This article considers a rarely discussed aspect, the no-cloning principle or postulate, recast as the uniqueness postulate, of the mathematical modeling known as quantum-like, Q-L, modeling (vs. classical-like, C-L, modeling, based in the mathematics adopted from classical physics) and the corresponding Q-L theories beyond physics. The principle is a transfer of the no-cloning principle (arising from the no-cloning theorem) in quantum mechanics (QM) to Q-L theories. My interest in this principle, to be related to several other key features of QM and Q-L theories, such as the irreducible role of observation, complementarity, and probabilistic causality, is connected to a more general question: What are the ontological and epistemological reasons for using Q-L models vs. C-L ones? I shall argue that adopting the uniqueness postulate is justified in Q-L theories and adds an important new motivation for doing so and a new venue for considering this question. In order to properly ground this argument, the article also offers a discussion along similar lines of QM, providing a new angle on Bohr's concept of complementarity via the uniqueness postulate.
This article considers a rarely discussed aspect, the no-cloning principle or postulate, recast as the uniqueness postulate, of the mathematical modeling known as quantum-like, Q-L, modeling (vs. classical-like, C-L, modeling, based in the mathematics adopted from classical physics) and the corresponding Q-L theories beyond physics. The principle is a transfer of the no-cloning principle (arising from the no-cloning theorem) in quantum mechanics (QM) to Q-L theories. My interest in this principle, to be related to several other key features of QM and Q-L theories, such as the irreducible role of observation, complementarity, and probabilistic causality, is connected to a more general question: What are the ontological and epistemological reasons for using Q-L models vs. C-L ones? I shall argue that adopting the uniqueness postulate is justified in Q-L theories and adds an important new motivation for doing so and a new venue for considering this question. In order to properly ground this argument, the article also offers a discussion along similar lines of QM, providing a new angle on Bohr's concept of complementarity via the uniqueness postulate.
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.
The argument of this article is grounded in the irreducible interference of observational instruments in our interactions with nature in quantum physics and, thus, in the constitution of quantum phenomena versus classical physics, where this interference can, in principle, be disregarded. The irreducible character of this interference was seen by N. Bohr as the principal distinction between classical and quantum physics and grounded his interpretation of quantum phenomena and quantum theory. Bohr saw complementarity as a generalization of the classical ideal of causality, which defined classical physics and relativity. While intimated by Bohr, the relationships among observational technology, complementarity, causality and the arrow of events (a new concept that replaces the arrow of time commonly used in this context) were not addressed by him either. The article introduces another new concept, that of quantum causality, as a form of probabilistic causality. The argument of the article is based on a particular interpretation of quantum phenomena and quantum theory, defined by the concept of 'reality without realism (RWR)'. This interpretation follows Bohr's interpretation but contains certain additional features, in particular the Dirac postulate. The article also considers quantum-like (Q-L) theories (based in the mathematics of QM) from the perspective it develops. This article is part of the theme issue 'Thermodynamics 2.0: Bridging the natural and social sciences (Part 2)'.
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.
Quantum complementarity is a fundamental feature of quantum systems and has captivated the physics research community for nearly a century, with significant advancements emerging in recent decades. This review traces the historical evolution of the concept of complementarity, beginning with Bohr's original formulation. It then explores its modern quantification through complementarity relations and its profound connection to the foundational postulates of quantum theory. Furthermore, it delves into key related developments, such as the operational definition of complementarity in the context of incompatible observables, its potential links with quantum uncertainty relations and contextuality, its various applications, and other pertinent topics. This review aims to serve physicists interested in quantum resources, quantum correlations, and the foundational principles of quantum mechanics.
This article explores Bohr's argument, advanced under the heading of 'complementarity,' concerning quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics, and its physical and philosophical implications.In Bohr, the term complementarity designates both a particular concept and an overall interpretation of quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics, in part grounded in this concept.While the argument of this article is primarily philosophical, it will also address, historically, the development and transformations of Bohr's thinking, under the impact of the development of quantum theory and Bohr's confrontation with Einstein, especially their exchange concerning the EPR experiment, proposed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in 1935.Bohr's interpretation was progressively characterized by a more radical epistemology, in its ultimate form, which was developed in the 1930s and with which I shall be especially concerned here, defined by his new concepts of phenomenon and atomicity.According to this epistemology, quantum objects are seen as indescribable and possibly even as inconceivable, and as manifesting their existence only in the effects of their interactions with measuring instruments upon those instruments, effects that define phenomena in Bohr's sense.The absence of causality is an automatic consequence of this epistemology.I shall also consider how probability and statistics work under these epistemological conditions.
In several recent communications (Khrennikov 2019a, b, c, 2020a, b), A. Khrennikov argued for "eliminating the issue of quantum nonlocality" from the analysis of quantum entanglement and quantum phenomena in general. He proposed to differentiate quantum and classical phenomena and entanglement not by their respective nonlocality and locality, as is common, but by the discreteness of quantum phenomena vs. the continuity of classical phenomena, supplemented by Bohr's complementarity in the case of quantum phenomena. As I argue here, however, the question may not be that of "eliminating the issue of quantum nonlocality" but instead of illuminating this issue, a task that can, I also argue, be pursued by relating quantum nonlocality to other key features of quantum phenomena. I suggest that the following features of quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics, distinguishing them from classical phenomena and classical physics--(1) the irreducible role of measuring instruments in defining quantum phenomena; (2) discreteness; (3) complementarity; (4) entanglement; (5) quantum nonlocality; and (6) the irreducibly probabilistic nature of quantum predictions--are all interconnected in defining quantum phenomena and distinguishing them from classical ones, so that it is difficult to give an unconditional priority to any one of them. To argue this case, I consider quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics from a nonrealist or, in terms adopted here, "reality-without-realism" (RWR) perspective. This perspective extends and gives new dimensions to Bohr's view, grounded in his analysis of the irreducible tole of measuring instruments in the constitution of quantum phenomena, with quantum measurement defined by the entanglements between the quantum object under investigation and the instrument used.