The concept of infinity long ago led to an understanding that proper subsets of an infinite set can be put in a one-to-one correspondence with the original set. This mechanism of ‘parts’ of a set ‘duplicating’ the original set took on deeper significance when in 1914 Hausdorff showed that the three-dimensional sphere S2 can be decomposed into a small finite number of pairwise disjoint subsets which may then be transformed by simple rotations to form two identical copies of S2. Further, the basic Hausdorff result may be extended to the case of the formation of any finite number of identical copies, and even to the case of countably infinite copies, if the restriction to finitely many initial pairwise disjoint pieces is relaxed to allow countably many such pieces. We demonstrate the non-causal mechanics of state space multiplicity by the use of a free group of an independent pair of rotations acting on the state space of a qubit, S2, i.e. rotations from the group SO(3). We go on to speculate on the ontological implications of these rotational actions, namely that quantum state space is the ontological basis of a quantum system, and admits non-causal non-classical structure mappings which may provide a framework for superposition basis state co-existence, and even for a frequentist probability theory.
The concept of infinity long ago led to an understanding that proper subsets of an infinite set can be put in a one-to-one correspondence with the original set. This mechanism of ‘parts’ of a set ‘duplicating’ the original set took on deeper significance when in 1914 Hausdorff showed that the three-dimensional sphere S2 can be decomposed into a small finite number of pairwise disjoint subsets which may then be transformed by simple rotations to form two identical copies of S2. Further, the basic Hausdorff result may be extended to the case of the formation of any finite number of identical copies, and even to the case of countably infinite copies, if the restriction to finitely many initial pairwise disjoint pieces is relaxed to allow countably many such pieces. We demonstrate the non-causal mechanics of state space multiplicity by the use of a free group of an independent pair of rotations acting on the state space of a qubit, S2, i.e. rotations from the group SO(3). We go on to speculate on the ontological implications of these rotational actions, namely that quantum state space is the ontological basis of a quantum system, and admits non-causal non-classical structure mappings which may provide a framework for superposition basis state co-existence, and even for a frequentist probability 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.
Starting from logical structures of classical and quantum mechanics we reconstruct the logic of so-called no-signaling theories, where the correlations among subsystems of a composite system are restricted only by a simplest form of causality forbidding an instantaneous communication. Although such theories are, as it seems, irrelevant for the description of physical reality, they are helpful in understanding the relevance of quantum mechanics. The logical structure of each theory has an epistemological flavor, as it is based on analysis of possible results of experiments. In this note we emphasize that not only logical structures of classical, quantum and no-signaling theory may be treated on the same ground but it is also possible to give to all of them a common ontological basis by constructing a “phase space” in all cases. In non-classical cases the phase space is not a set, as in classical theory, but a more general object obtained by means of category theory, but conceptually it plays the same role as the phase space in classical physics.
Many fundamental and key objects in quantum mechanics are linear mappings between particular affine/linear spaces. This structure includes basic quantum elements such as states, measurements, channels, instruments, non-signalling channels and channels with memory, and also higher-order operations such as superchannels, quantum combs, n-time processes, testers, and process matrices which may not respect a definite causal order. Deducing and characterising their structural properties in terms of linear and semidefinite constraints is not only of foundational relevance, but plays an important role in enabling the numerical optimisation over sets of quantum objects and allowing simpler connections between different concepts and objects. Here, we provide a general framework to deduce these properties in a direct and easy to use way. While primarily guided by practical quantum mechanical considerations, we also extend our analysis to mappings between general linear/affine spaces and derive their properties, opening the possibility for analysing sets which are not explicitly forbidden by quantum theory, but are still not much explored. Together, these results yield versatile and readily applicable tools for all tasks that require the characterisation of linear transformations, in quantum mechanics and beyond. As an application of our methods, we discuss how the existence of indefinite causality naturally emerges in higher-order quantum transformations and provide a simple strategy for the characterisation of mappings that have to preserve properties in a 'complete' sense, i.e., when acting non-trivially only on parts of an input space.
Understanding the geometry of state space is of fundamental interest in the field of quantum information, in particular to study entanglement. The states of a d dimensional system form a convex set in the d2−1 dimensional Euclidean space Rd2−1. For a two dimensional system this convex set is nothing but a solid unit sphere (Bloch sphere) with centre at the origin. The surface S of this unit sphere consists of all the pure states of the system. Every unitary transformation U ∈ SU(2) of the Hilbert space corresponds to an associated SO(3) rotation of this space. This kind of correspondence becomes much richer when we go to higher dimension. For example, in the d = 3 case the corresponding unitary group is the eight parameter group SU(3) whereas the rotation group in R is the 28 parameter group SO(8). Therefore, not every point on or inside the sphere S in R will correspond to a state of the system. So, not every rotation in R will correspond to a valid unitary transformation of the 3 dimensional Hilbert space. This gives us a fairly complex convex object as the set of all states. In order to gain insight into the structure of this state space, we study its two dimensional and three dimensional cross-sections. In particular, we describe in detail the discrete symmetries of a non-trivial 3-section of the convex set of states (density matrices) for three dimensional systems. This group turns out to be the same as that of a tetrahedron.
Quantum theory describes our universe incredibly successfully. To our classically-inclined brains, however, it is a bizarre description that requires a reimagining of what fundamental reality, or “ontology”, could look like. This thesis examines different ontological features in light of the success of quantum theory, what it requires, and what it rules out. While these investigations are primarily foundational, they also have relevance to quantum information, quantum communication, and experiments on quantum systems. The way that quantum theory describes the state of a system is one of its most unintuitive features. It is natural, therefore, to ask whether a similarly strange description of states is required on an ontological level. This thesis proves that almost all quantum superposition states for d > 3 dimensions must be real—that is, present in the ontology in a well-defined sense. This is a strong requirement which prevents intuitive explanations of the many quantum phenomena which are based on superpositions. A new theorem is also presented showing that quantum theory is incompatible with macro-realist ontologies, where certain physical quantities must always have definite values. This improves on the Leggett-Garg argument, which also aims to prove incompatibility with macro-realism but contains loopholes. Variations on both of these results that are error-tolerant (and therefore amenable to experimentation) are presented, as well as numerous related theorems showing that the ontology of quantum states must be somewhat similar to the quantum states themselves in various specific ways. Extending these same methods to quantum communication, a simple proof is found showing that an exponential number of classical bits are required to communicate a linear number of qubits. That is, classical systems are exponentially bad at storing quantum data. Causal influences are another part of ontology where quantum theory demands a revision of our classical notions. This follows from the outcomes of Bell experiments, as rigorously shown in recent analyses. Here, the task of constructing a native quantum framework for reasoning about causal influences is tackled. This is done by first analysing the simple example of a common cause, from which a quantum version of Reichenbach’s principle is identified. This quantum principle relies on an identification of quantum conditional independence which can be defined in four ways, each naturally generalising a corresponding definition for classical conditional independence. Not only does this allow one to reason about common causes in a quantum experiments, but it can also be generalised to a full framework of quantum causal models (mirroring how classical causal models generalise Reichenbach’s principle). This new definition of quantum causal models is illustrated by examples and strengthened by it’s foundation on a robust quantum Reichenbach’s principle. An unusual, but surprisingly fruitful, setting for considering quantum ontology is found by considering time travel to the past. This provides a testbed for different ontological concepts in quantum theory and new ways to compare classical and quantum frameworks. It is especially useful for comparing computational properties. In particular, time travel introduces non-linearity to quantum theory, which brings (sometimes implicit) ontological assumptions to the fore while introducing strange new abilities. Here, a model for quantum time travel is presented which arguably has fewer objectionable features than previous attempts, while remaining similarly well-motivated. This model is discussed and compared with previous quantum models, as well as with the classical case. Together, these threads of investigation develop a better understanding of how quantum theory affects possible ontologies and how ontological prejudices influence quantum theory.
It is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing processes occurring within atoms, for, as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the experiences of daily life, … Fortunately, mathematics is not subject to this limitation, and it has been possible to invent a mathematical scheme–the quantum theory–which seems entirely adequate for the treatment of atomic processes. Werner Heisenberg, The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory (1930) In this chapter we introduce the mathematical structure of quantum theory, for a finite number of systems and finite dimension, starting from three simple Hilbert-space postulates, and based on the intuitive notions of state, transformation, and effect, within a causal context. Such notions will be formalized in a general non-causal context in Chapter 3, which is devoted to the informational framework. We will assume the reader has a basic knowledge of matrix analysis and of operators over Hilbert spaces. Comments about the extension to infinite dimensions, continuous outcome-spaces, and infinitely many systems can be found in the notes at the end of the chapter. From the three simple Hilbert-space postulates, the present chapter extracts six principles, which will become the postulates for quantum theory in the axiomatic derivation presented in Part III of the book. In addition, we will take the opportunity to present and explore many relevant features of the theory – including its convex and causal structure, the Choi–Jamiołkowski isomorphism, and relevant notions, such as those of POVM, complete positivity of maps, quantum operation and channels, entangled states, state discrimination, tomography of states, and transformations. The purification principle will open the stage to the dilation theorems of the theory of quantum open systems, along with other consequences, such as the existence of faithful and steering states, the theorem of no information without disturbance, quantum teleportation, and more. We will review the quantum no-cloning and no-programming theorems, and finally provide a thorough derivation of the theory of quantum channel inversion, which is the backbone of the general theory of quantum error correction in quantum information. Additional interesting topics will be classical information theory as a restriction of quantum information theory, and a critical reconsideration of the von Neumann postulate and the notion of observable.