The axiomatization given by von Neumann lasted for more than half a century in most of the classical books of quantum mechanics. However, in the 1990's the majority of physicists began to adopt a critical attitude towards this form of postulation, especially regarding the intuitive development and the treatment of the problem of collapse of the wave function. It should be noted that the experimental conclusions reached with any set of axioms that can be chosen are, and in fact must be, exactly the same. In fact for most physicists, who do not work on the foundations of quantum mechanics, this is a transparent question. The concept of rigged space is related to topological characteristics that link the square-integrable aspects to those of distribution in functional analysis. This allows us to include a series of generalized functions due to Dirac.
The axiomatization given by von Neumann lasted for more than half a century in most of the classical books of quantum mechanics. However, in the 1990's the majority of physicists began to adopt a critical attitude towards this form of postulation, especially regarding the intuitive development and the treatment of the problem of collapse of the wave function. It should be noted that the experimental conclusions reached with any set of axioms that can be chosen are, and in fact must be, exactly the same. In fact for most physicists, who do not work on the foundations of quantum mechanics, this is a transparent question. The concept of rigged space is related to topological characteristics that link the square-integrable aspects to those of distribution in functional analysis. This allows us to include a series of generalized functions due to Dirac.
The aim of this chapter is to present (in a compact way) the fundamentals of conventional quantum theory. We select the for- mulation of QM as an axiomatic theory in the complete accordance with the Hilbert’s program on axiomatization of physical theories. We remark that the first step toward the present formulation of QM was done in the seminal work of Hilbert, Nordheim, and von Neumann [112]. This work was substantially extended, completed, and clarified in the book of von Neumann [296]. Another version of the rigorous mathematical approach to QM was presented in the book of Dirac [74]. From the mathematical viewpoint, the main difference between the approaches of von Neumann and Dirac is that the first one is based on the theory of self-adjoint operators in complex Hilbert space and the second one is based on the theory of self-adjoint operators acting (by using the modern mathematical terminology) in rigged Hilbert spaces. This theory operates with generalized eigenvectors belonging to the spaces of distributions. Although the von Neumann’s formalization of QM became dominant in quantum mathematical physics, the Dirac’s formalization is widely used in the works on the physical level of rigorousness. Moreover, the Dirac’s terminology, bra-and ket- vectors, became the standard for quantum information theory. However, since quantum information is based on the castrated version of QM, namely, QM in finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, the so-called n-qubit spaces, the basic tool of the Dirac’s formalism, usage of generalized eigenvectors, is useless (since in the finite- dimensional case everything is reduced to manipulation with matrices). During the last 80 years, there were written hundreds of books on QM enlightening its foundational aspects. Unfortunately, the majority of these writings advertise exotic (and some of them really esoteric) views on QM and, in particular, on interpretation of the wave function. They are full of such terms as the collapse of the wave function, quantumnonlocality, manyworlds, thewave function of universe, the preparation of Schro¨dinger cats, influence of the future on the past, quantum teleportation. Of course, manipulations with such terminology create an atmosphere of mystery and a feeling that something unusual and impossible can happen. And this atmosphere plays a positive role in attracting young people to QM and especially to quantum foundations.
The list of basic axioms of quantum mechanics as it was formulated by von Neumann includes only the mathematical formalism of the Hilbert space and its statistical interpretation. We point out that such an approach is too general to be considered as the foundation of quantum mechanics. In particular in this approach any finite-dimensional Hilbert space describes a quantum system. Though such a treatment might be a convenient approximation it can not be considered as a fundamental description of a quantum system and moreover it leads to some paradoxes like Bell's theorem. I present a list from seven basic postulates of axiomatic quantum mechanics. In particular the list includes the axiom describing spatial properties of quantum system. These axioms do not admit a nontrivial realization in the finite-dimensional Hilbert space. One suggests that the axiomatic quantum mechanics is consistent with local realism.
Authoritative appraisals qualified this book as an axiomatic theory. However, being its essential content no more than an analogy, its theoretical organization cannot be an axiomatic one. In fact, in the first edition Dirac declares to avoid an axiomatic presentation. Moreover, I show that the text is aimed at solving a basic problem: How quantum mechanics is similar to classical mechanics. A previous paper analyzed all past theories of physics, chemistry and mathematics, presented by the respective authors in a non-axiomatic way. Four characteristic features of a new model of organizing a theory have been recognized. An accurate inspection of Dirac text proves that it actually applied this kind of organization of a theory. This fact gives a formal reason of what Kronz and Lupher suggested through intuitive categories, pragmatism and rigor, i.e. Dirac formulation of Quantum mechanics represents a distinct theoretical attitude from von Neumann axiomatic attitude. However, since the second edition Dirac changed his attitude; although relying again on an analogy, his theory was referred to the axiomatic method. Some considerations on the odd paths which led to the present formulation of QM are added. They suggest to look for a new foundation of this theory.
Dirac's bra and ket formalism is investigated and incorporated into a complete mathematical theory. First the axiomatic foundations of quantum mechanics and von Neumann's spectral theory of observables are reviewed and several inadequacies are pointed out. These defects then are remedied by extending the usual Hilbert space to a rigged Hilbert space as introduced by Gel'fand, i.e., a triplet Φ⊂H⊂Φ′ where H is a Hilbert space, Φ a dense subspace of H provided with a new (finer) topology, Φ′ the dual of Φ. It is shown that this mathematical structure, together with the Schwartz nuclear theorem, allows us to reproduce Dirac's formalism in a completely rigorous way, without losing its transparency; this makes the theory easier to handle. The temporal evolution of the system and the wave equation are considered. Finally the probabilistic interpretation and the physical aspects of the theory are discussed; Φ is identified with the set of all physically accessible states of the system, Φ′ with the set of all possible experiments (apparatus) to which it can be subjected; this provides a direct connection with Feynman's formulation of quantum mechanics.
The evolution of quantum mechanics through the 1920s was profoundly messy. Some physicists believed that it was necessary to throw out much of the conceptual baggage that early quantum mechanics tended to carry around with it and re-establish the theory on much firmer ground. It was at this critical stage that the search for deeper insights into the underlying reality was set aside in favour of mathematical expediency. All the conceptual problems appeared to be coming from the wavefunctions. But whatever was to replace them needed to retain all the properties and relationships that had so far been discovered. Dirac and von Neumann chose to derive a new quantum formalism by replacing the wavefunctions with state vectors operating in an abstract Hilbert space, and formally embedding all the most important definitions and relations within a system of axioms.
Quantum theory is the soul of contemporary physics. It was discovered in an adventurous way, under the urge to solve the puzzles posed by atomic spectra and blackbody radiation. But after its invention, it immediately became clear that it was not just a theory of specific physical systems: it was rather a new language of universal applicability. Already in 1928, the theory had received solid mathematical foundations by Hilbert, von Neumann, and Nordheim, and this work was brought to completion in the monumental work of von Neumann, in the form that we still study nowadays. The theory is extraordinarily successful, and its predictions have been confirmed to an astonishing level of precision in a large spectrum of experiments. However, almost 90 years after von Neumann's book, quantum theory remains mysterious. Its mathematical formulation – based on Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators – is far from having an intuitive interpretation. The association of physical systems to Hilbert spaces whose unit vectors represent pure states, the representation of transformations by unitary operators and of observables by self-adjoint operators – all such postulates look artificial and ad hoc . A slightly more operational approach is provided by the C * -algebraic formulation of quantum theory – still, this formulation relies on the assumption that observables form an algebra , where the physical meanings of the multiplication and the sum are far from clear. In short, the postulates of quantum theory impose mathematical structures without providing any simple reason for this choice: the mathematics of Hilbert spaces is adopted as a magic blackbox that “works well” at producing experimental predictions. However, in a satisfactory axiomatization of a physical theory the mathematical structures should emerge as a consequence of postulates that have a direct physical interpretation. By this we mean postulates referring, e.g., to primitive notions like physical system, measurement, or process, rather than notions like, e.g., Hilbert space, C * -algebra, unit vector, or selfadjoint operator. The crucial question thus remains unanswered: why quantum theory? Which are the principles at the basis of the theory? A case that is often invoked in contrast is that of Special Relativity theory, which directly follows from the simple understandable principle of relativity.