It is a scientific truism nowadays that quantum mechanical predictions are of statistical or rather of probabilistic nature: a quantum theory assigns a probability distribution to each measurable quantity (observable) of a physical system prepared according to a given preparation prescription (state). Such sets of probability distributions represent the most general quantitative predictions of physical theories. The aim of this study is to determine all theoretical frameworks which yield such a kind of output taking the probabilistic nature of quantitative physical predictions as initial hypothesis. Astonishingly, this project succeeds with a minimal number of additional assumptions, which arise quite naturally in the course of the analysis, and which essentially amount to regularity conditions. The result is that there exist only two classes of physical theories providing quantitative probabilistic predictions: classical theories where observables are represented by real functions over a phase space and states are represented by probability measures upon the phase space, and quantum theories where observables are represented by selfadjoint operators acting on a complex Hilbert space and states are represented by state operators. On empirical grounds, classical theories cannot provide the all-encompassing, fundamental frame for the mathematical description of physical systems. Quantum theories remain, and there is no more complete formal frame for quantitative physical theories. As an additional result, it is shown that there exist physical systems which possess a quantum mechanical but no classical description; a prominent example is the spin system of two spin-1/2 particles. The classical hidden variables model, which J. Bell relates to this system in order to prove his theorem, cannot be a true description of it because no such classical model exists, and Bell's theorem loses its foundation.
It is a scientific truism nowadays that quantum mechanical predictions are of statistical or rather of probabilistic nature: a quantum theory assigns a probability distribution to each measurable quantity (observable) of a physical system prepared according to a given preparation prescription (state). Such sets of probability distributions represent the most general quantitative predictions of physical theories. The aim of this study is to determine all theoretical frameworks which yield such a kind of output taking the probabilistic nature of quantitative physical predictions as initial hypothesis. Astonishingly, this project succeeds with a minimal number of additional assumptions, which arise quite naturally in the course of the analysis, and which essentially amount to regularity conditions. The result is that there exist only two classes of physical theories providing quantitative probabilistic predictions: classical theories where observables are represented by real functions over a phase space and states are represented by probability measures upon the phase space, and quantum theories where observables are represented by selfadjoint operators acting on a complex Hilbert space and states are represented by state operators. On empirical grounds, classical theories cannot provide the all-encompassing, fundamental frame for the mathematical description of physical systems. Quantum theories remain, and there is no more complete formal frame for quantitative physical theories. As an additional result, it is shown that there exist physical systems which possess a quantum mechanical but no classical description; a prominent example is the spin system of two spin-1/2 particles. The classical hidden variables model, which J. Bell relates to this system in order to prove his theorem, cannot be a true description of it because no such classical model exists, and Bell's theorem loses its foundation.
According to the Kolmogorovian Censorship Hypothesis, everything that quantum theory says about the world in the language of the quantum mechanical Hilbert space formalism is actually about relationships between ordinary relative frequencies expressible in operational terms using classical Kolmogorovian probability theory. In other words, a quantum theoretical description of a system should in principle be translatable into a purely operational-probabilistic description. However, our goal in this paper is different; we do not want to deal with the problem how to translate the known theory of quantum mechanics into operational terms, or to reconstruct the theory from postulates which can be interpreted in operational terms. Our aim is somewhat broader and points in the opposite direction. We start with a general scheme for the operational description of an arbitrary physical system. The description is based solely on the notion of observable events (measurement operations and measurement results) and on general, empirically established simple laws concerning their relative frequency. These laws are so simple and fundamental that they apply equally to any physical system. In the first part of the paper, we outline the basic elements of such an operational-probabilistic theory. In the second part, we discuss how this operational-probabilistic description compares to the quantum mechanical description and to what extent the standard Hilbert space quantum mechanics can be regarded as a reformulation of the general operational-probabilistic theory.
AbstractStandard quantum mechanics is formulated using complex Hilbert spaces, real-valued probabilities, continuous one-parameter dynamics, and—where particles and fields have continuous degrees of freedom —function spaces constructed over continua such as R3 . In that precise mathematical sense, the real and complex continua are deeply embedded in the standard theory. It does not follow, however, that experiments have demonstrated the physical existence of an uncountable set of exact real numbers, still less that individual quantum systems physically “store” infinitely many digits. Every preparation, control operation, and measurement has finite precision, and many quantum predictions can be approximated arbitrarily closely using countable or finite descriptions.This distinction matters because the continuum is sometimes blamed for quantum theory's conceptual strangeness. That diagnosis is mostly unsupported. Superposition, interference, uncertainty, noncommutativity, entanglement, contextuality, Bell-inequality violations, and no-cloning already occur in finite-dimensional quantum systems and do not depend in any straightforward way on continuous position space or arbitrary irrational numbers. Restricting a Hilbert space to rational, algebraic, computable, or finitely specified states therefore does not automatically produce classical physics. Indeed, dense restricted subsets can approximate ordinary quantum predictions to arbitrary finite accuracy, although turning such a subset into a complete physical theory requires much more: closed dynamics, a composition rule, a measurement theory, robustness, and new empirical predictions.A particularly developed contemporary alternative is Tim Palmer's Invariant Set Theory and its recent formulation as Rational Quantum Mechanics (RaQM). RaQM is not accurately described as simply “quantum mechanics with irrational numbers banned.” It restricts the bases in which states are physically defined through number-theoretic rationality conditions, represents admissible states using finite bit strings, invokes a fractal invariant state space equipped with a non-Euclidean, p-adic-like metric, and violates Bell measurement independence at the level of exact counterfactual settings. Palmer's 2026 proposal further predicts a finite qubit-information capacity and an eventual saturation of quantum computational advantage. These are genuine, potentially falsifiable proposals, but they remain speculative and have not displaced standard quantum theory.The strongest conclusion is consequently asymmetric. There is a serious foundational question about whether the continuum is an ontological feature of nature or an extraordinarily efficient mathematical completion. Finite precision prevents existing experiments from proving a literal continuum. But there is presently little evidence that continuum mathematics causes quantum phenomena. Any discrete replacement must still account quantitatively for interference, contextuality, Bell correlations, entanglement, spectroscopy, atomic structure, and quantum computation. Discreteness can change quantum physics only when it is accompanied by additional physical postulates—and those postulates, rather than discreteness alone, must ultimately face experiment.
This introductory chapter sets out a general structure of physical theories which is applicable to both classical and quantum mechanics. We start with measurable properties of a given physical system, be it classical or quantum. These properties are called observables . We then introduce a definition of the state of a physical system in terms of measured values of a sufficiently large set of observables. A theory to describe the system should consists of four basic components: Basic mathematical framework This comprises a set of elements endowed with some specific mathematical structure and properties. In mathematics such a set is generally known as a space . Description of states States are described by elements of the space in the chosen mathematical framework. For this reason the space is called the state space of the system. Description of observables Observables are to be described by quantities defined on the state space. The description should yield all possible values of observables. The relationship between observables and states should be explicitly stated. The following two cases are of particular interest: 2 For a deterministic theory like classical mechanics a state should determine the values of all observables. For a probabilistic theory like quantum mechanics a state should determine the probability distribution of the values of all observables. Description of time evolution (dynamics).
We show that quantum theory (QT) is a substructure of classical probabilistic physics. The central quantity of the classical theory is Hamilton’s function, which determines canonical equations, a corresponding flow, and a Liouville equation for a probability density. We extend this theory in two respects: (1) The same structure is defined for arbitrary observables. Thus, we have all of the above entities generated not only by Hamilton’s function but also by every observable. (2) We introduce for each observable a phase space function representing the classical action. This is a redundant quantity in a classical context but indispensable for the transition to QT. The basic equations of the resulting theory take a “quantum-like” form, which allows for a simple derivation of QT by means of a projection to configuration space reported previously [Quantum Stud Math Found 5:219–227, 2018]. We obtain the most important relations of QT, namely the form of operators, Schrödinger’s equation, eigenvalue equations, commutation relations, expectation values, and Born’s rule. Implications for the interpretation of QT are discussed, as well as an alternative projection method allowing for a derivation of spin.
This volume explains why the standard formalism of quantum mechanics is not merely successful, but structurally inevitable. Rather than proposing a new interpretation or modifying existing equations, this work derives quantum mechanics as the only stable descriptive framework compatible with the FSPS (Foundational Structure / Projected Structure) model. Within FSPS, observable physics (PS) arises as a projection from a non-geometric foundational layer (FS), and this projection necessarily introduces non-commutativity, probabilistic structure, and unitary evolution. The volume combines the axiomatic foundation of FSPS–00 v2.2 with a focused derivation showing that classical mechanics is structurally unstable under projection, while the Hilbert-space formalism of quantum mechanics represents the minimal information-preserving description. Measurement, wavefunction collapse, and probabilistic outcomes are treated not as additional physical processes but as re-projection and stabilization events within PS. No changes are made to Schrödinger dynamics, operator algebra, or experimental predictions. This work serves as a unifying explanation for why quantum mechanics has its present form, consolidating earlier FSPS-based analyses into a single, coherent account aligned with modern quantum theory.
This doctoral thesis in mathematics consists of three articles that explore the probabilistic structure of quantum mechanics and quantization from a novel perspective. The thesis adopts a probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, which views the archetypical quantum experiments of Bell- and double-slit- type as violating the principle of non-contextuality, i.e., the assertion that all events and observables are always representable on one single Kolmogorovian probability space, rather than the principles of realism or locality. This probabilistic interpretation posits that quantum mechanics constitutes a probability theory that adheres to the principle of contextuality, and that quantum events explicitly occur at the level of measurement, rather than the level of that which is measured, as these are traditionally interpreted. The thesis establishes a natural connection between the probabilistic structure of quantum mechanics, specifically Born’s rule, and the frequentist interpretation of probability. The major conceptual step in establishing this connection is to re-identify quantum observables instead as unitary representations of groups, whose irreducible sub-representations correspond to the observable’s different possible outcomes, rather than primarily as self- adjoint operators. Furthermore, the thesis reformulates classical statistical mechanics in the formalism of quantum mechanics, known as the Koopman-von Neumann formulation, to demonstrate that classical statistical mechanics also adheres to the principle of contextuality. This finding is significant because it raises questions about the existence of a hidden-variable model of classical statistical mechanics of the kind as examined in Bell’s theorem, where this presumed hidden-variable model traditionally has been seen as that which distinguishes "classical" from "quantum" probability.A novel reformulation of quantization is proposed considering it rather in terms of the representation theory of Hamiltonian flows and their associated inherent symmetry group of symplectomorphisms. Contrary to the traditional view of quantization, this formulation can be regarded as compatible with the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics and offers a new perspective on the quantization of gravity.