© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General

Reply to comments by George and Prigogine on the paper 'On the validity of the Brussels formalism in statistical mechanics'

Peter V. Coveney, O. Penrose

Published Aug 7, 1993• 0 citations

Abstract

For original paper see Coveney et. al., ibid., vol.25, p.4947 (1992). George and Prigogine (ibid., vol.26, p.3905, 1993) interpret the authors previous paper as destructive criticism of the Brussels formalism. However they argue that their aim was to discover conditions under which this method might be supported by rigorous analysis and that their results give a set of sufficient conditions, admittedly quite restrictive, for the validity of a part of the formalism. The Brussels school has never promulgated any agreed choice for the function space in which the formalism's operators are to act. In their work they chose a Hilbert space. This structure sufficed for the theorems they could prove, which concern only the P subspace. They agree that additional structure, such as that of a rigged Hilbert space, may be necessary to give effect to the Brussels formalism outside the P subspace, but since this additional structure would not have affected their results they do not see that its omission was a misrepresentation. Further comments are made.

DOI: 10.1088/0305-4470/26/15/039

Related papers

Comments on the paper by Coveney and Penrose 'On the validity of the Brussels formalism in statistical mechanics'

Claude D. George, Ilya Prigogine

For original paper see Coveney et. al. ibid., vol.25, p.4947 (1992). The previous authors state, in the introductory section of their paper that they are looking only at a 'small part' of the Brussels formalism. The title of their paper does not reflect this restriction and refers to the general validity of the Brussels formalism. The criticisms are focused on a few papers published about twenty years ago. However, even restricted to these papers, their claims do not apply. The present authors point out two major misrepresentations.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Aug 7, 1993•3 citations

A comment on disordered systems

Theodore Kaplan, L. J. Gray

For original papers see ibid., vol.10, p.L597 (1977) and vol.11, p.L949 (1978). The authors respond to two recent letters which comment on the augmented space formalism.

Journal of Physics C Solid State Physics•Sep 28, 1979•3 citations

The Arrow of Time in Rigged Hilbert Space Quantum Mechanics

Robert C. Bishop

Arno Bohm and Ilya Prigogine's Brussels-Austin Group have been working on the quantum mechanical arrow of time and irreversibility in rigged Hilbert space quantum mechanics. A crucial notion in Bohm's approach is the so-called preparation/registration arrow. An analysis of this arrow and its role in Bohm's theory of scattering is given. Similarly, the Brussels-Austin Group uses an excitation/de-excitation arrow for ordering events, which is also analyzed. The relationship between the two approaches is initially discussed focusing on their semi-group operators and time arrows. Finally a possible realist interpretation of the rigged Hilbert space formulation of quantum mechanics is considered.

arXiv:quant-ph/0506184•Jun 22, 2005•0 citations

Reply to the Comment on ‘The correspondence between quantum and classical mechanics: An experimental demonstration of the smooth transition between the two regimes’ [Chem. Phys. Lett. 402 (2005) 519]

Anthony J. Horsewill

Chemical Physics Letters•Nov 29, 2006•4 citations

Reply to comment by D.L. Khokhlov on my paper "INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION WITH QUANTUM MECHANICS FORMALISM"

Yuri A. Rylov

•Jan 1, 2009•0 citations

Brussels-Austin Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics in the Early Years: Similarity Transformations between Deterministic and Probabilistic Descriptions

Robert C. Bishop

The fundamental problem on which Ilya Prigogine and the Brussels-Austin Group have focused can be stated briefly as follows. Our observations indicate that there is an arrow of time in our experience of the world (e.g., decay of unstable radioactive atoms like Uranium, or the mixing of cream in coffee). Most of the fundamental equations of physics are time reversible, however, presenting an apparent conflict between our theoretical descriptions and experimental observations. Many have thought that the observed arrow of time was either an artifact of our observations or due to very special initial conditions. An alternative approach, followed by the Brussels-Austin Group, is to consider the observed direction of time to be a basics physical phenomenon and to develop a mathematical formalism that can describe this direction as being due to the dynamics of physical systems. In part I of this essay, I review and assess an attempt to carry out an approach that received much of their attention from the early 1970s to the mid 1980s. In part II, I will discuss their more recent approach using rigged Hilbert spaces.

arXiv:physics/0304018•Apr 7, 2003•0 citations

For original paper see Coveney et. al., ibid., vol.25, p.4947 (1992). George and Prigogine (ibid., vol.26, p.3905, 1993) interpret the authors previous paper as destructive criticism of the Brussels formalism. However they argue that their aim was to discover conditions under which this method might be supported by rigorous analysis and that their results give a set of sufficient conditions, admittedly quite restrictive, for the validity of a part of the formalism. The Brussels school has never promulgated any agreed choice for the function space in which the formalism's operators are to act. In their work they chose a Hilbert space. This structure sufficed for the theorems they could prove, which concern only the P subspace. They agree that additional structure, such as that of a rigged Hilbert space, may be necessary to give effect to the Brussels formalism outside the P subspace, but since this additional structure would not have affected their results they do not see that its omission was a misrepresentation. Further comments are made.

For original paper see Coveney et. al. ibid., vol.25, p.4947 (1992). The previous authors state, in the introductory section of their paper that they are looking only at a 'small part' of the Brussels formalism. The title of their paper does not reflect this restriction and refers to the general validity of the Brussels formalism. The criticisms are focused on a few papers published about twenty years ago. However, even restricted to these papers, their claims do not apply. The present authors point out two major misrepresentations.

Arno Bohm and Ilya Prigogine's Brussels-Austin Group have been working on the quantum mechanical arrow of time and irreversibility in rigged Hilbert space quantum mechanics. A crucial notion in Bohm's approach is the so-called preparation/registration arrow. An analysis of this arrow and its role in Bohm's theory of scattering is given. Similarly, the Brussels-Austin Group uses an excitation/de-excitation arrow for ordering events, which is also analyzed. The relationship between the two approaches is initially discussed focusing on their semi-group operators and time arrows. Finally a possible realist interpretation of the rigged Hilbert space formulation of quantum mechanics is considered.

The fundamental problem on which Ilya Prigogine and the Brussels-Austin Group have focused can be stated briefly as follows. Our observations indicate that there is an arrow of time in our experience of the world (e.g., decay of unstable radioactive atoms like Uranium, or the mixing of cream in coffee). Most of the fundamental equations of physics are time reversible, however, presenting an apparent conflict between our theoretical descriptions and experimental observations. Many have thought that the observed arrow of time was either an artifact of our observations or due to very special initial conditions. An alternative approach, followed by the Brussels-Austin Group, is to consider the observed direction of time to be a basics physical phenomenon and to develop a mathematical formalism that can describe this direction as being due to the dynamics of physical systems. In part I of this essay, I review and assess an attempt to carry out an approach that received much of their attention from the early 1970s to the mid 1980s. In part II, I will discuss their more recent approach using rigged Hilbert spaces.