This paper is a first attempt to explore the relationship between physics and mathematics ’’in the large.’’ In particular, the use of different Zermelo Frankel model universes of sets (ZFC models) as carriers for the mathematics of quantum mechanics is discussed. It is proved that given a standard transitive ZFC model M, if, inside M, B (ℋM) is the algebra of all bounded linear operators over a Hilbert space ℋM, there exists, outside M, a Hilbert space ℋ and an algebra B (ℋ), along with isometric monomorphisms UM and VM from ℋM into ℋ and from B (ℋM) into B (ℋ). UM and VM are used to relate quantum mechanics based on M to quantum mechanics based on the usual ZFC model. It is then shown that, contrary to what one would expect, all ZFC models may not be equivalent as carriers for the mathematics of physics. In particular, it is proved that if one requires that an outcome sequence, associated with an infinite repetition of measuring a question observable on a system prepared in some state, be random, and if a strong definition of randomness is used, then the minimal standard ZFC model cannot be a carrier for the mathematics of quantum mechanics.
This paper is a first attempt to explore the relationship between physics and mathematics ’’in the large.’’ In particular, the use of different Zermelo Frankel model universes of sets (ZFC models) as carriers for the mathematics of quantum mechanics is discussed. It is proved that given a standard transitive ZFC model M, if, inside M, B (ℋM) is the algebra of all bounded linear operators over a Hilbert space ℋM, there exists, outside M, a Hilbert space ℋ and an algebra B (ℋ), along with isometric monomorphisms UM and VM from ℋM into ℋ and from B (ℋM) into B (ℋ). UM and VM are used to relate quantum mechanics based on M to quantum mechanics based on the usual ZFC model. It is then shown that, contrary to what one would expect, all ZFC models may not be equivalent as carriers for the mathematics of physics. In particular, it is proved that if one requires that an outcome sequence, associated with an infinite repetition of measuring a question observable on a system prepared in some state, be random, and if a strong definition of randomness is used, then the minimal standard ZFC model cannot be a carrier for the mathematics of quantum mechanics.
In previous technical work ([1] and [2]) on which his present paper [3] draws, Benioff has presented results conforming with the following argument-scheme: First, if we construe Quantum Mechanics as making claims to the effect that infinite outcome sequences (generated by repeated measurements on a system for a given observable in a given state) be random; and second, if a strong definition of “random” is adopted in this construal, then certain models of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF) cannot be “carriers for the mathematics of physics”. How interesting is this? One can approach the matter on two levels, the level of the specific technical results, and the level of more general implications of this pattern of argument for understanding connections between mathematics and physics. The second more general level should be our primary focus, but it will pay at the outset to look briefly at the technical level.
Abstract Quantum mechanics (QM) predicts probabilities on the fundamentallevel which are, via Born probability law, connected to the formal randomnessof infinite sequences of QM outcomes. Recently it has been shown thatQM is algorithmic 1-random in the sense of Martin-L¨of. We extend this resultand demonstrate that QM is algorithmic ω-random and generic, precisely asdescribed by the ’miniaturisation’ of the Solovay forcing to arithmetic. Thisis extended further to the result that QM becomes Zermelo–Fraenkel Solovayrandom on infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. Moreover, it is more likely thatthere exists a standard transitive ZFC model M, where QM is expressed in reality,than in the universe V of sets. Then every generic quantum measurementadds to M the infinite sequence, i.e. random real r ∈ 2ω, and the model undergoesrandom forcing extensions M[r]. The entire process of forcing becomesthe structural ingredient of QM and parallels similar constructions applied tospacetime in the quantum limit, therefore showing the structural resemblanceof both in this limit. We discuss several questions regarding measurability andpossible practical applications of the extended Solovay randomness of QM.The method applied is the formalization based on models of ZFC; however,this is particularly well-suited technique to recognising randomness questionsof QM. When one works in a constant model of ZFC or in axiomatic ZFCitself, the issues considered here remain hidden to a great extent.
Abstract Quantum mechanics (QM) predicts probabilities on the fundamental level which are, via Born probability law, connected to the formal randomness of infinite sequences of QM outcomes. Recently it has been shown that QM is algorithmic 1-random in the sense of Martin-Löf. We extend this result and demonstrate that QM is algorithmic ω-random and generic precisely as described by the ’miniaturisation’ of the Solovay forcing to arithmetic. This is extended further to the result that QM becomes Zermelo-Fraenkel Solovay random on infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces. Moreover it is more likely that there exists a standard transitive model of ZFC M where QM is expressed in reality than in the universe V of sets. Then every generic quantum measurement adds the infinite sequence, i.e. random real r ∈ 2ω, to M and the model undergoes random forcing extensions, M[r]. The entire process of forcing becomes the structural ingredient of QM and parallels similar constructions applied to spacetime in the quantum limit. This shows the structural resemblance of both in the limit. We discuss several questions regarding measurability and eventual practical applications of the extended Solovay randomness of QM. The method applied is the formalization based on models of ZFC, however, this is particularly well-suited technique to recognising randomness questions of QM. When one works in a constant model of ZFC or in axiomatic ZFC itself the issues considered here become mostly hidden.
Abstract Quantum mechanics (QM) predicts probabilities on the fundamental level which are, via Born probability law, connected to the formal randomness of infinite sequences of QM outcomes. Recently it has been shown that QM is algorithmic 1-random in the sense of Martin-Löf. We extend this result and demonstrate that QM is algorithmic ω-random and generic precisely as described by the ’miniaturisation’ of the Solovay forcing to arithmetic. This is extended further to the result that QM becomes Zermelo-Fraenkel Solovay random on infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces. Moreover it is more likely that there exists a standard transitive model of ZFC M where QM is expressed in reality than in the universe V of sets. Then every generic quantum measurement adds the infinite sequence, i.e. random real r ∈ 2ω , to M and the model undergoes random forcing extensions, M[r]. The entire process of forcing becomes the structural ingredient of QM and parallels similar constructions applied to spacetime in the quantum limit. This shows the structural resemblance of both in the limit. We discuss several questions regarding measurability and eventual practical applications of the extended Solovay randomness of QM. The method applied is the formalization based on models of ZFC, however, this is particularly well-suited technique to recognising randomness questions of QM. When one works in a constant model of ZFC or in axiomatic ZFC itself the issues considered here become mostly hidden.
Quantum mechanics has several deficiencies as a complete theoretical description of the measurement process. Among them is the fact that the quantum mechanical description of correlations between the single measurements of a sequence is quite problematic. A single measurement is defined to be a preparation followed by an observation. In particular, one feels that an infinite sequence of such single measurements which corresponds to the measurement of a question O on a state η where η does not lie entirely in an eigenspace of O should generate a random output sequence. However, quantum mechanics seems to say nothing about this. In this paper, physical theories are defined in such a manner that correlations between single measurements are explicitly included. In particular, a physical theory is considered to be a mapping U, with domain in the set [Qsτ] of infinite instruction strings for carrying out infinite sequences of single measurements and range in the set of probability measures defined on A, the usual σ algebra of subsets of Ω. Ω is the set of all infinite sequences of natural numbers. A fundamental property which any valid physical theory must satisfy is that it agrees with experiment. It is proposed and discussed here that much of the intuitive meaning of agreement between a theory U and experiment with respect to H is given by the statement ∀Qsτ [U(Qsτ) defined⇒E(H,U(Qsτ),ψQsτ)],where U(Qsτ) is the probability measure U associates with the infinite instruction string Qsτ and ψQsτ is the outcome sequence obtained by carrying out Qsτ. E(H, U(Qsτ),ψQsτ) is the statement that all formulas in H with one free sequence variable which are true on Ω almost everywhere with respect to U(Qsτ) are true for ψQsτ. H is a subclass of the class of all formulas in a formal language L. A theorem is proved which states that, if U(Qsτ) corresponds to a nontrivial product probability measure and U H-agrees with experiment, then the outcome sequence ψQsτ is H-random. H-randomness is defined here in terms of the statement E(H, P, φ). Another property of a valid physical theory, which is defined here, is that, for some Qsτ, U(Qsτ) must be determinable on much of AH from ψQsτ. Sufficient conditions for this property to hold are given. AH is the class of all H definable subsets of Ω. Some properties of the statement E(H, P, φ) are given. Among other things, it is proved that, if E(H, P, φ) holds and P is a nontrivial probability measure on A, then φ is not definable in H.
In this work, a definition of agreement between a physical theory and experiment, proposed in earlier work, is extended to be relative to τ where τ is Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. The main aim of this work is to show that this definition, unlike that of earlier work, is sufficiently powerful to include relations between limit properties of empirical outcome sequences and expectation values obtained from the physical theory. We also extend, to the more powerful τ, some earlier results on randomness and the empirical determinability of the probability measure which a physical theory assigns to the outcome set of an infinite sequence of experiments.