Quantum logic as it is presented in Birkhoff-von Neumann’s 1936 paper arose within the framework of the mathematical elaboration of the foundations of quantum mechanics. Birkhoff-von Neumann’s axiomatic was an alternative of the traditional formulation of foundations of quantum mechanics proceeding from the technique of the Hilbert space. It provided more economic formulation of the foundations of the theory. In Mackay’s writings it has been transformed into the axiomatic of quantum theory of probability. However, Mackay came back to the concept of Hilbert space as the fundamental for quantum mechanics. He also adopted the rules of super-selections in his presentation of the foundations of quantum mechanics. The contemporary approach to Birkhoff-von Neumann’s axiomatic is twofold: the criticism of their too rigid construction from the point of view of physics and the development in connection with mathematical intuitionism.
Quantum logic as it is presented in Birkhoff-von Neumann’s 1936 paper arose within the framework of the mathematical elaboration of the foundations of quantum mechanics. Birkhoff-von Neumann’s axiomatic was an alternative of the traditional formulation of foundations of quantum mechanics proceeding from the technique of the Hilbert space. It provided more economic formulation of the foundations of the theory. In Mackay’s writings it has been transformed into the axiomatic of quantum theory of probability. However, Mackay came back to the concept of Hilbert space as the fundamental for quantum mechanics. He also adopted the rules of super-selections in his presentation of the foundations of quantum mechanics. The contemporary approach to Birkhoff-von Neumann’s axiomatic is twofold: the criticism of their too rigid construction from the point of view of physics and the development in connection with mathematical intuitionism.
In this paper we provide a structural derivation of Birkhoff–von Neumann quantum logic starting from an extended statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Quantum logic is not introduced as an independent logical hypothesis, but is shown to arise naturally from the non-classical structure of quantum probability, in particular from interference, non-additivity, and the priority of the whole over its alternatives. We demonstrate that the failure of Boolean logic in quantum mechanics is not a semantic or philosophical anomaly, but a direct consequence of the probabilistic structure encoded in Hilbert space. Within this framework, quantum logic appears as the logical form of quantum probability itself. This interpretation clarifies the physical meaning of quantum logic and highlights its contemporary relevance in quantum information and quantum computation.
. We put forward a new take on the logic of quantum mechanics, following Schrödinger's point of view that it is composition which makes quantum theory what it is, rather than its particular propositional structure due to the existence of superpositions, as proposed by Birkhoff and von Neumann. This gives rise to an intrinsically quantitative kind of logic, which truly deserves the name ‘logic’ in that it also models meaning in natural language, the latter being the origin of logic, that it supports automation, the most prominent practical use of logic, and that it supports probabilistic inference. The physics and the logic of quantum-ish logic. In 1932 John von Neumann formalized Quantum Mechanics in his book “Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik”. This was effectively the official birth of the quantum mechanical formalism which until now, some 75 years later, has remained the same. Quantum theory underpins so many things in our daily lives including chemical industry, energy production and information technology, which arguably makes it the most technologically successful theory of physics ever. However, in 1935, merely three years after the birth of his brainchild, von Neumann wrote in a letter to American mathematician Garrett Birkhoff: “I would like to make a confession which may seem immoral: I do not believe absolutely in Hilbert space no more.” (sic)—for more details see [73]. Soon thereafter they published a paper entitled “The Logic of Quantum Mechanics” [13]. Their ‘quantum logic’ was cast in order-theoretic terms, very much in the spirit of the then reigning algebraic view of logic, with the distributive law being replaced with a weaker (ortho)modular law. This resulted in a research community of quantum logicians [68, 71, 47, 30]. However, despite von Neumann's reputation, and the large body of research that has been produced in the area, one does not find a trace of this activity neither in the mainstream physics, mathematics, nor logic literature. Hence, 75 years later one may want to conclude that this activity was a failure. What went wrong? The mathematics of it. Let us consider the raison d'être for the Hilbert space formalism.
In 1933, Kolmogorov synthesized the basic concepts of probability that were in general use at the time into concepts and deductions from a simple set of axioms that said probability was a σ-additive function from a boolean algebra of events into [0, 1]. In 1932, von Neumann realized that the use of probability in quantum mechanics required a different concept that he formulated as a σ-additive function from the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space onto [0,1]. In 1935, Birkhoff & von Neumann replaced Hilbert space with an algebraic generalization. Today, a slight modification of the Birkhoff-von Neumann generalization is called “quantum logic”. A central problem in the philosophy of probability is the justification of the definition of probability used in a given application. This is usually done by arguing for the rationality of that approach to the situation under consideration. A version of the Dutch book argument given by de Finetti in 1972 is often used to justify the Kolmogorov theory, especially in scientific applications. As von Neumann in 1955 noted, and his criticisms still hold, there is no acceptable foundation for quantum logic. While it is not argued here that a rational approach has been carried out for quantum physics, it is argued that (1) for many important situations found in behavioral science that quantum probability theory is a reasonable choice, and (2) that it has an arguably rational foundation to certain areas of behavioral science, for example, the behavioral paradigm of Between Subjects experiments.
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.
Abstract Birkhoff and von Neumann make it clear what the goal of their October, 1936 paper, “The logic of quantum mechanics”, is: “The object of the present paper is to discover what logical structure one may hope to find in physical theories which, like quantum mechanics, do not conform to classical logic. Our main conclusion, based on admittedly heuristic arguments, is that one can reasonably expect to find a calculus of propositions which is formally indistinguishable from the calculus of linear subspaces with respect to set products, linear sums, and orthogonal complements-and resembles the usual calculus of propositions with respect to and, or, and not.” (Birkhoff and von Neumann, 1936, p.823; underline added). Specifically, “Up to now, we have only discussed formal features of logical structure which seem to be common to classical dynamics and the quantum theory. We now turn to the central difference between them-the distributive identity of the propositional calculus: L6: a U (b ꓵ c) = (a U b) ꓵ (a U c) and a ꓵ (b U c) = (a ꓵ b) U (a ꓵ c) which is a law in classical, but not in quantum mechanics.” (Birkhoff and von Neumann, 1936, p.830; underline added) Continuing, Birkhoff and von Neumann comment: “From a deeper mathematical viewpoint, L6 is the characteristic property of set-combination. More precisely, every "field" of sets is isomorphic with a Boolean algebra, and conversely.21 This throws new light on the well-known fact that the propositional calculi of classical mechanics are Boolean algebras.” (Birkhoff and von Neumann, 1936, p.831). Birkhoff and von Neumann then show on p.831 that the distributive law breaks down in quantum mechanics and that the generalized distributive law of logic breaks down in the related field “in the quotient algebra of the field of Lebesgue measurable sets by the ideal of sets of Lebesgue measure 0, which is so fundamental in statistics and the formulation of the ergodic principle.” (ibid., p.831). However, it must be noted that Birkhoff and von Neumann are talking about the Jevons-Pierce-Schroder interpretation (two -valued) of Boole’s original approach (four -valued), which Boole completely rejected. (See Hailperin, 1986, 1996), The reason for this rejection is that the Jevons-Peircean approach required strict complementation, which translated into additivity and linearity in probability assessments, as opposed to Boole’s realization that real world decision making required sub additivity and non-linearity, Thereafter, we will refer to the Jevons-Pierce-Schroder approach as Jevons’s approach to the interpretation of Boolean logic, which uses standard classical logic to underpin discussions of standard probability logic. Jevons’s approach removed the basic algebra which Boole combined with his new relational, propositional logic, so as to deal with indeterminate, imprecise probabilities, which are nonstandard. Jevons’s approach can’t deal with the non-standard probability logics used by Boole in chapters XVIII-XX of The Laws of Thought (1854) and by Keynes in chapters XII, XV-XVII of the A Treatise on Probability (1921) in order to deal with indeterminate, interval valued probabilities.
In this paper, we will explore some of the basic elements of the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics. In the first section, I will list the motivations for introducing a probability model that is quite different from that of the classical probability theory, but still shares quite a few significant commonalities. Later in the paper, I will discuss the quantum probability theory in detail, while paying a brief attention to some of the axioms (by Birkhoff and von Neumann) that illustrate both the commonalities and differences between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. This paper will end with a presentation of two theorems that form the core of quantum mechanics.