Foundations of Physics

, Volume 24, Issue 10, pp 1331–1352 | Cite as

Effect algebras and unsharp quantum logics

  • D. J. Foulis
  • M. K. Bennett
Part III. Invited Papers Dedicated to Constantin Piron


The effects in a quantum-mechanical system form a partial algebra and a partially ordered set which is the prototypical example of the effect algebras discussed in this paper. The relationships among effect algebras and such structures as orthoalgebras and orthomodular posets are investigated, as are morphisms and group- valued measures (or charges) on effect algebras. It is proved that there is a universal group for every effect algebra, as well as a universal vector space over an arbitrary field.


Vector Space Effect Algebra Quantum Logic Partial Algebra Arbitrary Field 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aerts, D., “Description of many physical entities without the paradoxes encountered in quantum mechanics,”Found. Phys. 12, 1131–1170 (1982).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ali, S. T., “Stochastic localization, quantum mechanics on phase space and quantum space-time,”Nuovo Cimento 8, No. 11, 1–128 (1985).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beltrametti, E., and Cassinelli, G.,The Logic of Quantum Mechanics (Encyclopaedia of Mathematics and Its Applications, Gian-Carlo Rota, ed., Vol. 15) (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1981).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bennett, M. K., and Foulis, D., “Tensor products of orthoalgebras,”Order 10, No. 3, 271–282 (1993).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Birkhoff, G.,Lattice Theory, 3rd edn. (American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, XXV, Providence, Rhode Island, 1967).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boole, G.,An Investigation of the Laws of Thought (Macmillan, London, 1854; reprinted by Dover, New York, 1967).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bunce, L., and Maitland Wright, J., “The Mackey-Gleason problem,”Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 26, No. 2, 288–293 (1992).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Busch, P., Lahti, P., and Mittelstaedt, P.,The Quantum Theory of Measurement (Lecture Notes in Physics, New Series m2) (Springer, Berlin, 1991).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cattaneo, G., and Nistico, G., “Brouwer-Zadeh posets and three-valued Lukasiewicz posets,”Int. J. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 33, 165–190 (1989).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Della Chiara, M. L., and Giuntini, R., “Paraconsistent quantum logics”,Found. Phys. 19, No. 7, 891–904 (1989).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dvurečenskij, A., “Tensor product of difference posets,” to appear inProc. Am. Math. Soc. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Foulis, D., Greechie, R., and Rüttimann, G., “Filters and supports in orthoalgebras,”Int. J. Theor. Phys. 31, No. 5, 789–802 (1992).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Foulis, D., Piron, C., and Randall, C., “Realism, operationalism, and quantum mechanics,”Found. Phys. 13, No. 8, 813–842 (1983).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fuchs, L.,Partially Ordered Algebraic Systems (International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 28) (Pergamon, Oxford, 1963).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giuntini, R., and Greuling, H., “Toward a formal language for unsharp properties,”Found. Phys. 19, No. 7, 931–945 (1989).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hardegree, G., and Frazer, P., “Charting the labyrinth of quantum logics,” inCurrent Issues in Quantum Logic, E. Beltrametti and B. van Fraassen, eds. (Ettore Majorana International Science Series, 8) (Plenum, New York, 1981).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kalmbach, G.,Orthomodular Lattices (Academic, New York, 1983).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kläy, M., Randall, C., and Foulis, D., “Tensor products and probability weights,”Int. J. Theor. Phys. 26, No. 3, 199–219 (1987).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kôpka, F., and Chovanec, F., “D posets,”Math. Slovaca 44, No. 1, 21–34 (1994).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lock, P., and Hardegree, G., “Connections among quantum logics, Parts 1 and 2, Quantum prepositional logica,”Int. J. Theor. Phys. 24, No. 1, 43–61 (1984).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ludwig, G.,Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Vols. I and II (Springer, New York, 1983/1985).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ludwig, G.,An Axiomatic Basis for Quantum Mechanics, Vol. 2 (Springer, New York, 1986/87).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maeda, F.,Kontinuierliche Geometrien (Springer, Berlin, 1958).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Navara, M., An orthomodular lattice admitting no group-valued measures,Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 122, No. 1, 7–12 (1994).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Navara, M., and Pták, P., “Difference posets and orthoalgebras,” Department of Mathematics Report Series, Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, No. 93–8 (1993), pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Neumann, J. von,Continuous Geometry (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1960).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Obeid, M., “Pastings and Centeria of Orthoalgebras,” Ph.D. Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, 1990.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Piron, C.,Foundations of Quantum Physics (Mathematical Physics Monograph Series, A. Wightman, ed.) (Benjamin, Reading, Massachusetts, 1976).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Prugovecki, E.,Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space Time, 2nd edn. (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schroeck, F., and Foulis, D., “Stochastic quantum mechanics viewed from the language of manuals,”Found. Phys. 20, No. 7, 823–858 (1990).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. J. Foulis
    • 1
  • M. K. Bennett
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of MassachusettsAmherst

Personalised recommendations