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

Quantum Mechanics Without the Measurement Axiom.

Jiří Souček

Published Mar 1, 2016• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

We present the axiomatization of quantum mechanics which does not contain axioms concerning the measurement. Instead of the concept of measurement this axiomatization uses the concept of the observation of the individual state of the measuring system after the run of the experiment. It is proved that the resulting theory is empirically equivalent to the standard quantum mechanics but it is also shown that these two theories are (theoretically) different.

Related papers

The Hybrid-Epistemic Model of Quantum Mechanics and the Possible Solution to the Measurement Problem

Jiří Souček

In this study we introduce and describe in details the hybrid-epistemic model for quantum mechanics. The main differences with respect to the standard model are following: (1) the measurement process is considered as an internal process inside quantum mechanics, i.e. it does not make a part of axioms and (2) the process of the observation of the state of the individual measuring system is introduced into axioms. The intrinsic measurement process is described in two variants (simplified and generalized). Our model contains hybrid, epistemic and hybrid-epistemic systems. Each hybrid system contains a unique orthogonal base composed from homogeneous (i.e. ontic) states. We show that in our model the measurement problem is consistently solvable. Our model represents the rational compromise between the Bohr’s view (the ontic model) and the Einstein’s view (the epistemic model).

•Feb 1, 2017•0 citations

Nová axiomatizace kvantové mechaniky

Jiří Souček

In this paper we describe a new (complete) axiomatization of quantum mechanics (QM) in which we add axioms describing the concept of an observation. We show that new axioms are clear and evident and based on common sense. Our approach is based on the idea of the observation of properties of an individual measuring system. We distinguish two concepts of a state: the properties of an individual measuring system and the state of an ensemble of systems. Then we prove that the ontic model of QM is inconsistent. This is our main result. This implies the necessity to consider “non-realistic” models for QM in which it is not true that each wave-function describes a possible state of an individual system. Our axiomatization is based on the postulate of the existence of definite outputs of an experiment. Thus the evident reality of the existence of definite outputs implies that our axiomatization is true and verifiable.

•Jan 1, 2017•0 citations

On the missing axiom of Quantum Mechanics

Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano

The debate on the nature of quantum probabilities in relation to Quantum Non Locality has elevated Quantum Mechanics to the level of an "Operational Epistemic Theory". In such context the quantum superposition principle has an extraneous non epistemic nature. This leads us to seek purely operational foundations for Quantum Mechanics, from which to derive the current mathematical axiomatization based on Hilbert spaces. In the present work I present a set of axioms of purely operational nature, based on a general definition of "the experiment", the operational/epistemic archetype of information retrieval from reality. As we will see, this starting point logically entails a series of notions [state, conditional state, local state, pure state, faithful state, instrument, propensity (i.e. "effect"), dynamical and informational equivalence, dynamical and informational compatibility, predictability, discriminability, programmability, locality, a-causality, rank of the state, maximally chaotic state, maximally entangled state, informationally complete propensity, etc. ], along with a set of rules (addition, convex combination, partial orderings, ...), which, far from being of quantum origin as often considered, instead constitute the universal "syntactic manual" of the operational/epistemic approach. The missing ingredient is, of course, the quantum superposition axiom for probability amplitudes: for this I propose some substitute candidates of purely operational/epistemic nature.

arXiv:quant-ph/0506034•Jun 3, 2005•2 citations

An axiomatic approach to Einstein's boxes

Thomas V Marcella

The fallacies inherent in the Einstein's Boxes thought experiment are made evident by taking an axiomatic approach to quantum mechanics while ignoring notions not supported by the postulates or by experimental observation. We emphasize that the postulates contain everything needed to completely describe a quantum experiment. We discuss the non-classical nature of both the state vector and the experiment that it represents. Einstein's Boxes is then described by the formalism alone. We see that it is no different from any other experiment in which a two-state observable is measured.

arXiv:quant-ph/0606141•Jun 17, 2006•0 citations

On Quantum Mechanics

We discuss the axiomatic basis of quantum mechanics and show that it is neither general nor consistent, since its axioms are incompatible with each other and moreover it does not incorporate the magnetic quantization as in the cyclotron motion. A general and consistent system of axioms is conjectured which incorporates also the magnetic quantization. 1 The neccessity of quantum mechanics (QM) was a result of experimental data for the energy spectrum of atoms which could not be explained in accord with the laws of classical mechanics. Nevertheless in the axiomatic basis of QM there are axioms which are not supported by the experimental results, since the whole system of axioms (1) is introduced only as a ”plausible generalization ” of the first axiom [1]:

•Jan 1, 1998•0 citations

The measurement problem in quantum mechanics

Alessio Giuseppe Ferraioli, Canio Noce

In this paper, we discuss the importance of measurement in quantum mechanics and the so-called measurement problem. Any quantum system can be described as a linear combination of eigenstates of an operator representing a physical quantity; this means that the system can be in a superposition of states that corresponds to different eigenvalues, i.e., different physical outcomes, each one incompatible with the others. The measurement process converts a state of superposition (not macroscopically defined) in a well-defined state. We show that, if we describe the measurement by the standard laws of quantum mechanics, the system would preserve its state of superposition even on a macroscopic scale. Since this is not the case, we assume that a measurement does not obey to standard quantum mechanics, but to a new set of laws that form a “quantum measurement theory”.

Science & philosophy•Jun 1, 2019•3 citations
We present the axiomatization of quantum mechanics which does not contain axioms concerning the measurement. Instead of the concept of measurement this axiomatization uses the concept of the observation of the individual state of the measuring system after the run of the experiment. It is proved that the resulting theory is empirically equivalent to the standard quantum mechanics but it is also shown that these two theories are (theoretically) different.
In this study we introduce and describe in details the hybrid-epistemic model for quantum mechanics. The main differences with respect to the standard model are following: (1) the measurement process is considered as an internal process inside quantum mechanics, i.e. it does not make a part of axioms and (2) the process of the observation of the state of the individual measuring system is introduced into axioms. The intrinsic measurement process is described in two variants (simplified and generalized). Our model contains hybrid, epistemic and hybrid-epistemic systems. Each hybrid system contains a unique orthogonal base composed from homogeneous (i.e. ontic) states. We show that in our model the measurement problem is consistently solvable. Our model represents the rational compromise between the Bohr’s view (the ontic model) and the Einstein’s view (the epistemic model).
In this paper we describe a new (complete) axiomatization of quantum mechanics (QM) in which we add axioms describing the concept of an observation. We show that new axioms are clear and evident and based on common sense. Our approach is based on the idea of the observation of properties of an individual measuring system. We distinguish two concepts of a state: the properties of an individual measuring system and the state of an ensemble of systems. Then we prove that the ontic model of QM is inconsistent. This is our main result. This implies the necessity to consider “non-realistic” models for QM in which it is not true that each wave-function describes a possible state of an individual system. Our axiomatization is based on the postulate of the existence of definite outputs of an experiment. Thus the evident reality of the existence of definite outputs implies that our axiomatization is true and verifiable.
The debate on the nature of quantum probabilities in relation to Quantum Non Locality has elevated Quantum Mechanics to the level of an "Operational Epistemic Theory". In such context the quantum superposition principle has an extraneous non epistemic nature. This leads us to seek purely operational foundations for Quantum Mechanics, from which to derive the current mathematical axiomatization based on Hilbert spaces. In the present work I present a set of axioms of purely operational nature, based on a general definition of "the experiment", the operational/epistemic archetype of information retrieval from reality. As we will see, this starting point logically entails a series of notions [state, conditional state, local state, pure state, faithful state, instrument, propensity (i.e. "effect"), dynamical and informational equivalence, dynamical and informational compatibility, predictability, discriminability, programmability, locality, a-causality, rank of the state, maximally chaotic state, maximally entangled state, informationally complete propensity, etc. ], along with a set of rules (addition, convex combination, partial orderings, ...), which, far from being of quantum origin as often considered, instead constitute the universal "syntactic manual" of the operational/epistemic approach. The missing ingredient is, of course, the quantum superposition axiom for probability amplitudes: for this I propose some substitute candidates of purely operational/epistemic nature.
The fallacies inherent in the Einstein's Boxes thought experiment are made evident by taking an axiomatic approach to quantum mechanics while ignoring notions not supported by the postulates or by experimental observation. We emphasize that the postulates contain everything needed to completely describe a quantum experiment. We discuss the non-classical nature of both the state vector and the experiment that it represents. Einstein's Boxes is then described by the formalism alone. We see that it is no different from any other experiment in which a two-state observable is measured.
We discuss the axiomatic basis of quantum mechanics and show that it is neither general nor consistent, since its axioms are incompatible with each other and moreover it does not incorporate the magnetic quantization as in the cyclotron motion. A general and consistent system of axioms is conjectured which incorporates also the magnetic quantization. 1 The neccessity of quantum mechanics (QM) was a result of experimental data for the energy spectrum of atoms which could not be explained in accord with the laws of classical mechanics. Nevertheless in the axiomatic basis of QM there are axioms which are not supported by the experimental results, since the whole system of axioms (1) is introduced only as a ”plausible generalization ” of the first axiom [1]:
In this paper, we discuss the importance of measurement in quantum mechanics and the so-called measurement problem. Any quantum system can be described as a linear combination of eigenstates of an operator representing a physical quantity; this means that the system can be in a superposition of states that corresponds to different eigenvalues, i.e., different physical outcomes, each one incompatible with the others. The measurement process converts a state of superposition (not macroscopically defined) in a well-defined state. We show that, if we describe the measurement by the standard laws of quantum mechanics, the system would preserve its state of superposition even on a macroscopic scale. Since this is not the case, we assume that a measurement does not obey to standard quantum mechanics, but to a new set of laws that form a “quantum measurement theory”.