Foundations of Physics

, Volume 24, Issue 10, pp 1353–1369 | Cite as

Quantum, classical and intermediate: An illustrative example

  • Diederik Aerts
  • Thomas Durt
Part III. Invited Papers Dedicated to Constantin Piron


We present a model that allows one to build structures that evolve continuously from classical to quantum, and we study the intermediate situations, giving rise to structures that are neither classical nor quantum. We construct the closure structure corresponding to the collection of eigenstate sets of these intermediate situations, and demonstrate how the superposition principle disappears during the transition from quantum to classical. We investigate the validity of the axioms of quantum mechanics for the intermediate situations.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. Aerts, “A possible explanation for the probabilities of quantum mechanics,”J. Math. Phys. 27, 202 (1986).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Aerts, “The origin of the nonclassical character of the quantum probability model,” inInformation, Complexity, and Control in Quantum Physics, A. Blanquiereet al., eds. (Springer, Berlin, 1987).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Aerts, “A macroscopical classical laboratory situation with only macroscopical 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
  4. 4.
    M. Czachor, “On classical models of spin,”Found Phys. 5, 3, 249 (1992).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    D. Aerts and B. Van Bogaert, “A mechanical classical laboratory situation with a quantum logic structure,”Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10, 1893 (1992).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Aerts, T. Durt, A. A. Grib, B. Van Bogaert, and R. R. Zapatrin, “Quantum structures in macroscopical reality,”Int. J. Theor. Phys. 32, 3, 489 (1993).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Aerts, T. Durt, and B. Van Bogaert, “A physical example of quantum fuzzy sets, and the classical limit,” inProceedings of the first International Conference on Fuzzy Sets and Their Applications, Tatra Montains Math. Publ. 1, 5 (1992).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Aerts, “Quantum structures, separated physical entities and probability,”Found. Phys. 24, 227 (1994).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Piron,Foundations of Quantum Physics (Benjamin, New York, 1976).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Piron,Mécanique quantique. bases et applications (Presses Polytechnique et Universitaire Romandes, 1990).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Aerts, “Description of separated physical entities without the paradoxes encountered in quantum mechanics,”Found. Phys. 12, 1131 (1982).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Aerts, “Classical theories and nonclassical theories as special cases of a more general theory,”J. Math. Phys. 24, 2441 (1983).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diederik Aerts
    • 1
  • Thomas Durt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Theoretical PhysicsFree University of BrusselsBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations