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

Physics Essays

Preparation-Effect Versus Question-Proposition Structures.

Gianpiero Cattaneo, Claudio Garola, Giuseppe Nisticò

Published Jun 1, 1989• 19 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We introduce the mathematical structure PES (preparation‐effect structure), which is capable of a physical interpretation thus making the five axioms of PES physically plausible. In this way, PES can be considered a general mathematical structure that underlies many physical theories. We then introduce four more axioms to obtain a more specific structure [the pure states (PS) complete orthogonality (OG) PES satisfying the covering law]. This more specific structure can be considered as the basic mathematical structure for quantum physics (QP). We show that some definitions and results pertaining to different axiomatic approaches to QP can be interpreted into a PES. (This allows a better comparison of the approaches.) In particular, we consider the Jauch‐Piron (JP) approach to QP, reformulate it to make it completely axiomatical thus distinguishing between a basic underlying mathematical structure [i.e., the question‐preparation structure (QPS)] and its specific mathematical structure (i.e., the JP QPS), and show that it can be completely interpreted into a PS complete OG PES satisfying the covering law.

DOI
10.4006/1.3035866

Related papers

Conditional Probability and the Axiomatic Structure of Quantum Mechanics

Wawrzyniec Guz

Abstract The paper, summarizing the results of recent papers of the author, is devoted to a detailed analysis of postulates of nonrelativistic quantum theory appearing within two classical axiomatic frameworks the “quantum logic” and the “algebraic approach” respectively, which are presently the two main alternatives for quantum axiomatics. The first part of the paper concerns the structure of two important sets, the set of questions (propositional logic) and the set of pure states. It is shown how the quantum logic axiomatic scheme can be modified and improved in order to overcome the well known troubles connected with the lack of satisfactory physical justification for some postulates of this approach. In particular, an axiom system is developed, related closely to the quantum logic axiomatic scheme, in which the questions of the complete lattice structure, the atomisticity, and the validity of the covering law in the propositional logic do not appear so problematic. The particular attention is directed to the covering law, which is here obtained as a consequence of physically clear properties of the experimental procedures (“filters”) associated with the quantum‐mechanical propositions. In Section 1.5 we formulate an axiom system for quantum mechanics based exclusively on the concepts of pure state, transition probability, and pure filter. In the second part of the paper the axiomatic scheme presented in Part 1 is developed with the aim to analyse the algebraic structure of some subspaces of the set of simple observables. The quantum logic axiomatic framework is here shown closely connected with the Jordan‐Banach algebraic scheme. In the third part of the paper, similarly as it was done in Parts 1 and 2, the correspondence between the propositions and the experimental (measuring) procedures verifying these propositions is put as the basic assumption of the axiomatization of quantum mechanics. As a consequence of this assumption, there is established the structure of a real Jordan‐Banach algebra in the set Ob of the bounded observables associated with a physical system, so that we can apply the GNS representation theorem proved recently for such algebras by Alfsen et al. (1978) to obtain the Hilbert space (or, to be more precise, the C*‐algebraic) representation for Ob.

Fortschritte der Physik•Jan 1, 1981•19 citations

Introduction to Quantum Theory

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

This chapter contains a brief introduction to mathematical formalism and QM axiomatics. It is oriented to non-physicists. Since QM is a statistical theory it is natural to start with the classical probability model (Kolmogorov [ 191 ], 1933). Then we present the basics of the theory of Hilbert spaces and Hermitian operators and the representation of pure and mixed states by normalized vectors and density operators. This introduction is sufficient to formulate the axiomatics of QM in the form of five postulates. The projection postulate (the most questionable postulate of QM) is presented in a separate section. We sharply distinguish between the cases of quantum observables represented by Hermitian operators with nondegenerate and degenerate spectra, von Neumann’s and Ltiders’s forms of the projection postulate. The axiomatics is completed by a short section on the main interpretations of QM. The projection postulate (LUders’s form) plays a crucial role in the definition of quantum conditional (transition) probability. By operating with the latter we consider interference of probabilities for two incompatible observables as a modification of the formula of total probability by adding the interference term. This viewpoint to interference of probabilities was elaborated in a series of works by Khrennikov. Since classical probability theory is based on the 142 Boolean algebra of events, a violation of the law of total probability can be treated as the probabilistic sign of a violation of the laws of the Boolean logics. From this viewpoint, quantum theory can be considered as representing a new kind of logic, so-called quantum logic. The latter is also briefly presented in a separate section. We continue this review with a new portion of quantum mathematics, namely the notion of the tensor product of Hilbert spaces and the tensor product of operators. After the section on Dirac’s notation with ket and bra vector, we discuss briefly the notion of qubit and entanglement of a few qubits. This chapter concludes with a presentation of the detailed analysis of the probabilistic structure of the two-slit experiment in a bunch of different experimental contexts. This contextual structure leads to a violation of the law of total probability and non-Kolmogorovean probabilistic structure of this experiment.

•Jul 30, 2020•0 citations

On the structure of quantum logic

Peter D. Finch

In the axiomatic development of the logic of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics it is not difficult to set down certain plausible axioms which ensure that the quantum logic of propositions has the structure of an orthomodular poset. This can be done in a number of ways, for example, as in Gunson [2], Mackey [4], Piron [5], Varadarajan [7] and Zierler [8], and we summarise one of these ways in §2 below.

Journal of Symbolic Logic•Jul 25, 1969•49 citations

Reformulating and Reconstructing Quantum Theory

Lucién Hardy

We provide a reformulation of finite dimensional quantum theory in the circuit framework in terms of mathematical axioms, and a reconstruction of quantum theory from operational postulates. The mathematical axioms for quantum theory are the following: [Axiom 1] Operations correspond to operators. [Axiom 2] Every complete set of physical operators corresponds to a complete set of operations. The following operational postulates are shown to be equivalent to these mathematical axioms: [P1] Sharpness. Associated with any given pure state is a unique maximal effect giving probability equal to one. This maximal effect does not give probability equal to one for any other pure state. [P2] Information locality. A maximal measurement on a composite system is effected if we perform maximal measurements on each of the components. [P3] Tomographic locality. The state of a composite system can be determined from the statistics collected by making measurements on the components. [P4] Compound permutability. There exists a compound reversible transformation on any system effecting any given permutation of any given maximal set of distinguishable states for that system. [P5] Sturdiness. Filters are non-flattening. Hence, from these postulates we can reconstruct all the usual features of quantum theory: States are represented by positive operators, transformations by completely positive trace non-increasing maps, and effects by positive operators. The Born rule (i.e. the trace rule) for calculating probabilitieso follows. A more detailed abstract is provided in the paper.

arXiv:1104.2066•Apr 11, 2011•124 citations

Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: Generalizations of the Mathematical Axiomatic Derivation of the Schrödinger Equation

Olavo Leopoldino da Silva Filho

An axiomatic approach to quantum mechanics that has, as a theorem, the Schrödinger equation may be of enormous value to cope with interpretation issues, since all the interpretation constructs must be present in the axioms, or directly derived by them from their mathematical unfolding. Thus, it is critical to show that this axiomatic derivation is reliable beyond any possible doubt. To show this, it is possible to make generalizations and extensions of the axioms to derive the Schrödinger equation in the underlying generalized or extended formats. In previous papers, we have shown that the axiomatic approach we propose can be used to derive the Schrödinger equation as a direct axiom. Since then, we have also shown that it was possible to generalize that derivation to coordinate systems other than the Cartesian, as well as its relativistic extensions that lead to the relativistic wave equations. An extension to dissipative systems was also performed, allowing us to mathematically derive the Caldirola–Kanai equation from first principles. All these derivations were performed using pure states and in the absence of the electromagnetic field. This means that we can further generalize the approach to embrace these two possibilities. Being an axiomatic approach, we show that we need only to slightly modify the axioms to derive the Schrödinger equation for these two contexts. Despite being quite direct, the algebraic complexity of these derivations should give the reader the desired confidence in the proposed axioms.

Mathematics•Jun 3, 2026•0 citations

An Essay on the Completion of Quantum Theory. I: General Setting

Wolfgang Bertram

We propose a geometric setting of the axiomatic mathematical formalism of quantum theory. Guided by the idea that understanding the mathematical structures of these axioms is of similar importance as was historically the process of understanding the axioms of geometry, we complete the spaces of observables and of states in a similar way as in classical geometry linear or affine spaces are completed by projective spaces. In this sense, our theory can be considered as a "completion of usual linear quantum theory" , such that the usual theory appears as the special case where a reference frame is fixed once and for all. In the present first part, this general setting is explained. Dynamics (time evolution) will be discussed in subsequent work.

arXiv:1711.08643•Nov 23, 2017•2 citations
We introduce the mathematical structure PES (preparation‐effect structure), which is capable of a physical interpretation thus making the five axioms of PES physically plausible. In this way, PES can be considered a general mathematical structure that underlies many physical theories. We then introduce four more axioms to obtain a more specific structure [the pure states (PS) complete orthogonality (OG) PES satisfying the covering law]. This more specific structure can be considered as the basic mathematical structure for quantum physics (QP). We show that some definitions and results pertaining to different axiomatic approaches to QP can be interpreted into a PES. (This allows a better comparison of the approaches.) In particular, we consider the Jauch‐Piron (JP) approach to QP, reformulate it to make it completely axiomatical thus distinguishing between a basic underlying mathematical structure [i.e., the question‐preparation structure (QPS)] and its specific mathematical structure (i.e., the JP QPS), and show that it can be completely interpreted into a PS complete OG PES satisfying the covering law.
Abstract The paper, summarizing the results of recent papers of the author, is devoted to a detailed analysis of postulates of nonrelativistic quantum theory appearing within two classical axiomatic frameworks the “quantum logic” and the “algebraic approach” respectively, which are presently the two main alternatives for quantum axiomatics. The first part of the paper concerns the structure of two important sets, the set of questions (propositional logic) and the set of pure states. It is shown how the quantum logic axiomatic scheme can be modified and improved in order to overcome the well known troubles connected with the lack of satisfactory physical justification for some postulates of this approach. In particular, an axiom system is developed, related closely to the quantum logic axiomatic scheme, in which the questions of the complete lattice structure, the atomisticity, and the validity of the covering law in the propositional logic do not appear so problematic. The particular attention is directed to the covering law, which is here obtained as a consequence of physically clear properties of the experimental procedures (“filters”) associated with the quantum‐mechanical propositions. In Section 1.5 we formulate an axiom system for quantum mechanics based exclusively on the concepts of pure state, transition probability, and pure filter. In the second part of the paper the axiomatic scheme presented in Part 1 is developed with the aim to analyse the algebraic structure of some subspaces of the set of simple observables. The quantum logic axiomatic framework is here shown closely connected with the Jordan‐Banach algebraic scheme. In the third part of the paper, similarly as it was done in Parts 1 and 2, the correspondence between the propositions and the experimental (measuring) procedures verifying these propositions is put as the basic assumption of the axiomatization of quantum mechanics. As a consequence of this assumption, there is established the structure of a real Jordan‐Banach algebra in the set Ob of the bounded observables associated with a physical system, so that we can apply the GNS representation theorem proved recently for such algebras by Alfsen et al. (1978) to obtain the Hilbert space (or, to be more precise, the C*‐algebraic) representation for Ob.
This chapter contains a brief introduction to mathematical formalism and QM axiomatics. It is oriented to non-physicists. Since QM is a statistical theory it is natural to start with the classical probability model (Kolmogorov [ 191 ], 1933). Then we present the basics of the theory of Hilbert spaces and Hermitian operators and the representation of pure and mixed states by normalized vectors and density operators. This introduction is sufficient to formulate the axiomatics of QM in the form of five postulates. The projection postulate (the most questionable postulate of QM) is presented in a separate section. We sharply distinguish between the cases of quantum observables represented by Hermitian operators with nondegenerate and degenerate spectra, von Neumann’s and Ltiders’s forms of the projection postulate. The axiomatics is completed by a short section on the main interpretations of QM. The projection postulate (LUders’s form) plays a crucial role in the definition of quantum conditional (transition) probability. By operating with the latter we consider interference of probabilities for two incompatible observables as a modification of the formula of total probability by adding the interference term. This viewpoint to interference of probabilities was elaborated in a series of works by Khrennikov. Since classical probability theory is based on the 142 Boolean algebra of events, a violation of the law of total probability can be treated as the probabilistic sign of a violation of the laws of the Boolean logics. From this viewpoint, quantum theory can be considered as representing a new kind of logic, so-called quantum logic. The latter is also briefly presented in a separate section. We continue this review with a new portion of quantum mathematics, namely the notion of the tensor product of Hilbert spaces and the tensor product of operators. After the section on Dirac’s notation with ket and bra vector, we discuss briefly the notion of qubit and entanglement of a few qubits. This chapter concludes with a presentation of the detailed analysis of the probabilistic structure of the two-slit experiment in a bunch of different experimental contexts. This contextual structure leads to a violation of the law of total probability and non-Kolmogorovean probabilistic structure of this experiment.
We provide a reformulation of finite dimensional quantum theory in the circuit framework in terms of mathematical axioms, and a reconstruction of quantum theory from operational postulates. The mathematical axioms for quantum theory are the following: [Axiom 1] Operations correspond to operators. [Axiom 2] Every complete set of physical operators corresponds to a complete set of operations. The following operational postulates are shown to be equivalent to these mathematical axioms: [P1] Sharpness. Associated with any given pure state is a unique maximal effect giving probability equal to one. This maximal effect does not give probability equal to one for any other pure state. [P2] Information locality. A maximal measurement on a composite system is effected if we perform maximal measurements on each of the components. [P3] Tomographic locality. The state of a composite system can be determined from the statistics collected by making measurements on the components. [P4] Compound permutability. There exists a compound reversible transformation on any system effecting any given permutation of any given maximal set of distinguishable states for that system. [P5] Sturdiness. Filters are non-flattening. Hence, from these postulates we can reconstruct all the usual features of quantum theory: States are represented by positive operators, transformations by completely positive trace non-increasing maps, and effects by positive operators. The Born rule (i.e. the trace rule) for calculating probabilitieso follows. A more detailed abstract is provided in the paper.
An axiomatic approach to quantum mechanics that has, as a theorem, the Schrödinger equation may be of enormous value to cope with interpretation issues, since all the interpretation constructs must be present in the axioms, or directly derived by them from their mathematical unfolding. Thus, it is critical to show that this axiomatic derivation is reliable beyond any possible doubt. To show this, it is possible to make generalizations and extensions of the axioms to derive the Schrödinger equation in the underlying generalized or extended formats. In previous papers, we have shown that the axiomatic approach we propose can be used to derive the Schrödinger equation as a direct axiom. Since then, we have also shown that it was possible to generalize that derivation to coordinate systems other than the Cartesian, as well as its relativistic extensions that lead to the relativistic wave equations. An extension to dissipative systems was also performed, allowing us to mathematically derive the Caldirola–Kanai equation from first principles. All these derivations were performed using pure states and in the absence of the electromagnetic field. This means that we can further generalize the approach to embrace these two possibilities. Being an axiomatic approach, we show that we need only to slightly modify the axioms to derive the Schrödinger equation for these two contexts. Despite being quite direct, the algebraic complexity of these derivations should give the reader the desired confidence in the proposed axioms.
We propose a geometric setting of the axiomatic mathematical formalism of quantum theory. Guided by the idea that understanding the mathematical structures of these axioms is of similar importance as was historically the process of understanding the axioms of geometry, we complete the spaces of observables and of states in a similar way as in classical geometry linear or affine spaces are completed by projective spaces. In this sense, our theory can be considered as a "completion of usual linear quantum theory" , such that the usual theory appears as the special case where a reference frame is fixed once and for all. In the present first part, this general setting is explained. Dynamics (time evolution) will be discussed in subsequent work.