Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:quant-ph/0111154

Reconstructing the formalism of quantum mechanics in the ``contextual objectivity" point of view

Philippe Grangier

Published Nov 29, 2001• 2 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In a previous preprint (quant-ph/0012122) we introduced a ``contextual objectivity" formulation of quantum mechanics (QM). A central feature of this approach is to define the quantum state in physical rather than in mathematical terms, in such a way that it may be given an "objective reality". Here we use some ideas about the system dimensionality, taken from quant-ph/0101012, to propose a possible axiomatic approach to QM. In this approach the structure of QM appears as a direct consequence of the non-commutative character of the (classical geometrical) group of "knobs transformations", that relate between themselves the different positions of the measurement apparatus.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0111154

Related papers

Contextual objectivity : a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics

Philippe Grangier

An attempt is made to formulate quantum mechanics (QM) in physical rather than in mathematical terms. It is argued that the appropriate conceptual framework for QM is "contextual objectivity", which includes an objective definition of the quantum state. This point of view sheds new light on topics such as the reduction postulate and the quantum measurement process.

arXiv:quant-ph/0012122•Dec 21, 2000•1 citation

Contextual objectivity: a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics

Philippe Grangier

An attempt is made to formulate quantum mechanics (QM) in physical rather than in mathematical terms. It is argued that the appropriate conceptual framework for QM is `contextual objectivity', which includes an objective definition of the quantum state. This point of view sheds new light on topics such as the reduction postulate and the quantum measurement process.

European Journal of Physics•May 1, 2002•92 citations

Contextual objectivity and quantum holism

Philippe Grangier

In our effort to restate a "realistic" approach to quantum mechanics, that would fully acknowledge that local realism is untenable, we add a few more questions and answers to the list presented in quant-ph/0203131. We also suggest to replace the very misleading wording "quantum non-locality" by "quantum holism", that conveys a much better intuitive idea of the physical content of entanglement.

arXiv:quant-ph/0301001•Jan 1, 2003•5 citations

Operational Axioms for Quantum Mechanics

Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano

The mathematical formulation of Quantum Mechanics in terms of complex Hilbert space is derived for finite dimensions, starting from a general definition of "physical experiment" and from five simple Postulates concerning "experimental accessibility and simplicity". For the infinite dimensional case, on the other hand, a C*-algebra representation of physical transformations is derived, starting from just four of the five Postulates via a Gelfand-Naimark-Segal (GNS) construction. The present paper simplifies and sharpens the previous derivation in version 1. The main ingredient of the axiomatization is the postulated existence of "faithful states" that allows one to calibrate the experimental apparatus. Such notion is at the basis of the operational definitions of the scalar product and of the "transposed" of a physical transformation. What is new in the present paper with respect to quant-ph/0603011 is the operational deduction of an involution corresponding to the "complex-conjugation" for effects, whose extension to transformations allows to define the "adjoint" of a transformation when the extension is composition-preserving.

arXiv:quant-ph/0611094•Nov 8, 2006•2 citations

Quantum Mechanics in Terms of Realism. (arXiv:quant-ph/9606017v5 UPDATED)

Arthur Jabs

.We expound an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation of the formalism of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. The basic difference is that the new interpretation is formulated in the language of epistemological realism. The {\psi} function is no longer interpreted as a probability amplitude of the observed behaviour of elementary particles but as an objective physical field representing the particles themselves. The particles are thus extended objects whose extension varies in time according to the variation of {\psi}. They are considered as fundamental regions of space with some kind of nonlocality. There is no wave-particle duality. The point-particle-like behaviour is explained by spatial contraction in a deterministic reduction process.

•Jul 17, 2019•0 citations

Getting contextual and nonlocal elements-of-reality the easy way

Rob Clifton

What if Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were right that quantum mechanics is incomplete, and there do exist ‘‘elements-of-reality’’ corresponding to all observables whether or not they are compatible? The implications are surprising. Not only must the values of these elements-of-reality depend upon what measurements are actually performed on the system, but also upon measurements performed at spacelike separation from it! The former dependence has been dubbed ‘‘contextualism,’’ and the latter ‘‘nonlocality.’’ It is important for students to understand the necessity of these two features, if only to reinforce the point that a straightforward classical recasting of quantum theory in terms of pre-existing measurement independent elements-of-reality is not feasible. Unfortunately the argument for contextualism, in particular, is daunting due to its reliance on an elaborate geometrical argument. I aim here to minimize the geometry needed to argue for contextualism by using some ideas inspired by the original arguments of Bell and of Kochen and Specker. Using similar methods, I simplify the closely related geometrical argument for nonlocality due to Heywood and Redhead and to Stairs.

American Journal of Physics•May 1, 1993•120 citations
In a previous preprint (quant-ph/0012122) we introduced a ``contextual objectivity" formulation of quantum mechanics (QM). A central feature of this approach is to define the quantum state in physical rather than in mathematical terms, in such a way that it may be given an "objective reality". Here we use some ideas about the system dimensionality, taken from quant-ph/0101012, to propose a possible axiomatic approach to QM. In this approach the structure of QM appears as a direct consequence of the non-commutative character of the (classical geometrical) group of "knobs transformations", that relate between themselves the different positions of the measurement apparatus.
The mathematical formulation of Quantum Mechanics in terms of complex Hilbert space is derived for finite dimensions, starting from a general definition of "physical experiment" and from five simple Postulates concerning "experimental accessibility and simplicity". For the infinite dimensional case, on the other hand, a C*-algebra representation of physical transformations is derived, starting from just four of the five Postulates via a Gelfand-Naimark-Segal (GNS) construction. The present paper simplifies and sharpens the previous derivation in version 1. The main ingredient of the axiomatization is the postulated existence of "faithful states" that allows one to calibrate the experimental apparatus. Such notion is at the basis of the operational definitions of the scalar product and of the "transposed" of a physical transformation. What is new in the present paper with respect to quant-ph/0603011 is the operational deduction of an involution corresponding to the "complex-conjugation" for effects, whose extension to transformations allows to define the "adjoint" of a transformation when the extension is composition-preserving.
.We expound an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation of the formalism of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. The basic difference is that the new interpretation is formulated in the language of epistemological realism. The {\psi} function is no longer interpreted as a probability amplitude of the observed behaviour of elementary particles but as an objective physical field representing the particles themselves. The particles are thus extended objects whose extension varies in time according to the variation of {\psi}. They are considered as fundamental regions of space with some kind of nonlocality. There is no wave-particle duality. The point-particle-like behaviour is explained by spatial contraction in a deterministic reduction process.
What if Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were right that quantum mechanics is incomplete, and there do exist ‘‘elements-of-reality’’ corresponding to all observables whether or not they are compatible? The implications are surprising. Not only must the values of these elements-of-reality depend upon what measurements are actually performed on the system, but also upon measurements performed at spacelike separation from it! The former dependence has been dubbed ‘‘contextualism,’’ and the latter ‘‘nonlocality.’’ It is important for students to understand the necessity of these two features, if only to reinforce the point that a straightforward classical recasting of quantum theory in terms of pre-existing measurement independent elements-of-reality is not feasible. Unfortunately the argument for contextualism, in particular, is daunting due to its reliance on an elaborate geometrical argument. I aim here to minimize the geometry needed to argue for contextualism by using some ideas inspired by the original arguments of Bell and of Kochen and Specker. Using similar methods, I simplify the closely related geometrical argument for nonlocality due to Heywood and Redhead and to Stairs.