Standard Boolean logic is based on ideas taken from classical, first-order set theory. The first-order logic of quantum mechanics introduced by von Neumann is not a classical one. It is therefore natural to ask whether it is possible to formulate the corresponding theory of quantum sets, their (quantum) topology and higher-order structures. Once we have quantum sets and quantum topologies we can try to quantize essentially anything: phase space, groups, spacetime, etc. In his book Finkelstein reports results of some 40 years of studies in this direction. The book is not addressed to specialists, but to `thoughtful students of physics, mathematics and philosophy', which may justify the fact that this review is written by a person who is not actively working in the field of quantum logic. From this layman's position I must say that the book does not read very well. First of all, the standard language of physics is not naturally suited for speaking about such problems, so Finkelstein invents a new one. Obviously, it is not easy to read a difficult text which, in addition, is written in a language we do not know. It seems that the author should have tried to depart as little as possible from the standard terminology, but he could not resist coining new terms even for things we already know under different names. When I first looked into the table of contents I felt both curiosity and some intimidation since I did not understand the words. To give an example, we find there spinors, cospinors, anti-spinors, anti-cospinors, ambi-spinors, ambi-cospinors, etc. It turned out that they are simply upper- and lower-index, primed or unprimed ordinary spinors, or their second-rank tensor products. Fortunately higher-rank spinors were not needed. The notation also does not help to understand the text. For example, on p 148 the symbol denotes a spacetime index, but three lines later, in equation (11), it is a gauge group parameter, and no comment is made on this. On the other hand, the same object is often denoted in different ways (see, for instance, equation (1) on p 44 and (7) on p 47) and if we add a number of typographical errors the first reading of the book is really tiring. A general philosophy advocated in the book is to use a kind of two-time description which replaces continuous dynamics with discrete algebraic `activity'. The construction begins with a bi-modal logic of initial and final actions and the preclusion (or `occlusion' ) relation ` ' (essentially iff a transition between and is forbidden). A Hilbert space and a field of coefficients are derived from . Discretization of time goes hand-in-hand with the idea that spacetime should be quantized and, finally, an outline of its construction is given. An intriguing consequence of the Finkelstein formalism is the appearance of internal local gauge groups of the standard model just from the spacetime structure. It seems that some results presented in the book are subject to limitations which are not mentioned by the author. For example, the construction based on will not work correctly if the dynamics between the initial and final acts is nonlinear. This is so because mutually precluding acts do not have to correspond to orthogonal vectors if we use nonlinear eigenvalue problems. So details of evolution between initial and final acts may be more important than one would expect naively. The same concerns the proof that transition probabilities must be of the form . Such subtleties can be ignored in standard quantum mechanics but here we aim at generalization. I find some parts of the text misleading. A canonical example illustrating mathematical and physical meanings of the Finkelstein formalism is a Malusian experiment (i.e. the one involving photons and polarizers), but the Bell theorem given on p 251 cannot distinguish between its single-photon and two-photon versions. Physically the two systems are essentially different and a purely classical Aerts model that gives the Malus law for a single particle is known, even though the theorems and discussion on pp 251 - 3 suggest that this is impossible. Perhaps the original work the theorems were taken from clarifies this point but a reader will not find it for two reasons. First, the name of its author is misprinted. Second, there is no reference to the paper. This is quite typical of the book; the results which are regarded as inessential from the viewpoint of the main argument are oversimplified and quoted without references to original works. The clarity of the presentation would be improved if the author did not try to briefly summarize what he knows about physics (and certainly he knows a lot) but, instead, were more detailed about the material that is really new. In spite of all these minor critical remarks I think the book may be inspiring and opens an entirely new perspective on physics. Many of the problems discussed by Finkelstein remain unsolved but the strategy he proposes looks at least promising and, hopefully, some readers will join the author in his brave attack on the most difficult questions of modern science.
Standard Boolean logic is based on ideas taken from classical, first-order set theory. The first-order logic of quantum mechanics introduced by von Neumann is not a classical one. It is therefore natural to ask whether it is possible to formulate the corresponding theory of quantum sets, their (quantum) topology and higher-order structures. Once we have quantum sets and quantum topologies we can try to quantize essentially anything: phase space, groups, spacetime, etc. In his book Finkelstein reports results of some 40 years of studies in this direction. The book is not addressed to specialists, but to thoughtful students of physics, mathematics and philosophy', which may justify the fact that this review is written by a person who is not actively working in the field of quantum logic. From this layman's position I must say that the book does not read very well. First of all, the standard language of physics is not naturally suited for speaking about such problems, so Finkelstein invents a new one. Obviously, it is not easy to read a difficult text which, in addition, is written in a language we do not know. It seems that the author should have tried to depart as little as possible from the standard terminology, but he could not resist coining new terms even for things we already know under different names. When I first looked into the table of contents I felt both curiosity and some intimidation since I did not understand the words. To give an example, we find there spinors, cospinors, anti-spinors, anti-cospinors, ambi-spinors, ambi-cospinors, etc. It turned out that they are simply upper- and lower-index, primed or unprimed ordinary spinors, or their second-rank tensor products. Fortunately higher-rank spinors were not needed. The notation also does not help to understand the text. For example, on p 148 the symbol denotes a spacetime index, but three lines later, in equation (11), it is a gauge group parameter, and no comment is made on this. On the other hand, the same object is often denoted in different ways (see, for instance, equation (1) on p 44 and (7) on p 47) and if we add a number of typographical errors the first reading of the book is really tiring. A general philosophy advocated in the book is to use a kind of two-time description which replaces continuous dynamics with discrete algebraic activity'. The construction begins with a bi-modal logic of initial and final actions and the preclusion (or occlusion' ) relation ' (essentially iff a transition between and is forbidden). A Hilbert space and a field of coefficients are derived from . Discretization of time goes hand-in-hand with the idea that spacetime should be quantized and, finally, an outline of its construction is given. An intriguing consequence of the Finkelstein formalism is the appearance of internal local gauge groups of the standard model just from the spacetime structure. It seems that some results presented in the book are subject to limitations which are not mentioned by the author. For example, the construction based on will not work correctly if the dynamics between the initial and final acts is nonlinear. This is so because mutually precluding acts do not have to correspond to orthogonal vectors if we use nonlinear eigenvalue problems. So details of evolution between initial and final acts may be more important than one would expect naively. The same concerns the proof that transition probabilities must be of the form . Such subtleties can be ignored in standard quantum mechanics but here we aim at generalization. I find some parts of the text misleading. A canonical example illustrating mathematical and physical meanings of the Finkelstein formalism is a Malusian experiment (i.e. the one involving photons and polarizers), but the Bell theorem given on p 251 cannot distinguish between its single-photon and two-photon versions. Physically the two systems are essentially different and a purely classical Aerts model that gives the Malus law for a single particle is known, even though the theorems and discussion on pp 251 - 3 suggest that this is impossible. Perhaps the original work the theorems were taken from clarifies this point but a reader will not find it for two reasons. First, the name of its author is misprinted. Second, there is no reference to the paper. This is quite typical of the book; the results which are regarded as inessential from the viewpoint of the main argument are oversimplified and quoted without references to original works. The clarity of the presentation would be improved if the author did not try to briefly summarize what he knows about physics (and certainly he knows a lot) but, instead, were more detailed about the material that is really new. In spite of all these minor critical remarks I think the book may be inspiring and opens an entirely new perspective on physics. Many of the problems discussed by Finkelstein remain unsolved but the strategy he proposes looks at least promising and, hopefully, some readers will join the author in his brave attack on the most difficult questions of modern science.
It is very likely that most readers and authors of articles appearing in Classical and Quantum Gravity are interested in what might loosely be termed the philosophy of science. It is equally likely, with perhaps a few exceptions, that the research of these same readers and authors has not been influenced in the least by the work of professional philosophers of science. This is certainly the case for those of us who work in quantum field theory. One must therefore ask who the intended audience is for a book which purports to discuss the philosophical implications of quantum field theory. In the preface, the author states that there are two intended audiences for his book. The first is `other interested interpreters of physics' who wish to learn something about quantum field theory in as painless a way as possible. The second is for students of physics who are bogged down in the details of learning quantum field theory and cannot see the overall picture. I am not convinced that either audience will find this book to be of much use. There are two basic problems with this book. The first is that the quantum field theory in it is of the old-fashioned kind, and is not really representative of the way the subject is either taught or thought of today. The second is that there is not sufficient background material present to make this book suitable for a novice reader. For example, I wonder how much a reader who has not studied quantum mechanics in any depth will get out of a treatment which launches into Hilbert space and a discussion of states without much in the way of proper introduction. Any reader who is familiar with the workings of quantum field theory will find much to disagree with in this book. For example, the author tries to make a case that a Fock space description is better than talking about particle labels and restricting to symmetric or antisymmetric states. The reason claimed for this is that there are states in Fock space which are neither symmetric nor antisymmetric under particle interchange which must be discarded. (In the author's words, this introduces `surplus formal structure'.) However, in Fock space an equally arbitrary choice is made by focusing on relations among the creation and annihilation operators which involve only commutation or anticommutation relations. Although this is acknowledged by Teller, no satisfactory explanation is given as to why one procedure is any less arbitrary than the other. The book is incomplete in many ways, with many interesting points mentioned just in passing. For example, the discussion around the Newton--Wigner position operator would have been greatly enhanced by including more details, such as an explanation as to why quanta described by Newton--Wigner states seem to propagate at superluminal speeds. It is hard to believe that a reader who has not met the Rindler vacuum before would find Teller's discussion to be very informative. After being so critical of this book, I should mention a part which I did enjoy and would recommend to students of physics. This is the last chapter of the book which contains a discussion of renormalization theory. It is my experience that students often find renormalization theory confusing, and may find Teller's semiqualitative discussion illuminating.
The purpose of this dissertation is to construct a radically new type of mathematics whose underlying logic differs from the ordinary classical logic used in standard mathematics, and which we feel may be more natural for applications in quantum mechanics. Specifically, we begin by constructing a first order quantum logic, the development of which closely parallels that of ordinary (classical) first order logic --- the essential differences are in the nature of the logical axioms, which, in our construction, are motivated by quantum theory. After showing that the axiomatic first order logic we develop is sound and complete (with respect to a particular class of models), this logic is then used as a foundation on which to build (axiomatic) mathematical systems --- and we refer to the resulting new mathematics as "quantum mathematics." As noted above, the hope is that this form of mathematics is more natural than classical mathematics for the description of quantum systems, and will enable us to address some foundational aspects of quantum theory which are still troublesome --- e.g. the measurement problem --- as well as possibly even inform our thinking about quantum gravity.\n\nAfter constructing the underlying logic, we investigate properties of several mathematical systems --- e.g. axiom systems for abstract algebras, group theory, linear algebra, etc. --- in the presence of this quantum logic. In the process, we demonstrate that the resulting quantum mathematical systems have some strange, but very interesting features, which indicates a richness in the structure of mathematics that is classically inaccessible. Moreover, some of these features do indeed suggest possible applications to foundational questions in quantum theory. \n\nWe continue our investigation of quantum mathematics by constructing an axiomatic quantum set theory, which we show satisfies certain desirable criteria. Ultimately, we hope that such a set theory will lead to a foundation for quantum mathematics in a sense which parallels the foundational role of classical set theory in classical mathematics. One immediate application of the quantum set theory we develop is to provide a foundation on which to construct quantum natural numbers, which are the quantum analog of the classical counting numbers. It turns out that in a special class of models, there exists a 1-1 correspondence between the quantum natural numbers and bounded observables in quantum theory whose eigenvalues are (ordinary) natural numbers. This 1-1 correspondence is remarkably satisfying, and not only gives us great confidence in our quantum set theory, but indicates the naturalness of such models for quantum theory itself. We go on to develop a Peano-like arithmetic for these new "numbers," as well as consider some of its consequences. Finally, we conclude by summarizing our results, and discussing directions for future work.
The mathematical formalism of quantum theory in terms of vectors and operators in infinite-dimensional complex vector spaces is very abstract. The definitions of many mathematical quantities used do not seem to have an intuitive meaning, which makes it difficult to appreciate the mathematical formalism and understand quantum mechanics. This book provides intuition and motivation to the mathematics of quantum theory, introducing the mathematics in its simplest and familiar form, for instance, with three-dimensional vectors and operators, which can be readily understood. Feeling confident about and comfortable with the mathematics used helps readers appreciate and understand the concepts and formalism of quantum mechanics. This book is divided into four parts. Part I is a brief review of the general properties of classical and quantum systems. A general discussion of probability theory is also included which aims to help in understanding the probability theories relevant to quantum mechanics. Part II is a detailed study of the mathematics for quantum mechanics. Part III presents quantum mechanics in a series of postulates. Six groups of postulates are presented to describe orthodox quantum systems. Each statement of a postulate is supplemented with a detailed discussion. To make them easier to understand, the postulates for discrete observables are presented before those for continuous observables. Part IV presents several illustrative applications, which include harmonic and isotropic oscillators, charged particle in external magnetic fields and the Aharonov–Bohm effect. For easy reference, definitions, theorems, examples, comments, properties and results are labelled with section numbers. Various symbols and notations are adopted to distinguish different quantities explicitly and to avoid misrepresentation. Self-contained both mathematically and physically, the book is accessible to a wide readership, including astrophysicists, mathematicians and philosophers of science who are interested in the foundations of quantum mechanics.
The newly revised edition of this well-known book categorizes prevalent views on measurement as described by quantum mechanics, discusses basics agreed to by many who on other issues disagree, and describes some of the problems. Although many paragraphs rest unchanged from the first (1991) edition, results found since 1991 are used to reorganize and sharpen the focus of the book, so that even the old paragraphs are now understood differently and more clearly. One advance in the second edition is a new and more general no-go theorem; another is separation of formal derivations from interpretation. The dozen or so definitions essential to following the book even casually are stated clearly. By this means the authors succeed pretty well in achieving their stated desire to make the book comprehensible to those who do not share their philosophic predispositions. While I differ in philosophy from the authors, attending to their discussion uncovered weaknesses in my own thinking and improved it. The mathematical language of quantum mechanics expresses a system under measurement by states (as rays in a Hilbert space) and a hamiltonian operator, distinct from the apparatus that produces outcomes, which is expressed by a positive operator-valued (POV) measure. In this way quantum language separates state preparation from state measurement. Often the Hilbert space is viewed as a tensor product of subspaces, allowing further conceptual separations. The authors take the stance that quantum mechanics calls for splitting the empirical world into parts, the most essential being (1) objective systems S (to be observed) and (2) apparatus A (preparation and registration devices that produces outcomes (or, as the authors write, definite pointer values) of the observed system). In some interpretations, one or both of an observer and an environment appear as additional parts. What is to be included in the system S versus the apparatus A is not specified by the language, but is open to the theoretician; a probe, for example, can be analysed as either part of the apparatus or as part of the system, as was discussed by von Neumann in work cited by the authors. With what should a theory of measurement be concerned? A broad division of approaches is defined by how one answers the question: should one try to do away with the cut between measuring apparatus and system? The authors phrase this as a choice of REFERENT, a term which in my mind puts them on shaky semantic ground; anyway The Quantum Theory of Measurement is concerned with implications of the `yes'. The book unfolds with the power of a tragedy, in which the logical consequences lead, step-by-step, to the statement and proof of theorem 6.2.1, which, roughly speaking, asserts the non-existence of a solution to the problem of getting definite pointer values from measuring apparatus that exhibits the superposition demanded by its description as a quantum system. Possible responses to this theorem are discussed, among them the many-worlds interpretation and a modification of quantum mechanics that elevates decoherence to a principle. Citations of the literature are thorough, and many points of view are crisply summarized. The book is indispensable to both those who work in the broad direction chosen by the authors and to those who wish to set any other direction in context.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
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