# Quantum structures: An attempt to explain the origin of their appearance in nature

- 43 Downloads
- 20 Citations

## Abstract

We explain quantum structure as due to two effects: (a) a real change of state of the entity under the influence of the measurement and (b) a lack of knowledge about a deeper deterministic reality of the measurement process. We present a quantum machine, with which we can illustrate in a simple way how the quantum structure arises as a consequence of the two mentioned effects. We introduce a parameter ε that measures the size of the lack of knowledge of the measurement process, and by varying this parameter, we describe a continuous evolution from a quantum structure (maximal lack of knowledge) to a classical structure (zero lack of knowledge). We show that for intermediate values of ε we find a new type of structure that is neither quantum nor classical. We apply the model to situations of lack of knowledge about the measurement process appearing in other aspects of reality. Specifically, we investigate the quantumlike structures that appear in the situation of psychological decision processes, where the subject is influenced during the testing and forms some opinions during the testing process. Our conclusion is that in the light of this explanation, the quantum probabilities are epistemic and not ontological, which means that quantum mechanics is compatible with a determinism of the whole.

## Keywords

Field Theory Elementary Particle Decision Process Quantum Field Theory Quantum Mechanic## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- Accardi, L. (1982). On the statistical meaning of the complex numbers in quantum mechanics,
*Nuovo Cimento*,**34**, 161.Google Scholar - Aerts, D. (1986). A possible explanation for the probabilities of quantum mechanics,
*Journal of Mathematical Physics*,**27**, 202.Google Scholar - Aerts, D. (1987). The origin of the non-classical character of the quantum probability model, in
*Information, Complexity, and Control in Quantum Physics*, A. Blanquiere,*et al*, eds., Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar - Aerts, D. (1991). A macroscopic classical laboratory situation with only macroscopic classical entities giving rise to a quantum mechanical probability model, in
*Quantum Probability and Related Topics*, Vol. VI, L. Accardi, ed., World Scientific, Singapore.Google Scholar - Aerts, D. (1994). Quantum structures, separated physical entities and probability,
*Foundations of Physics*,**24**, 1227.Google Scholar - Aerts, D., and Aerts, S. (1994a). Applications of quantum statistics on psychological studies of decision processes,
*Foundations of Science*,**1**, 85.Google Scholar - Aerts, D., and Aerts, S. (1994b). Interactive probability models: From quantum in Kolmogorovian, preprint, TENA, VUB, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
- Aerts, D., and Durt, T. (1994a). Quantum, classical and intermediate, an illustrative example,
*Foundations of Physics*,**24**, 1353.Google Scholar - Aerts, D., and Durt, T. (1994b). Quantum, classical and intermediate; a measurement model, in
*Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics*, Helsinki 1994, ed. K. V. Laurikainen, C. Montonen, K. Sunnar Borg, Editions Frontières, Gives Sur Yvettes, France.Google Scholar - Aerts, D., and Van Bogaert, B. (1992). A mechanical classical laboratory situation with a quantum logic structure,
*International Journal of Theoretical Physics*,**10**, 1893.Google Scholar - Aerts, D., Durt, T., and Van Bogaert, B. (1992). A physical example of quantum fuzzy sets, and the classical limit, in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Fuzzy Sets and their Applications,
*Tatra Mountains Mathematical Publications*,**1**, 5.Google Scholar - Aerts, D., Durt, T., and van Bogaert, B. (1993a). Quantum probability, the classical limit and non-locality, in
*Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics*, T. Hyvonen, ed., World Scientific, Singapore.Google Scholar - Aerts, D., Durt, T., Grib, A. A., Van Bogaert, B., and Zapatrin, R. R. (1993b). Quantum structures in macroscopic reality,
*International Journal of Theoretical Physics*,**32**, 3, 489.Google Scholar - Coecke, B. (1995a). A hidden measurement model for pure and mixed states of quantum mechanics in Euclidean Space,
*Int. J. Theor. Phys.*, this issue.Google Scholar - Coecke, B. (1995b). Hidden measurement representation for quantum entities described by finite dimensional complex Hilbert spaces, to be published in
*Foundations of Physics*, 1995.Google Scholar - Coecke, B., (1995c). Generalization of the proof on the existence of hidden measurements to experiments with an infinite set of outcomes, to be published in
*Foundations of Physics Letters*, 1995.Google Scholar - Emch, G. G. (1984).
*Mathematical and Conceptual Foundations of 20th Century Physics*, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar - Gudder, S. P. (1988).
*Quantum Probability*, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar - Jauch, J. M. (1968).
*Foundations of Quantum Mechanics*, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar - Piron, C. (1976).
*Foundations of Quantum Physics*, Benjamin, New York.Google Scholar - Pitovski, I. (1989).
*Quantum Probability-Quantum Logic*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar - Randall, C., and Foulis, D. (1979). The operational approach to quantum mechanics, in
*Physical Theory as Logico-Operational Structure*, C. A. Hooker, ed., Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar - Randall, C., and Foulis, D. (1983). A mathematical language for quantum physics, in
*Les Fondements de la Mécanique Quantique*, C. Gruber*et al.*, eds., AVCP, Lausanne, Switzerland.Google Scholar