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

Logic Journal of IGPL

Towards a Modal Logical Treatment of Quantum Physics

Osvaldo Frota Pessoa Junior

Published Jan 1, 2005• 3 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The question of which is the logic that underlies quantum physics does not have an absolute answer, but only in relation to a conventional choice of interpretation (in the sense used in the study of scientific theories). Most of the interpretations that have been offered work within the framework of classical logic. In contrast to these, we examine the corpuscular interpretation which is assumed in the application of non-distributive logic (section 3). The experiment in which single photons pass through a Mach-Zehnder interferometer is examined, indicating the difficulty of employing a realist corpuscular interpretation in this context. One way to save this interpretation would be to use non-distributive logic to analyze the experiment, but this is not satisfactory (section 4). However, the use of an alethic modal logic solves the problem, blocking the argument that put the aforementioned corpuscular interpretation into difficulty. In the discussion of the conceptual problems involved, we suggest that a stochastic corpuscular interpretation is well adapted to this logical description. The project of extending this modal logical approach to other experiments in quantum physics, and of providing a rigorous logical treatment, is left open.

DOI
10.1093/jigpal/jzi009

Related papers

Proposal for an Interference Experiment to Test the Applicability of Quantum Theory to Event-Based Processes

Kristel F. L. Michielsen, Thomas Lippert, Marcus Richter +3 more

We analyze a single-particle Mach-Zehnder interferometer experiment in which the path length of one arm may change (randomly or systematically) according to the value of an external two-valued variable $x$, for each passage of a particle through the interferometer. Quantum theory predicts an interference pattern that is independent of the sequence of the values of $x$. On the other hand, corpuscular models that reproduce the results of quantum optics experiments carried out up to this date show a reduced visibility and a shift of the interference pattern depending on the details of the sequence of the values of $x$. The proposed experiment will show that: (1) it can be described by quantum theory, and thus not by the current corpuscular models, or (2) it cannot be described by quantum theory but can be described by the corpuscular models or variations thereof, or (3) it can neither be described by quantum theory nor by corpuscular models. Therefore, the proposed experiment can be used to determine to what extent quantum theory provides a description of observed events beyond the usual statistical level.

arXiv:1006.0174•Journal of the Physical Society of Japan•Feb 24, 2012•9 citations

Relativistic Invariance and Modal Interpretations

John Earman, Laura Ruetsche

A number of arguments have been given to show that the modal interpretation of ordinary nonrelativistic quantum mechanics cannot be consistently extended to the relativistic setting. We find these arguments inconclusive. However, there is a prima facie reason to think that a tension exists between the modal interpretation and relativistic invariance; namely, the best candidate for a modal interpretation adapted to relativistic quantum field theory, a prescription due to Rob Clifton (2000), comes out trivial when applied to a number of systems of physical interest. However, it is far from clear whether this difficulty for the modal interpretation is traceable to relativistic invariance per se or to the infinite number of degrees of freedom involved. In any case, the proponents of the modal interpretation have work to do.

Philosophy of Science•Oct 1, 2005•50 citations

Quantum Logic and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

R. I. G. Hughes

There is no such thing as “The Quantum Logical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”. Rather, there is a cluster of interpretations, all of which can be described as “quantum logical”. Here I provide a general framework for discussing interpretations of this kind, and then locate various suggestions within it. The presentation owes much to van Fraassen (see, in particular, van Fraassen 1974 ); his “modal interpretation” is one of those I discuss, along with those of Jauch, Putnam and Kochen. I begin by rehearsing some orthodox quantum theory. Within quantum mechanics we deal with a set 0 of measurable quantities, orobservables(position, momentum, components of spin and so on). Experiment can determine the value of an observable for a given system: the values so determined will be real numbers. A maximal amount of information about what the result would be for a given system, whatever experiment we chose to perform on it, is available once we know thestateof the system.

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association•Jan 1, 1980•4 citations

A Standard Quantum Mechanical Treatment to Rationalize the Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser

Vipul Badhan, Pranvi, Samreet Dhillon +1 more

Ever since the proposal of delayed choice quantum erasure and subsequent realization in the experiment by Kim et al., the interpretation and implications of delayed-choice experiments have remained a subject of intense foundational debate. This paper resolves the apparent paradox attached to the experiment using standard quantum mechanics. Using an extended Mach-Zehnder interferometer which captures every operational feature of the original experiment, we show that choosing between which-path and erasure detectors is simply a choice of measurement bases, which does not rewrite a photon's past. Furthermore, by mapping the experiment to a two-way Stern-Gerlach framework, we prove that quantum erasure is an expected result of measuring entangled states, not a physical anomaly. Ultimately, through a pedagogical game, we illustrate that the illusion of retrocausality arises from asking illegitimate questions, and that a forward-in-time description is entirely sufficient to explain the logic.

quant-pharXiv:2608.02185•Aug 4, 2026•0 citations

Optical beam splitter, Mach–Zehnder interferometer and the delayed choice issue

Dietrich von der Linde

Abstract John Wheeler's delayed choice thought experiment is often invoked in discussions of the wave-particle duality of quantum physics. Every so often interpretations are offered that do not restrict to straight physics. The key element of the 'Gedankenexperiment' is a Mach–Zehnder interferometer composed of two optical beam splitters. The quantum description of these devices and the treatment of delayed choice experiment in the framework of quantum optics are discussed here.

Applied Physics B•Aug 24, 2021•2 citations

Quantum logic as a dynamic logic

Alexandru Baltag, Sonja Smets

We address the old question whether a logical understanding of Quantum Mechanics requires abandoning some of the principles of classical logic. Against Putnam and others (Among whom we may count or not E. W. Beth, depending on how we interpret some of his statements), our answer is a clear “no”. Philosophically, our argument is based on combining a formal semantic approach, in the spirit of E. W. Beth’s proposal of applying Tarski’s semantical methods to the analysis of physical theories, with an empirical–experimental approach to Logic, as advocated by both Beth and Putnam, but understood by us in the view of the operational- realistic tradition of Jauch and Piron, i.e. as an investigation of “the logic of yes–no experiments” (or “questions”). Technically, we use the recently-developed setting of Quantum Dynamic Logic (Baltag and Smets 2005, 2008) to make explicit the operational meaning of quantum-mechanical concepts in our formal semantics. Based on our recent results (Baltag and Smets 2005), we show that the correct interpretation of quantum-logical connectives is dynamical, rather than purely propositional. We conclude that there is no contradiction between classical logic and (our dynamic reinterpretation of) quantum logic. Moreover, we argue that the Dynamic-Logical perspective leads to a better and deeper understanding of the “non-classicality” of quantum behavior than any perspective based on static Propositional Logic.

Synthese•Oct 12, 2010•82 citations
The question of which is the logic that underlies quantum physics does not have an absolute answer, but only in relation to a conventional choice of interpretation (in the sense used in the study of scientific theories). Most of the interpretations that have been offered work within the framework of classical logic. In contrast to these, we examine the corpuscular interpretation which is assumed in the application of non-distributive logic (section 3). The experiment in which single photons pass through a Mach-Zehnder interferometer is examined, indicating the difficulty of employing a realist corpuscular interpretation in this context. One way to save this interpretation would be to use non-distributive logic to analyze the experiment, but this is not satisfactory (section 4). However, the use of an alethic modal logic solves the problem, blocking the argument that put the aforementioned corpuscular interpretation into difficulty. In the discussion of the conceptual problems involved, we suggest that a stochastic corpuscular interpretation is well adapted to this logical description. The project of extending this modal logical approach to other experiments in quantum physics, and of providing a rigorous logical treatment, is left open.
We analyze a single-particle Mach-Zehnder interferometer experiment in which the path length of one arm may change (randomly or systematically) according to the value of an external two-valued variable xxx, for each passage of a particle through the interferometer. Quantum theory predicts an interference pattern that is independent of the sequence of the values of xxx. On the other hand, corpuscular models that reproduce the results of quantum optics experiments carried out up to this date show a reduced visibility and a shift of the interference pattern depending on the details of the sequence of the values of xxx. The proposed experiment will show that: (1) it can be described by quantum theory, and thus not by the current corpuscular models, or (2) it cannot be described by quantum theory but can be described by the corpuscular models or variations thereof, or (3) it can neither be described by quantum theory nor by corpuscular models. Therefore, the proposed experiment can be used to determine to what extent quantum theory provides a description of observed events beyond the usual statistical level.
A number of arguments have been given to show that the modal interpretation of ordinary nonrelativistic quantum mechanics cannot be consistently extended to the relativistic setting. We find these arguments inconclusive. However, there is a prima facie reason to think that a tension exists between the modal interpretation and relativistic invariance; namely, the best candidate for a modal interpretation adapted to relativistic quantum field theory, a prescription due to Rob Clifton (2000), comes out trivial when applied to a number of systems of physical interest. However, it is far from clear whether this difficulty for the modal interpretation is traceable to relativistic invariance per se or to the infinite number of degrees of freedom involved. In any case, the proponents of the modal interpretation have work to do.
There is no such thing as “The Quantum Logical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”. Rather, there is a cluster of interpretations, all of which can be described as “quantum logical”. Here I provide a general framework for discussing interpretations of this kind, and then locate various suggestions within it. The presentation owes much to van Fraassen (see, in particular, van Fraassen 1974 ); his “modal interpretation” is one of those I discuss, along with those of Jauch, Putnam and Kochen. I begin by rehearsing some orthodox quantum theory. Within quantum mechanics we deal with a set 0 of measurable quantities, orobservables(position, momentum, components of spin and so on). Experiment can determine the value of an observable for a given system: the values so determined will be real numbers. A maximal amount of information about what the result would be for a given system, whatever experiment we chose to perform on it, is available once we know thestateof the system.
Ever since the proposal of delayed choice quantum erasure and subsequent realization in the experiment by Kim et al., the interpretation and implications of delayed-choice experiments have remained a subject of intense foundational debate. This paper resolves the apparent paradox attached to the experiment using standard quantum mechanics. Using an extended Mach-Zehnder interferometer which captures every operational feature of the original experiment, we show that choosing between which-path and erasure detectors is simply a choice of measurement bases, which does not rewrite a photon's past. Furthermore, by mapping the experiment to a two-way Stern-Gerlach framework, we prove that quantum erasure is an expected result of measuring entangled states, not a physical anomaly. Ultimately, through a pedagogical game, we illustrate that the illusion of retrocausality arises from asking illegitimate questions, and that a forward-in-time description is entirely sufficient to explain the logic.
We address the old question whether a logical understanding of Quantum Mechanics requires abandoning some of the principles of classical logic. Against Putnam and others (Among whom we may count or not E. W. Beth, depending on how we interpret some of his statements), our answer is a clear “no”. Philosophically, our argument is based on combining a formal semantic approach, in the spirit of E. W. Beth’s proposal of applying Tarski’s semantical methods to the analysis of physical theories, with an empirical–experimental approach to Logic, as advocated by both Beth and Putnam, but understood by us in the view of the operational- realistic tradition of Jauch and Piron, i.e. as an investigation of “the logic of yes–no experiments” (or “questions”). Technically, we use the recently-developed setting of Quantum Dynamic Logic (Baltag and Smets 2005, 2008) to make explicit the operational meaning of quantum-mechanical concepts in our formal semantics. Based on our recent results (Baltag and Smets 2005), we show that the correct interpretation of quantum-logical connectives is dynamical, rather than purely propositional. We conclude that there is no contradiction between classical logic and (our dynamic reinterpretation of) quantum logic. Moreover, we argue that the Dynamic-Logical perspective leads to a better and deeper understanding of the “non-classicality” of quantum behavior than any perspective based on static Propositional Logic.