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

Frontiers in Physics

The Real and the Mathematical in Quantum Modeling: From Principles to Models and from Models to Principles

Arkady Plotnitsky

Published Jun 18, 2017• 4 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The history of mathematical modeling outside physics has been dominated by the use of classical mathematical models, C-models, primarily those of a probabilistic or statistical nature. More recently, however, quantum mathematical models, Q-models, based in the mathematical formalism of quantum theory have become more prominent in psychology, economics, and decision science. The use of Q-models in these fields remains controversial, in part because it is not entirely clear whether Q-models are necessary for dealing with the phenomena in question or whether C-models would still suffice. My aim, however, is not to assess the necessity of Q-models in these fields, but instead to reflect on what the possible applicability of Q-models may tell us about the corresponding phenomena there, vis-à-vis quantum phenomena in physics. In order to do so, I shall first discuss the key reasons for the use of Q-models in physics. In particular, I shall examine the fundamental principles that led to the development of quantum mechanics. Then I shall consider a possible role of similar principles in using Q-models outside physics. Psychology, economics, and decision science borrow already available Q-models from quantum theory, rather than derive them from their own internal principles, while quantum mechanics was derived from such principles, because there was no readily available mathematical model to handle quantum phenomena, although the mathematics ultimately used in quantum did in fact exist then. I shall argue, however, that the principle perspective on mathematical modeling outside physics might help us to understand better the role of Q-models in these fields and possibly to envision new models, conceptually analogous to but mathematically different from those of quantum theory, helpful or even necessary there or in physics itself. I shall suggest one possible type of such models, singularized probabilistic, SP, models, some of which are time-dependent, TDSP-models. The necessity of using such models may change the nature of mathematical modeling in science and, thus, the nature of science, as it happened in the case of Q-models, which not only led to a revolutionary transformation of physics but also opened new possibilities for scientific thinking and mathematical modeling beyond physics.

DOI
10.3389/fphy.2017.00019

Related papers

Quantum Principles and Mathematical Models in Physics and Beyond

Arkady Plotnitsky

While mathematical modeling beyond physics—in biology, neuroscience, psychology, and economics—has been and is still dominated by classical mathematical models (C-models), primarily of probabilistic and statistical nature, quantum mathematical models (Q-models), mathematical models based in the mathematical formalism of quantum theory, have recently acquired currency in mathematical modeling in these areas. This chapter examines some of the reasons for using such models. In order to do so, the author considers the fundamental principles behind these models in quantum physics itself, taking as its point of departure Einstein’s distinction between “constructive” and “principle” theories. Two types of principle thinking in quantum theory will be considered, those defining the initial development of quantum mechanics in 1920s and those of quantum information theory, a more recent and still ongoing development. The principle perspective, the author argues, may help us to understand better a possible and possibly necessary role for quantum mathematical models beyond physics.

Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks•Jan 1, 2017•3 citations

Are quantum-mechanical-like models possible, or necessary, outside quantum physics?

Arkady Plotnitsky

This article examines some experimental conditions that invite and possibly require recourse to quantum-mechanical-like mathematical models (QMLMs), models based on the key mathematical features of quantum mechanics, in scientific fields outside physics, such as biology, cognitive psychology, or economics. In particular, I consider whether the following two correlative features of quantum phenomena that were decisive for establishing the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics play similarly important roles in QMLMs elsewhere. The first is the individuality and discreteness of quantum phenomena, and the second is the irreducibly probabilistic nature of our predictions concerning them, coupled to the particular character of the probabilities involved, as different from the character of probabilities found in classical physics. I also argue that these features could be interpreted in terms of a particular form of epistemology that suspends and even precludes a causal and, in the first place, realist description of quantum objects and processes. This epistemology limits the descriptive capacity of quantum theory to the description, classical in nature, of the observed quantum phenomena manifested in measuring instruments. Quantum mechanics itself only provides descriptions, probabilistic in nature, concerning numerical data pertaining to such phenomena, without offering a physical description of quantum objects and processes. While QMLMs share their use of the quantum-mechanical or analogous mathematical formalism, they may differ by the roles, if any, the two features in question play in them and by different ways of interpreting the phenomena they considered and this formalism itself. This article will address those differences as well.

Physica Scripta•Dec 1, 2014•21 citations

Quantum Social Science

Emmanuel E. Haven, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Written by world experts in the foundations of quantum mechanics and its applications to social science, this book shows how elementary quantum mechanical principles can be applied to decision-making paradoxes in psychology and used in modelling information in finance and economics. The book starts with a thorough overview of some of the salient differences between classical, statistical and quantum mechanics. It presents arguments on why quantum mechanics can be applied outside of physics and defines quantum social science. The issue of the existence of quantum probabilistic effects in psychology, economics and finance is addressed and basic questions and answers are provided. Aimed at researchers in economics and psychology, as well as physics, basic mathematical preliminaries and elementary concepts from quantum mechanics are defined in a self-contained way.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 17, 2013•587 citations

On “Decisions and Revisions Which a Minute Will Reverse”: Consciousness, The Unconscious and Mathematical Modeling of Thinking

Arkady Plotnitsky

This article considers a partly philosophical question: What are the ontological and epistemological reasons for using quantum-like models or theories (models and theories based on the mathematical formalism of quantum theory) vs. classical-like ones (based on the mathematics of classical physics), in considering human thinking and decision making? This question is only partly philosophical because it also concerns the scientific understanding of the phenomena considered by the theories that use mathematical models of either type, just as in physics itself, where this question also arises as a physical question. This is because this question is in effect: What are the physical reasons for using, even if not requiring, these types of theories in considering quantum phenomena, which these theories predict fully in accord with the experiment? This is clearly also a physical, rather than only philosophical, question and so is, accordingly, the question of whether one needs classical-like or quantum-like theories or both (just as in physics we use both classical and quantum theories) in considering human thinking in psychology and related fields, such as decision science. It comes as no surprise that many of these reasons are parallel to those that are responsible for the use of QM and QFT in the case of quantum phenomena. Still, the corresponding situations should be understood and justified in terms of the phenomena considered, phenomena defined by human thinking, because there are important differences between these phenomena and quantum phenomena, which this article aims to address. In order to do so, this article will first consider quantum phenomena and quantum theory, before turning to human thinking and decision making, in addressing which it will also discuss two recent quantum-like approaches to human thinking, that by M. G. D'Ariano and F. Faggin and that by A. Khrennikov. Both approaches are ontological in the sense of offering representations, different in character in each approach, of human thinking by the formalism of quantum theory. Whether such a representation, as opposed to only predicting the outcomes of relevant experiments, is possible either in quantum theory or in quantum-like theories of human thinking is one of the questions addressed in this article. The philosophical position adopted in it is that it may not be possible to make this assumption, which, however, is not the same as saying that it is impossible. I designate this view as the reality-without-realism, RWR, view and in considering strictly mental processes as the ideality-without-idealism, IWI, view, in the second case in part following, but also moving beyond, I. Kant's philosophy.

Entropy•Aug 9, 2021•8 citations

Applications of Quantum Mechanical Techniques to Areas Outside of Quantum Mechanics

Haven, Emmanuel, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

This book deals with applications of quantum mechanical techniques to areas outside of quantum mechanics, so-called quantum-like modeling. Research in this area has grown over the last 15 years. But even already more than 50 years ago, the interaction between Physics Nobelist Pauli and the psychologist Carl Jung in the 1950's on seeking to find analogous uses of the complementarity principle from quantum mechanics in psychology needs noting. This book does NOT want to advance that society is quantum mechanical! The macroscopic world is manifestly not quantum mechanical. But this rules not out that one can use concepts and the mathematical apparatus from quantum physics in a macroscopic environment. A mainstay ingredient of quantum mechanics, is 'quantum probability' and this tool has been proven to be useful in the mathematical modelling of decision making. In the most basic experiment of quantum physics, the double slit experiment, it is known (from the works of A. Khrennikov) that the law of total probability is violated. It is now well documented that several decision making paradoxes in psychology and economics (such as the Ellsberg paradox) do exhibit this violation of the law of total probability. When data is collected with experiments which test 'non-rational' decision making behaviour, one can observe that such data often exhibits a complex non-commutative structure, which may be even more complex than if one considers the structure allied to the basic two slit experiment. The community exploring quantum-like models has tried to address how quantum probability can help in better explaining those paradoxes. Research has now been published in very high standing journals on resolving some of the paradoxes with the mathematics of quantum physics. The aim of this book is to collect the contributions of world's leading experts in quantum like modeling in decision making, psychology, cognition, economics, and finance.

Frontiers research topics•Jan 1, 2018•2 citations

Methods of mathematical quantum theory in selected economic models

Agnieszka Matylda Schlichtinger

The issue of using the physical method in economics is no longer an innovative idea. However, nowadays the methods of mathematical quantum mechanics are also applied to economic sciences. This is the natural result of the fact that as applicable in quantum mechanics, mathematical spaces and tools turn out to be useful in other fields of science. Then it is possible to assume that the problem of the choice of the space is a universal question that is associated not only with mathematics and physics but also with economics or social sciences. In this paper the author considers various formulations of Hilbert space in relation to finite-dimensional quantum mechanics which constitutes a fundament to also apply my outcomes in economics. On the basis of mathematical considerations the author puts forward the hypothesis that the complex Hilbert space is characterized with numerous advantages in relation to its real and quaternionic alternativesThe issue of using the physical method in economics is no longer an innovative idea. However, nowadays the methods of mathematical quantum mechanics are also applied to economic sciences. This is the natural result of the fact that as applicable in quantum mechanics, mathematical spaces and tools turn out to be useful in other fields of science. Then it is possible to assume that the problem of the choice of the space is a universal question that is associated not only with mathematics and physics but also with economics or social sciences. In this paper the author considers various formulations of Hilbert space in relation to finite-dimensional quantum mechanics which constitutes a fundament to also apply my outcomes in economics. On the basis of mathematical considerations the author puts forward the hypothesis that the complex Hilbert space is characterized with numerous advantages in relation to its real and quaternionic alternatives

Mathematical Economics•Jan 1, 2018•0 citations
The history of mathematical modeling outside physics has been dominated by the use of classical mathematical models, C-models, primarily those of a probabilistic or statistical nature. More recently, however, quantum mathematical models, Q-models, based in the mathematical formalism of quantum theory have become more prominent in psychology, economics, and decision science. The use of Q-models in these fields remains controversial, in part because it is not entirely clear whether Q-models are necessary for dealing with the phenomena in question or whether C-models would still suffice. My aim, however, is not to assess the necessity of Q-models in these fields, but instead to reflect on what the possible applicability of Q-models may tell us about the corresponding phenomena there, vis-à-vis quantum phenomena in physics. In order to do so, I shall first discuss the key reasons for the use of Q-models in physics. In particular, I shall examine the fundamental principles that led to the development of quantum mechanics. Then I shall consider a possible role of similar principles in using Q-models outside physics. Psychology, economics, and decision science borrow already available Q-models from quantum theory, rather than derive them from their own internal principles, while quantum mechanics was derived from such principles, because there was no readily available mathematical model to handle quantum phenomena, although the mathematics ultimately used in quantum did in fact exist then. I shall argue, however, that the principle perspective on mathematical modeling outside physics might help us to understand better the role of Q-models in these fields and possibly to envision new models, conceptually analogous to but mathematically different from those of quantum theory, helpful or even necessary there or in physics itself. I shall suggest one possible type of such models, singularized probabilistic, SP, models, some of which are time-dependent, TDSP-models. The necessity of using such models may change the nature of mathematical modeling in science and, thus, the nature of science, as it happened in the case of Q-models, which not only led to a revolutionary transformation of physics but also opened new possibilities for scientific thinking and mathematical modeling beyond physics.
While mathematical modeling beyond physics—in biology, neuroscience, psychology, and economics—has been and is still dominated by classical mathematical models (C-models), primarily of probabilistic and statistical nature, quantum mathematical models (Q-models), mathematical models based in the mathematical formalism of quantum theory, have recently acquired currency in mathematical modeling in these areas. This chapter examines some of the reasons for using such models. In order to do so, the author considers the fundamental principles behind these models in quantum physics itself, taking as its point of departure Einstein’s distinction between “constructive” and “principle” theories. Two types of principle thinking in quantum theory will be considered, those defining the initial development of quantum mechanics in 1920s and those of quantum information theory, a more recent and still ongoing development. The principle perspective, the author argues, may help us to understand better a possible and possibly necessary role for quantum mathematical models beyond physics.
This article examines some experimental conditions that invite and possibly require recourse to quantum-mechanical-like mathematical models (QMLMs), models based on the key mathematical features of quantum mechanics, in scientific fields outside physics, such as biology, cognitive psychology, or economics. In particular, I consider whether the following two correlative features of quantum phenomena that were decisive for establishing the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics play similarly important roles in QMLMs elsewhere. The first is the individuality and discreteness of quantum phenomena, and the second is the irreducibly probabilistic nature of our predictions concerning them, coupled to the particular character of the probabilities involved, as different from the character of probabilities found in classical physics. I also argue that these features could be interpreted in terms of a particular form of epistemology that suspends and even precludes a causal and, in the first place, realist description of quantum objects and processes. This epistemology limits the descriptive capacity of quantum theory to the description, classical in nature, of the observed quantum phenomena manifested in measuring instruments. Quantum mechanics itself only provides descriptions, probabilistic in nature, concerning numerical data pertaining to such phenomena, without offering a physical description of quantum objects and processes. While QMLMs share their use of the quantum-mechanical or analogous mathematical formalism, they may differ by the roles, if any, the two features in question play in them and by different ways of interpreting the phenomena they considered and this formalism itself. This article will address those differences as well.
Written by world experts in the foundations of quantum mechanics and its applications to social science, this book shows how elementary quantum mechanical principles can be applied to decision-making paradoxes in psychology and used in modelling information in finance and economics. The book starts with a thorough overview of some of the salient differences between classical, statistical and quantum mechanics. It presents arguments on why quantum mechanics can be applied outside of physics and defines quantum social science. The issue of the existence of quantum probabilistic effects in psychology, economics and finance is addressed and basic questions and answers are provided. Aimed at researchers in economics and psychology, as well as physics, basic mathematical preliminaries and elementary concepts from quantum mechanics are defined in a self-contained way.
This article considers a partly philosophical question: What are the ontological and epistemological reasons for using quantum-like models or theories (models and theories based on the mathematical formalism of quantum theory) vs. classical-like ones (based on the mathematics of classical physics), in considering human thinking and decision making? This question is only partly philosophical because it also concerns the scientific understanding of the phenomena considered by the theories that use mathematical models of either type, just as in physics itself, where this question also arises as a physical question. This is because this question is in effect: What are the physical reasons for using, even if not requiring, these types of theories in considering quantum phenomena, which these theories predict fully in accord with the experiment? This is clearly also a physical, rather than only philosophical, question and so is, accordingly, the question of whether one needs classical-like or quantum-like theories or both (just as in physics we use both classical and quantum theories) in considering human thinking in psychology and related fields, such as decision science. It comes as no surprise that many of these reasons are parallel to those that are responsible for the use of QM and QFT in the case of quantum phenomena. Still, the corresponding situations should be understood and justified in terms of the phenomena considered, phenomena defined by human thinking, because there are important differences between these phenomena and quantum phenomena, which this article aims to address. In order to do so, this article will first consider quantum phenomena and quantum theory, before turning to human thinking and decision making, in addressing which it will also discuss two recent quantum-like approaches to human thinking, that by M. G. D'Ariano and F. Faggin and that by A. Khrennikov. Both approaches are ontological in the sense of offering representations, different in character in each approach, of human thinking by the formalism of quantum theory. Whether such a representation, as opposed to only predicting the outcomes of relevant experiments, is possible either in quantum theory or in quantum-like theories of human thinking is one of the questions addressed in this article. The philosophical position adopted in it is that it may not be possible to make this assumption, which, however, is not the same as saying that it is impossible. I designate this view as the reality-without-realism, RWR, view and in considering strictly mental processes as the ideality-without-idealism, IWI, view, in the second case in part following, but also moving beyond, I. Kant's philosophy.
This book deals with applications of quantum mechanical techniques to areas outside of quantum mechanics, so-called quantum-like modeling. Research in this area has grown over the last 15 years. But even already more than 50 years ago, the interaction between Physics Nobelist Pauli and the psychologist Carl Jung in the 1950's on seeking to find analogous uses of the complementarity principle from quantum mechanics in psychology needs noting. This book does NOT want to advance that society is quantum mechanical! The macroscopic world is manifestly not quantum mechanical. But this rules not out that one can use concepts and the mathematical apparatus from quantum physics in a macroscopic environment. A mainstay ingredient of quantum mechanics, is 'quantum probability' and this tool has been proven to be useful in the mathematical modelling of decision making. In the most basic experiment of quantum physics, the double slit experiment, it is known (from the works of A. Khrennikov) that the law of total probability is violated. It is now well documented that several decision making paradoxes in psychology and economics (such as the Ellsberg paradox) do exhibit this violation of the law of total probability. When data is collected with experiments which test 'non-rational' decision making behaviour, one can observe that such data often exhibits a complex non-commutative structure, which may be even more complex than if one considers the structure allied to the basic two slit experiment. The community exploring quantum-like models has tried to address how quantum probability can help in better explaining those paradoxes. Research has now been published in very high standing journals on resolving some of the paradoxes with the mathematics of quantum physics. The aim of this book is to collect the contributions of world's leading experts in quantum like modeling in decision making, psychology, cognition, economics, and finance.
The issue of using the physical method in economics is no longer an innovative idea. However, nowadays the methods of mathematical quantum mechanics are also applied to economic sciences. This is the natural result of the fact that as applicable in quantum mechanics, mathematical spaces and tools turn out to be useful in other fields of science. Then it is possible to assume that the problem of the choice of the space is a universal question that is associated not only with mathematics and physics but also with economics or social sciences. In this paper the author considers various formulations of Hilbert space in relation to finite-dimensional quantum mechanics which constitutes a fundament to also apply my outcomes in economics. On the basis of mathematical considerations the author puts forward the hypothesis that the complex Hilbert space is characterized with numerous advantages in relation to its real and quaternionic alternativesThe issue of using the physical method in economics is no longer an innovative idea. However, nowadays the methods of mathematical quantum mechanics are also applied to economic sciences. This is the natural result of the fact that as applicable in quantum mechanics, mathematical spaces and tools turn out to be useful in other fields of science. Then it is possible to assume that the problem of the choice of the space is a universal question that is associated not only with mathematics and physics but also with economics or social sciences. In this paper the author considers various formulations of Hilbert space in relation to finite-dimensional quantum mechanics which constitutes a fundament to also apply my outcomes in economics. On the basis of mathematical considerations the author puts forward the hypothesis that the complex Hilbert space is characterized with numerous advantages in relation to its real and quaternionic alternatives