This paper shows how the classical finite probability theory (with equiprobable outcomes) can be reinterpreted and recast as the quantum probability calculus of a pedagogical or "toy" model of quantum mechanics over sets (QM/sets). There have been four previous attempts to develop a quantum-like model with the base field of $\mathbb{C}$ replaced by $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ , but they are all forced into a merely "modal" interpretation by requiring the brackets to take values in $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ (1 = possible, 0 = impossible). But the usual QM brackets give the "overlap" between states ψ and ϕ, so for subsets S,T of U, the natural definition is $=|S{\cap}T|$ . This allows QM/sets to be developed with a full probability calculus that turns out to be the perfectly classical Laplace-Boole finite probability theory. The point is not to clarify finite probability theory but to elucidate quantum mechanics itself by seeing some of its quantum features (e.g., two-slit experiment) in a classical setting.This paper shows how the classical finite probability theory (with equiprobable outcomes) can be reinterpreted and recast as the quantum probability calculus of a pedagogical or "toy" model of quantum mechanics over sets (QM/sets). There have been four previous attempts to develop a quantum-like model with the base field of $\mathbb{C}$ replaced by $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$, but they are all forced into a merely "modal" interpretation by requiring the brackets to take values in $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ (1 = possible, 0 = impossible). But the usual QM brackets give the "overlap" between states ψ and ϕ, so for subsets S,T of U, the natural definition is $=|S{\cap}T|$. This allows QM/sets to be developed with a full probability calculus that turns out to be the perfectly classical Laplace-Boole finite probability theory. The point is not to clarify finite probability theory but to elucidate quantum mechanics itself by seeing some of its quantum features (e.g., two-slit experiment) in a classical setting.

arXiv:1502.01048Feb 3, 20152 citations

Probability and quantum mechanics

Diederik Aerts

Jan 1, 19840 citations

A possible explanation for the probabilities of quantum mechanics

Dirk Aerts

It is shown that a lack of knowledge about the measurements of a physical system gives rise to a nonclassical probability calculus for this physical system. It is also shown that the nonclassical probability calculus of quantum mechanics can be interpreted as being the result of a lack of knowledge about the measurements. Examples are given of macroscopic real systems that have a nonclassical probability calculus. A macroscopic real system that has a quantum probability calculus is also given, and more specifically a model for the spin of a spin- 1/2 particle is constructed. These results are analyzed in light of the old hidden variable problem.It is shown that a lack of knowledge about the measurements of a physical system gives rise to a nonclassical probability calculus for this physical system. It is also shown that the nonclassical probability calculus of quantum mechanics can be interpreted as being the result of a lack of knowledge about the measurements. Examples are given of macroscopic real systems that have a nonclassical probability calculus. A macroscopic real system that has a quantum probability calculus is also given, and more specifically a model for the spin of a spin- 1/2 particle is constructed. These results are analyzed in light of the old hidden variable problem.

Journal of Mathematical PhysicsJan 1, 1986211 citations

Probability and Quantum Mechanics

Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker

The British Journal for the Philosophy of ScienceDec 1, 197348 citations

Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Probability

Bassano Vacchini

Graduate texts in physicsJan 1, 20240 citations

Quantum probability in the logic of quantum mechanics

Pitsri Atisoontornkul, Preedeeporn Limcharoeri

Several attempts have been made to establish the logical structure of quantum mechanics on an axiomatic foundation. It has been shown that, whereas the logical structure of the propositional calculus of classical mechanics is that of a Boolean lattice, the logical structure of the propositional calculus of quantum mechanics is non-Boolean. Moreover, a probability model of a quantum system, namely, the quantum probability model, has a mathematical structure completely different from that of the Kolmogorovian probability model, which is the standard probability model of a classical system. These results, which are still controversial, are analysed and put in critical perspective.Several attempts have been made to establish the logical structure of quantum mechanics on an axiomatic foundation. It has been shown that, whereas the logical structure of the propositional calculus of classical mechanics is that of a Boolean lattice, the logical structure of the propositional calculus of quantum mechanics is non-Boolean. Moreover, a probability model of a quantum system, namely, the quantum probability model, has a mathematical structure completely different from that of the Kolmogorovian probability model, which is the standard probability model of a classical system. These results, which are still controversial, are analysed and put in critical perspective.

Jan 1, 19890 citations

\mathbb{C}

replaced by

\mathbb{Z}_{2}

, but they are all forced into a merely "modal" interpretation by requiring the brackets to take values in

\mathbb{Z}_{2}

(1 = possible, 0 = impossible). But the usual QM brackets give the "overlap" between states ψ and ϕ, so for subsets S,T of U, the natural definition is

=|S{\cap}T|

. This allows QM/sets to be developed with a full probability calculus that turns out to be the perfectly classical Laplace-Boole finite probability theory. The point is not to clarify finite probability theory but to elucidate quantum mechanics itself by seeing some of its quantum features (e.g., two-slit experiment) in a classical setting.