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.
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.
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.
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 Ref. [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 Ref. [1], 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. The existence of such composition‐preserving extension among possible extensions is analyzed.
Quantum theory is the soul of contemporary physics. It was discovered in an adventurous way, under the urge to solve the puzzles posed by atomic spectra and blackbody radiation. But after its invention, it immediately became clear that it was not just a theory of specific physical systems: it was rather a new language of universal applicability. Already in 1928, the theory had received solid mathematical foundations by Hilbert, von Neumann, and Nordheim, and this work was brought to completion in the monumental work of von Neumann, in the form that we still study nowadays. The theory is extraordinarily successful, and its predictions have been confirmed to an astonishing level of precision in a large spectrum of experiments. However, almost 90 years after von Neumann's book, quantum theory remains mysterious. Its mathematical formulation – based on Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators – is far from having an intuitive interpretation. The association of physical systems to Hilbert spaces whose unit vectors represent pure states, the representation of transformations by unitary operators and of observables by self-adjoint operators – all such postulates look artificial and ad hoc . A slightly more operational approach is provided by the C * -algebraic formulation of quantum theory – still, this formulation relies on the assumption that observables form an algebra , where the physical meanings of the multiplication and the sum are far from clear. In short, the postulates of quantum theory impose mathematical structures without providing any simple reason for this choice: the mathematics of Hilbert spaces is adopted as a magic blackbox that “works well” at producing experimental predictions. However, in a satisfactory axiomatization of a physical theory the mathematical structures should emerge as a consequence of postulates that have a direct physical interpretation. By this we mean postulates referring, e.g., to primitive notions like physical system, measurement, or process, rather than notions like, e.g., Hilbert space, C * -algebra, unit vector, or selfadjoint operator. The crucial question thus remains unanswered: why quantum theory? Which are the principles at the basis of the theory? A case that is often invoked in contrast is that of Special Relativity theory, which directly follows from the simple understandable principle of relativity.
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.
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.