Foundations of Physics

, Volume 24, Issue 9, pp 1227–1259 | Cite as

Quantum structures, separated physical entities and probability

  • Diederik Aerts
Part II. Invited Papers Dedicated to Constantin Piron

Abstract

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    D. Aerts, “Description of many separated physical entities without the paradoxes encountered in quantum mechanics,”Found. Phys. 12, 1131 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Cattanco and G. Nistico, “A note on Aerts' description of separated entities,”Found. Phys. 20, 119 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Piron,Foundations of Quantum Physics (Benjamin, New York, 1976).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Piron, “Recent developments in quantum mechanics,”Helv. Phys. Acta 62, 82 (1989).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Piron,Mécanique quantique, bases et applications (Presses Polytechnique et Universitaire Romandes, 1990).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Aerts, “Classical theories and nonclassical theories as special case of a more general theory,”J. Math. Phys. 24, 2441 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Piron, “Axiomatique Quantique,”Helv. Phys. Acta 37, 439 (1964).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Birkhoff,Lattice Theory, 3rd edn. (Am. Math. Soc., Colloq. Publ., Vol. XXV, Providence, Rhode Island, 1967).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Aerts and T. Durt, “Quantum, classical and intermediate, an illustrative example,”Found. Phys. 24, 1347 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. 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. 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. 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
  14. 14.
    D. Aerts, “A possible explanation for the probabilities of quantum mechanics,”J. Math. Phys. 27, 202 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. 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. 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

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diederik Aerts
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Theoretical PhysicsFree University of BrusselsBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Belgian National Fund for Scientific ResearchBelgium

Personalised recommendations