl Seminar ProceedingsJan 1, 20050 citations