Quantum structures, separated physical entities and probability
- 79 Downloads
We prove that if the physical entity S consisting of two separated physical entities S1 and S2 satisfies the axioms of orthodox quantum mechanics, then at least one of the two subentities is a classical physical entity. This theorem implies that separated quantum entities cannot be described by quantum mechanics. We formulate this theorem in an approach where physical entities are described by the set of their states, and the set of their relevant experiments. We also show that the collection of eigenstate sets forms a closure structure on the set of states, which we call the eigen-closure structure. We derive another closure structure on the set of states by means of the orthogonality relation, and call it the ortho-closure structure, and show that the main axioms of quantum mechanics can be introduced in a very general way by means of these two closure structures. We prove that for a general physical entity, and hence also for a quantum entity, the probabilities can always be explained as being due to a lack of knowledge about the interaction between the experimental apparatus and the entity.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.C. Piron,Foundations of Quantum Physics (Benjamin, New York, 1976).Google Scholar
- 4.C. Piron, “Recent developments in quantum mechanics,”Helv. Phys. Acta 62, 82 (1989).Google Scholar
- 5.C. Piron,Mécanique quantique, bases et applications (Presses Polytechnique et Universitaire Romandes, 1990).Google Scholar
- 7.C. Piron, “Axiomatique Quantique,”Helv. Phys. Acta 37, 439 (1964).Google Scholar
- 8.G. Birkhoff,Lattice Theory, 3rd edn. (Am. Math. Soc., Colloq. Publ., Vol. XXV, Providence, Rhode Island, 1967).Google Scholar
- 10.D. Aerts, “How do we have to change quantum mechanics in order to describe separated systems,” inThe Wave-Particle Dualism, S. Dineret al., eds. (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984).Google Scholar
- 11.D. Aerts, “The physical origin of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,” inOpen Questions in Quantum Physics, G. Tarozzi and A. van der Merwe, eds. (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1985).Google Scholar
- 12.D. Aerts, “The physical origin of the EPR paradox and how to violate Bell inequalities by macroscopic systems,” inFoundations of Modern Physics, P. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt, eds. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1985).Google Scholar
- 13.D. Aerts, “The description of separated systems and quantum mechanics and a possible explanation for the probabilities of quantum mechanics,” inMicro-physical Reality and Quantum Formalism, A. van der Merweet al., eds. (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1988).Google Scholar
- 15.D. Aerts, “The origin of the non-classical character of the quantum probability model,” inInformation, Complexity, and Control in Quantum Physics, A. Blanquiereet al., eds. (Springer, Berlin, 1987).Google Scholar
- 16.D. Aerts, “A macroscopical classical laboratory situation with only macroscopic classical entities giving rise to a quantum mechanical probability model,” inQuantum Probability and Related Topics, Vol. VI, L. Accardi, ed. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991).Google Scholar
- 17.D. Aerts, T. Durt, and B. Van Bogaert, “Quantum probability, the classical limit and non-locality,” inSymposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics, T. Hyvonen, ed. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1993).Google Scholar