We consider the situation of a physical entity that is the compound entity consisting of two ‘separated ’ quantum entities. In earlier work it has been proved by one of the authors that such a physical entity cannot be described by standard quantum mechanics. More precisely, it was shown that two of the axioms of traditional quantum axiomatics are at the origin of the impossibility for standard quantum mechanics to describe this type of compound entity. One of these axioms is equivalent with the superposition principle, which means that separated quantum entities put the linearity of quantum mechanics at stake. We analyze the conceptual steps that are involved in this proof, and expose the necessary material of quantum axiomatics to be able to understand the argument. 1
We consider the situation of a physical entity that is the compound entity consisting of two ‘separated ’ quantum entities. In earlier work it has been proved by one of the authors that such a physical entity cannot be described by standard quantum mechanics. More precisely, it was shown that two of the axioms of traditional quantum axiomatics are at the origin of the impossibility for standard quantum mechanics to describe this type of compound entity. One of these axioms is equivalent with the superposition principle, which means that separated quantum entities put the linearity of quantum mechanics at stake. We analyze the conceptual steps that are involved in this proof, and expose the necessary material of quantum axiomatics to be able to understand the argument. 1
We consider the situation of a physical entity that is the compound entity consisting of two 'separated' quantum entities. In earlier work it has been proven by one of the authors that such a physical entity cannot be described by standard quantum mechanics. More precisely, it was shown that two of the axioms of traditional quantum axiomatics are at the origin of the impossibility for standard quantum mechanics to describe this type of compound entity. One of these axioms is equivalent with the superposition principle, which means that separated quantum entities put the linearity of quantum mechanics at stake. We analyze the conceptual steps that are involved in this proof, and expose the necessary material of quantum axiomatics to be able to understand the argument
We prove that a theory that is different from a classical theory and has the property that orthogonal states of a physical system are compatible states (a property called orthomodularity in axiomatics) cannot describe two separated entities. Quantum mechanics has this property and as a consequence it is impossible to describe two separated entities in quantum mechanics. This is essentially due to the fact that quantum mechanics is too specific a theory. We indicate the direction for a generalization where the problem could be solved.
Einstein's article on the EPR paradox is the most cited of his works, but not many know that it was not fully representative of the way he thought about the incompleteness of the quantum formalism. Indeed, his main worry was not Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which he accepted, but the experimental non-separability of spatially separate systems. The same problem was also recognized, years later, by one of us, as part of an axiomatic analysis of the quantum formalism, which revealed an unexpected structural limitation of the quantum formalism in Hilbert space, preventing the description of separate systems. As we will explain, this limitation does not manifest at the level of the states, but of the projectors describing the properties, in the sense that there are not enough properties in the formalism to describe separate systems. The question remains whether separability is a possibility at the fundamental level and if a formalism should integrate it into its mathematical structure, as a possibility. To aid our intuition, we offer a reflection based on a powerful analogy between physical systems and human conceptual entities, as the question of separability also arises for the latter.
Abstract Einstein’s article on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox is the most cited of his works, but not many know that it was not fully representative of the way he thought about the incompleteness of the quantum formalism. Indeed, his main worry was not Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which he accepted, but the experimental non-separability of spatially separate systems. The same problem was also recognized, years later, by one of us, as part of an axiomatic analysis of the quantum formalism, which revealed an unexpected structural limitation of the quantum formalism in Hilbert space, preventing the description of separate systems. As we will explain, this limitation does not manifest at the level of the states, but of the projectors describing the properties, in the sense that there are not enough properties in the formalism to describe separate systems. The question remains whether separability is a possibility at the fundamental level and if a formalism should integrate it into its mathematical structure, as a possibility. To aid our intuition, we offer a reflection based on a powerful analogy between physical systems and human conceptual entities, as the question of separability also arises for the latter. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Newton, Principia, Newton Geneva Edition (17th–19th) and modern Newtonian mechanics: heritage, past & present’.
One of the fundamental conceptual difficulties in quantum mechanics arises from the fact that two of the axioms of the theory concerning the evolution of a microscopic system are contradictory. The first axiom assumes that the state of a quantum system evolving undisturbed by any observer obeys a linear deterministic law expressed by the SchrSdinger equation. The second one (wave-packet reduction principle) states that, when the quantum system interacts with an apparatus devised to measure some of its dynamical variables, its state changes abruptly and stochastically, jumping into a normalized eigenstate of the measured variable. This evolution is not deterministic nor linear and cannot be accounted for by the SchrSdinger equation. As a consequence the internal coherence of the theory becomes questionable. On one side the influence of the apparatus on the quantum system cannot be described as an interaction of the quantum constituents of the measuring macroscopic apparatus with the measured quantum system. On the other side, the impossibility of considering a macroscopic object as made by quantum constituents, i .e . the difficulty of quantum mechanics in describing the behaviour of macroscopic systems, is even more dramatic if we consider the evolution of the closed system consisting of the macroscopic apparatus and of the microscopic system. In such a case the appearance of superpositions of macr0scopically distinguishable states related to the apparatus cannot be avoided. These superpositions contradict both our classical experience and wave-packet reduction principle, which provides for statistical mixtures.
Quantum mechanics is empirically unrivalled, yet the origin of its distinctive non-classical features remains a foundational question. This paper proves, within the unchanged standard quantum formalism, that these features—collectively termed “quantumness”—arise if and only if certain configurations of the system are indistinguishable in principle. Quantumness is defined as any deviation from classical probability distributions, i.e., probabilities that require coherent amplitude addition rather than incoherent probability addition. Three theorems are established using only the standard Hilbert-space formalism and unitary evolution: 1. Indistinguishability of configurations is necessary and sufficient for quantumness.2. Indistinguishability of identical particles is neither necessary nor sufficient.3. An equivalent restatement in precise operational terms: quantumness occurs exactly when a variable lacks physical definition (distinguishability in principle by macroscopic outcomes). These results are presented and interpreted within the Logical Interpretation of quantum mechanics, a minimalist framework that adds no new postulates and applies classical logic strictly to physically defined facts. The interpretation provides the conceptual tools—particularly the precise notion of “indistinguishability in principle”—that make the theorems sharp and unified. This work unifies the origin of quantumness and serves as the conceptual prequel to the full Logical Interpretation developed in the author’s companion paper.