The logic of quantum mechanics

Mituo Taketani, Masayuki Nagasaki

Antonino Drago, Antonio Venezia

In order to solve the problem of which is the real logic of Quantum Mechanics (QM), we suggest to study the mutual relationships between the physical theory (as a whole, that is both its experimental part and its theoretical part), its mathematics and its logic. That results to be a more general problem than what is considered by traditional studies on Quantum Logic (QL). These studies focus attention on the problem of the relationship between the experimental part of the physical theory and only its mathematics, from which logic is then derived. The new approach, that we suggest, generalises the interpretation that one of us (A. D.) successfully tested on the foundations of classical physical theories. The foundations of a theory are interpreted in terms of two options on the kind of mathematics, either classical one or constructive one, and the kind of logic, either classical logic or intuitionistic logic. It is remarkable that each theory making use of intuitionistic logic – i. e. L. Carnot’s classical mechanics, S. Carnot’s thermodynamics, Lobacevskij’s non-Euclidean geometry is organised in order to solve an universal problem (expressed by a double negated sentence), rather than in an entirely deductive way; hence, a non-classical logic does not belong exclusively to QM. From an historical and foundational analysis about QM, we conclude that in QM it is the law of double negation and not modular law (introduced by Birkhoff and von Neumann without giving physical evidence to it) which fails, i. e. which represents the true difference between Classical Logic (CL) and QL. We have looked for previous works on QL supporting our suggestion; in the past Destouches-Fevrier (1948), Fine (1974), Bell-Hallett (1981), Gauthier (1983), Adelman-Corbett (1995) already defended this thesis on the relevance of double negation law for QL. Under this light, QL results to have the same logic of a classical theory organised in a problematic manner. Hence, QM has to be referred to intuitionistic logic, in the same way every theory which is developed around a fundamental problem, expressed by a double negated sentence, does. In particular, by following the founder of intuitionism, Brouwer, we reject the identification of intuitionistic logic with an entirely deductive system; rather, the logical system of QL, as a theory, is organised in such a way to put a crucial problem to be solved. In agreement with this kind of organisation, among the several QM formulations we choose Heisenberg’s formulation, which was ignored by previous authors on QL. This formulation is aimed to solve the problem of quantum measurement, that originates the uncertainty methodological principle. Moreover, it is remarkable that it makes use of an operational mathematics (discrete matrices only). We interpret its characteristic arguing about its principal problem through double negated sentences; it results to be a moving from arguments belonging to non-classical logic expressed by a double negated sentence to the recognition of a suitable mathematics for QM formulation. In sum, QL shows how it is possible to state the relationship between QM and mathematics. This point has been almost ignored by the most traditional approaches to QL, which rather drew it from an a priori mathematics of QM (commonly, Hilbert space). As a verification of our approach, we show that even both Lobachevskij’s geometry and S. Carnot’s thermodynamics argued in order to achieve mathematical formulas expressing the content of the basic double negated sentences of respective theory. In the same way the recent book on QM by T. F. Jordan formalised his matrix mechanics. 1. Logic in classical physics and in Quantum Mechanics An historical analysis of Quantum Mechanics (QM) shows that there were at the origin of the theory two distinct formulations: Matrix Mechanics (Heisenberg, 1925) and Wave Mechanics (Schroedinger, 1926). Although Dirac subsumed these two formulations in a comprehensive mathematical framework (Hilbert space), we think that the organisation of the principles is different in Matrix Mechanics from that in Wave Mechanics, and this difference implies different logics. So we think that in order to characterise the logic of QM it is necessary to distinguish between this two formulations. In Matrix Mechanics, Heisenberg’s basic idea was to explain atomic spectra not in terms of atomic orbits (as Old Quantum Theory tried to make), but only by means of the study of experimental data; i. e., frequencies and intensities of light both emitted and absorbed by matter. Through a

Vaughan Pratt

Quantum logic is static, describing automata having uncertain states but no state transitions and no Heisenberg uncertainty tradeoff. We cast Girard's linear logic in the role of a dynamic quantum logic, regarded as an extension of quantum logic with time nonstandardly interpreted over a domain of linear automata and their dual linear schedules. In this extension the uncertainty tradeoff emerges via the "structure veil." When VLSI shrinks to where quantum effects are felt, their computer-aided design systems may benefit from such logics of computational behavior having a strong connection to quantum mechanics. 1 Motivation VLSI designers will eventually need to reckon with quantum mechanics (QM), certainly within 50 years and possibly by the 2010's. Computer-aided design (CAD) tools will need to adapt accordingly. Does this entail changing only the theory or also the logic of CAD verification systems? That is, will it be enough just to change those nonlogical axioms defining how elect...

Enrico G. Beltrametti, Gianni Cassinelli, Peter Carruthers

David Ellerman

In the tradition of toy models of quantum mechanics in vector spaces over finite fields (e.g., Schumacher and Westmoreland's "modal quantum theory"), one finite field stands out, 2, since vectors over 2 have an interpretation as natural mathematical objects, i.e., sets. This engages a sets-to-vector-spaces bridge that is part of the mathematical folklore to translate both ways between set concepts and vector space concepts. Using that bridge, the mathematical framework of (finite-dimensional) quantum mechanics can be transported down to sets resulting in quantum mechanics over sets or QM/sets. This approach leads to a different treatment of Dirac's brackets than in "modal quantum theory" (MQT), and that gives a full probability calculus (unlike MQT that only has zero-one modalities of impossible and possible). That, in turn, leads to a rather fulsome theory of QM over sets that includes "logical" models of the double-slit experiment, Bell's Theorem, quantum information theory, quantum computing, and much else. Indeed, QM/sets is proposed as the "logic" of QM in the old-fashioned sense of "logic" as giving the simplified essentials of a theory. QM/sets is also a key part of a broader research program to provide an interpretation of QM based on the notion of "objective indefiniteness," a program that grew out the recent development of the logic of partitions mathematically dual to the usual Boolean logic of subsets.

E. Buffenoir