An alternative axiomatic system describing the concept of conditioning (or preparation) of states in a quantum logic is proposed and its consequences developed. The main difference between this and the system proposed by Pool is our reliance on Mielnik’s idea of transition probabilities, thereby avoiding some ad hoc hypotheses as well as the theory of Baer *-semigroups.
An alternative axiomatic system describing the concept of conditioning (or preparation) of states in a quantum logic is proposed and its consequences developed. The main difference between this and the system proposed by Pool is our reliance on Mielnik’s idea of transition probabilities, thereby avoiding some ad hoc hypotheses as well as the theory of Baer *-semigroups.
Since Birkhoff and von Neumann [2] a new area of logical investigation has grown up under the name of quantum logic. However it seems to me that many authors have been inclined to discuss algebraic semantics as such (mainly lattices of a certain kind) almost directly without presenting any axiomatic system, far from developing any proof theory of quantum logic. See, e.g., Gunson [9], Jauch [10], Varadarajan [15], Zeirler [16], etc. In this sense many works presented under the name of quantum logic are algebraic in essence rather than genuinely logical, though it is absurd to doubt the close relationship between algebraic and logical study on quantum mechanics. The main purpose of this paper is to alter this situation by presenting an axiomatization of quantum logic as natural and as elegant as possible, which further proof-theoretical study is to be based on. It is true that several axiomatizations of quantum logic are present now. Several authors have investigated the so-called material implication α → β ( = ¬α∨(α ∧ β)) very closely with due regard to its importance. See, e.g., Finch [5], Piziak [11], etc. Indeed material implication plays a predominant role in any axiomatization of a logic in Hilbert-style. Clark [4] has presented an axiomatization of quantum logic with negation ¬ and material implication → as primitive connectives. In this paper we do not follow this approach. First of all, this approach is greatly complicated because orthomodular lattices are only locally distributive.
Two new possibilities in the axiomatic foundations of quantum mechanics are examined: first, the possibility of introducing a non-symmetric transition probability between pure states, and second, showing that the concept of orthocomplementation in the logic of events is unnecessary and of secondary importance. An axiomatic scheme is presented which does not involve the concept of orthocomplementation and yet has all the advantages of the well-known quantum logic axiomatics, because the generalised logic of events admits an extension, which is a complete orthocomplemented orthomodular lattice with the covering law holding in it. Thus, the approach to quantum axiomatics may be seen as answering both the old questions of the quantum logic approach (e.g. the questions of the complete lattice structure of the logic, atomicity, the validity of the covering law) and the question concerning the necessity of the orthocomplementation in the logic of events, recently raised by Mielnik (1976).
The standard descriptions of the quantum-to-classical transition of quantum systems focuses on the evolution of quantum states. The main idea is to appeal to the decoherence process in order to explain the disappearance of the interference terms of the quantum states. These approaches give an adequate description of several aspects of the classical limit process. However, they do not explain how the logical structure of quantum properties becomes classical. In this chapter, we present an alternative approach to the quantum-to-classical transition, based on the evolution of the observables instead of the states. We show that if the observables of the system evolve over time in such a way that they become commutative, then the logical structure of quantum properties becomes a classical logic. Moreover, we illustrate the general idea of this approach considering four different models.
A quantum state, via the Born Rule, assigns probabilities to the different possible values of observables of a quantum system. It is only in virtue of these probabilities — or, alternatively, expectation values — that quantum mechanics is empirically testable. Since assigning a state to a system means assigning probabilities to the values of observables, it may seem natural to read Peierls’ claim that the state ‘represents our knowledge of the system’ (Peierls [1991], p. 19) as a shorthand for saying that the state represents our knowledge of these probabilities. The latter view is sometimes even straightforwardly identified with the epistemic conception of states, for example by Marchildon, who claims that ‘[i]n the epistemic view [of quantum states], the state vector (or wave function or density matrix) does not represent the objective state of a microscopic system […], but rather our knowledge of the probabilities of outcomes of future measurements’ (Marchildon [2004], p. 1454). However, according to an argument due to Fuchs and endorsed by Timpson, 31 the idea that quantum states represent our knowledge about quantum probabilities should not be regarded as the core claim of the epistemic conception of quantum states, simply because, as they argue, this idea is in fact incompatible with the latter. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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.