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/0506034

On the missing axiom of Quantum Mechanics

Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano

Published Jun 3, 2005• 2 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The debate on the nature of quantum probabilities in relation to Quantum Non Locality has elevated Quantum Mechanics to the level of an "Operational Epistemic Theory". In such context the quantum superposition principle has an extraneous non epistemic nature. This leads us to seek purely operational foundations for Quantum Mechanics, from which to derive the current mathematical axiomatization based on Hilbert spaces. In the present work I present a set of axioms of purely operational nature, based on a general definition of "the experiment", the operational/epistemic archetype of information retrieval from reality. As we will see, this starting point logically entails a series of notions [state, conditional state, local state, pure state, faithful state, instrument, propensity (i.e. "effect"), dynamical and informational equivalence, dynamical and informational compatibility, predictability, discriminability, programmability, locality, a-causality, rank of the state, maximally chaotic state, maximally entangled state, informationally complete propensity, etc. ], along with a set of rules (addition, convex combination, partial orderings, ...), which, far from being of quantum origin as often considered, instead constitute the universal "syntactic manual" of the operational/epistemic approach. The missing ingredient is, of course, the quantum superposition axiom for probability amplitudes: for this I propose some substitute candidates of purely operational/epistemic nature.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0506034

Related papers

On the missing axiom of Quantum Mechanicss

Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano

The debate on the nature of quantum probabilities in relation to Quantum Non Locality has elevated Quantum Mechanics to the level of an Operational Epistemic Theory. In such context the quantum superposition principle has an extraneous non epistemic nature. This leads us to seek purely operational foundations for Quantum Mechanics, from which to derive the current mathematical axiomatization based on Hilbert spaces.In the present work I present a set of axioms of purely operational nature, based on a general definition of “the experiment”, the operational/epistemic archetype of information retrieval from reality. As we will see, this starting point logically entails a series of notions [state, conditional state, local state, pure state, faithful state, instrument, propensity (i.e. “effect”), dynamical and informational equivalence, dynamical and informational compatibility, predictability, discriminability, programmability, locality, a‐causality, rank of the state, maximally chaotic state, maximally entangled state, informationally complete propensity, etc.], along with a set of rules (addition, convex combination, partial orderings, … ), which, far from being of quantum origin as often considered, instead constitute the universal syntactic manual of the operational/epistemic approach. The missing ingredient is, of course, the quantum superposition axiom for probability amplitudes: for this I propose some substitute candidates of purely operational/epistemic nature.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2006•16 citations

How to Derive the Hilbert-Space Formulation of Quantum Mechanics From Purely Operational Axioms

Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano

In the present paper I show how it is possible to derive the Hilbert space formulation of Quantum Mechanics from a comprehensive definition of "physical experiment" and assuming "experimental accessibility and simplicity" as specified by five simple Postulates. This accomplishes the program presented in form of conjectures in the previous paper quant-ph/0506034. Pivotal roles are played by the "local observability principle", which reconciles the holism of nonlocality with the reductionism of local observation, and by the postulated existence of "informationally complete observables" and of a "symmetric faithful state". This last notion allows one to introduce an operational definition for the real version of the "adjoint"--i. e. the transposition--from which one can derive a real Hilbert-space structure via either the Mackey-Kakutani or the Gelfand-Naimark-Segal constructions. Here I analyze in detail only the Gelfand-Naimark-Segal construction, which leads to a real Hilbert space structure analogous to that of (classes of generally unbounded) selfadjoint operators in Quantum Mechanics. For finite dimensions, general dimensionality theorems that can be derived from a local observability principle, allow us to represent the elements of the real Hilbert space as operators over an underlying complex Hilbert space (see, however, a still open problem at the end of the paper). The route for the present operational axiomatization was suggested by novel ideas originated from Quantum Tomography.

arXiv:quant-ph/0603011•Mar 2, 2006•3 citations

How to Derive the Hilbert-Space Formulation of Quantum Mechanics From Purely Operational Axioms

Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano

In the present paper I show how it is possible to derive the Hilbert space formulation of Quantum Mechanics from a comprehensive definition of physical experiment and assuming experimental accessibility and simplicity as specified by five simple Postulates. This accomplishes the program presented in form of conjectures in the previous paper. Pivotal roles are played by the local observability principle, which reconciles the holism of nonlocality with the reductionism of local observation, and by the postulated existence of informationally complete observables and of a symmetric faithful state. This last notion allows one to introduce an operational definition for the real version of the “adjoint”—i. e. the transposition—from which one can derive a real Hilbert‐space structure via either the Mackey‐Kakutani or the Gelfand‐Naimark‐Segal constructions. Here I analyze in detail only the Gelfand‐Naimark‐Segal construction, which leads to a real Hilbert space structure analogous to that of (classes of generally unbounded) selfadjoint operators in Quantum Mechanics. For finite dimensions, general dimensionality theorems that can be derived from a local observability principle, allow us to represent the elements of the real Hilbert space as operators over an underlying complex Hilbert space (see, however, a still open problem at the end of the paper). The route for the present operational axiomatization was suggested by novel ideas originated from Quantum Tomography.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2006•18 citations

Where the mathematical structure of Quantum Mechanics coms from

Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano

The mathematical formulation of Quantum Mechanics is derived from purely operational axioms based on a general definition of "experiment" as a set of transformations. The main ingredient of the mathematical construction 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 "adjoint" of a transformation.

arXiv:quant-ph/0612162•Dec 19, 2006•0 citations

Reformulating and Reconstructing Quantum Theory

Lucién Hardy

We provide a reformulation of finite dimensional quantum theory in the circuit framework in terms of mathematical axioms, and a reconstruction of quantum theory from operational postulates. The mathematical axioms for quantum theory are the following: [Axiom 1] Operations correspond to operators. [Axiom 2] Every complete set of physical operators corresponds to a complete set of operations. The following operational postulates are shown to be equivalent to these mathematical axioms: [P1] Sharpness. Associated with any given pure state is a unique maximal effect giving probability equal to one. This maximal effect does not give probability equal to one for any other pure state. [P2] Information locality. A maximal measurement on a composite system is effected if we perform maximal measurements on each of the components. [P3] Tomographic locality. The state of a composite system can be determined from the statistics collected by making measurements on the components. [P4] Compound permutability. There exists a compound reversible transformation on any system effecting any given permutation of any given maximal set of distinguishable states for that system. [P5] Sturdiness. Filters are non-flattening. Hence, from these postulates we can reconstruct all the usual features of quantum theory: States are represented by positive operators, transformations by completely positive trace non-increasing maps, and effects by positive operators. The Born rule (i.e. the trace rule) for calculating probabilitieso follows. A more detailed abstract is provided in the paper.

arXiv:1104.2066•Apr 11, 2011•124 citations

Probabilistic theories: what is special about Quantum Mechanics?

Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is a very special probabilistic theory, yet we don't know which operational principles make it so. All axiomatization attempts suffer at least one postulate of a mathematical nature. Here I will analyze the possibility of deriving QM as the mathematical representation of a "fair operational framework", i.e. a set of rules which allows the experimenter to make predictions on future "events" on the basis of suitable "tests", e.g. without interference from uncontrollable sources. Two postulates need to be satisfied by any fair operational framework: NSF: "no-signaling from the future"--for the possibility of making predictions on the basis of past tests; PFAITH: "existence of a preparationally faithful state"--for the possibility of preparing any state and calibrating any test. I will show that all theories satisfying NSF admit a C*-algebra representation of events as linear transformations of effects. Based on a very general notion of dynamical independence, it is easy to see that all such probabilistic theories are "non-signaling without interaction" ("non-signaling" for short)--another requirement for a fair operational framework. Postulate PFAITH then implies the "local observability principle", the tensor-product structure for the linear spaces of states and effects, the impossibility of bit commitment and additional features, such an operational definition of transpose, a scalar product for effects, weak-selfduality of the theory, and more. Dual to Postulate PFAITH an analogous postulate for effects would give additional quantum features, such as teleportation. However, all possible consequences of these postulates still need to be investigated, and it is not clear yet if we can derive QM from the present postulates only. [CONTINUES on manuscript]

arXiv:0807.4383•Jul 28, 2008•1 citation
The debate on the nature of quantum probabilities in relation to Quantum Non Locality has elevated Quantum Mechanics to the level of an "Operational Epistemic Theory". In such context the quantum superposition principle has an extraneous non epistemic nature. This leads us to seek purely operational foundations for Quantum Mechanics, from which to derive the current mathematical axiomatization based on Hilbert spaces. In the present work I present a set of axioms of purely operational nature, based on a general definition of "the experiment", the operational/epistemic archetype of information retrieval from reality. As we will see, this starting point logically entails a series of notions [state, conditional state, local state, pure state, faithful state, instrument, propensity (i.e. "effect"), dynamical and informational equivalence, dynamical and informational compatibility, predictability, discriminability, programmability, locality, a-causality, rank of the state, maximally chaotic state, maximally entangled state, informationally complete propensity, etc. ], along with a set of rules (addition, convex combination, partial orderings, ...), which, far from being of quantum origin as often considered, instead constitute the universal "syntactic manual" of the operational/epistemic approach. The missing ingredient is, of course, the quantum superposition axiom for probability amplitudes: for this I propose some substitute candidates of purely operational/epistemic nature.
The debate on the nature of quantum probabilities in relation to Quantum Non Locality has elevated Quantum Mechanics to the level of an Operational Epistemic Theory. In such context the quantum superposition principle has an extraneous non epistemic nature. This leads us to seek purely operational foundations for Quantum Mechanics, from which to derive the current mathematical axiomatization based on Hilbert spaces.In the present work I present a set of axioms of purely operational nature, based on a general definition of “the experiment”, the operational/epistemic archetype of information retrieval from reality. As we will see, this starting point logically entails a series of notions [state, conditional state, local state, pure state, faithful state, instrument, propensity (i.e. “effect”), dynamical and informational equivalence, dynamical and informational compatibility, predictability, discriminability, programmability, locality, a‐causality, rank of the state, maximally chaotic state, maximally entangled state, informationally complete propensity, etc.], along with a set of rules (addition, convex combination, partial orderings, … ), which, far from being of quantum origin as often considered, instead constitute the universal syntactic manual of the operational/epistemic approach. The missing ingredient is, of course, the quantum superposition axiom for probability amplitudes: for this I propose some substitute candidates of purely operational/epistemic nature.
In the present paper I show how it is possible to derive the Hilbert space formulation of Quantum Mechanics from a comprehensive definition of "physical experiment" and assuming "experimental accessibility and simplicity" as specified by five simple Postulates. This accomplishes the program presented in form of conjectures in the previous paper quant-ph/0506034. Pivotal roles are played by the "local observability principle", which reconciles the holism of nonlocality with the reductionism of local observation, and by the postulated existence of "informationally complete observables" and of a "symmetric faithful state". This last notion allows one to introduce an operational definition for the real version of the "adjoint"--i. e. the transposition--from which one can derive a real Hilbert-space structure via either the Mackey-Kakutani or the Gelfand-Naimark-Segal constructions. Here I analyze in detail only the Gelfand-Naimark-Segal construction, which leads to a real Hilbert space structure analogous to that of (classes of generally unbounded) selfadjoint operators in Quantum Mechanics. For finite dimensions, general dimensionality theorems that can be derived from a local observability principle, allow us to represent the elements of the real Hilbert space as operators over an underlying complex Hilbert space (see, however, a still open problem at the end of the paper). The route for the present operational axiomatization was suggested by novel ideas originated from Quantum Tomography.
In the present paper I show how it is possible to derive the Hilbert space formulation of Quantum Mechanics from a comprehensive definition of physical experiment and assuming experimental accessibility and simplicity as specified by five simple Postulates. This accomplishes the program presented in form of conjectures in the previous paper. Pivotal roles are played by the local observability principle, which reconciles the holism of nonlocality with the reductionism of local observation, and by the postulated existence of informationally complete observables and of a symmetric faithful state. This last notion allows one to introduce an operational definition for the real version of the “adjoint”—i. e. the transposition—from which one can derive a real Hilbert‐space structure via either the Mackey‐Kakutani or the Gelfand‐Naimark‐Segal constructions. Here I analyze in detail only the Gelfand‐Naimark‐Segal construction, which leads to a real Hilbert space structure analogous to that of (classes of generally unbounded) selfadjoint operators in Quantum Mechanics. For finite dimensions, general dimensionality theorems that can be derived from a local observability principle, allow us to represent the elements of the real Hilbert space as operators over an underlying complex Hilbert space (see, however, a still open problem at the end of the paper). The route for the present operational axiomatization was suggested by novel ideas originated from Quantum Tomography.
We provide a reformulation of finite dimensional quantum theory in the circuit framework in terms of mathematical axioms, and a reconstruction of quantum theory from operational postulates. The mathematical axioms for quantum theory are the following: [Axiom 1] Operations correspond to operators. [Axiom 2] Every complete set of physical operators corresponds to a complete set of operations. The following operational postulates are shown to be equivalent to these mathematical axioms: [P1] Sharpness. Associated with any given pure state is a unique maximal effect giving probability equal to one. This maximal effect does not give probability equal to one for any other pure state. [P2] Information locality. A maximal measurement on a composite system is effected if we perform maximal measurements on each of the components. [P3] Tomographic locality. The state of a composite system can be determined from the statistics collected by making measurements on the components. [P4] Compound permutability. There exists a compound reversible transformation on any system effecting any given permutation of any given maximal set of distinguishable states for that system. [P5] Sturdiness. Filters are non-flattening. Hence, from these postulates we can reconstruct all the usual features of quantum theory: States are represented by positive operators, transformations by completely positive trace non-increasing maps, and effects by positive operators. The Born rule (i.e. the trace rule) for calculating probabilitieso follows. A more detailed abstract is provided in the paper.
Quantum Mechanics (QM) is a very special probabilistic theory, yet we don't know which operational principles make it so. All axiomatization attempts suffer at least one postulate of a mathematical nature. Here I will analyze the possibility of deriving QM as the mathematical representation of a "fair operational framework", i.e. a set of rules which allows the experimenter to make predictions on future "events" on the basis of suitable "tests", e.g. without interference from uncontrollable sources. Two postulates need to be satisfied by any fair operational framework: NSF: "no-signaling from the future"--for the possibility of making predictions on the basis of past tests; PFAITH: "existence of a preparationally faithful state"--for the possibility of preparing any state and calibrating any test. I will show that all theories satisfying NSF admit a C*-algebra representation of events as linear transformations of effects. Based on a very general notion of dynamical independence, it is easy to see that all such probabilistic theories are "non-signaling without interaction" ("non-signaling" for short)--another requirement for a fair operational framework. Postulate PFAITH then implies the "local observability principle", the tensor-product structure for the linear spaces of states and effects, the impossibility of bit commitment and additional features, such an operational definition of transpose, a scalar product for effects, weak-selfduality of the theory, and more. Dual to Postulate PFAITH an analogous postulate for effects would give additional quantum features, such as teleportation. However, all possible consequences of these postulates still need to be investigated, and it is not clear yet if we can derive QM from the present postulates only. [CONTINUES on manuscript]