Quantum Physics and Classical Physics—In the Light of Quantum Logic
In contrast to the Copenhagen interpretation we consider quantum mechanics as universally valid and query whether classical physics is really intuitive and plausible. We discuss these problems within the quantum logic approach to quantum mechanics where the classical ontology is relaxed by reducing metaphysical hypotheses. On the basis of this weak ontology a formal logic of quantum physics can be established which is given by an orthomodular lattice. By means of the Solèr condition and Piron's result one obtains the classical Hilbert spaces. However, this approach is not fully convincing. There is no plausible justification of Solèr's law and the quantum ontology is partly too weak and partly too strong. We propose to replace this ontology by an ontology of unsharp properties and conclude that quantum mechanics is more intuitive than classical mechanics and that classical mechanics is not the macroscopic limit of quantum mechanics.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Busch, P., Lahti, P., and Mittelstaedt, P. (1996). The Quantum Theory of Measurement, 2nd. edn., Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
- Foulis, D. J. (1960). Baer^*—Semigroups. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 11, 648–654.Google Scholar
- Kant, I. (1929). Critique of Pure Reason, N. K. Smith, trans., Macmillan, New York, p. B600.Google Scholar
- Mittelstaedt, P. (1978). Quantum Logic, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
- Mittelstaedt, P. (1987). Language and Reality in Quantum Physics, World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 229–250.Google Scholar
- Mittelstaedt, P. (1998). The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and the Measurement Process, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
- Piron, C. (1976). Foundations of Quantum Physics, W.A. Benjamin, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
- Stachow, E. W. (1984). Structures of quantum language for individual systems. In Recent Developments in Quantum Logic, P. Mittelstaedt and E.-W. Stachow, eds., BI-Wissenschaftsverlag, Mannheim, pp. 129–145.Google Scholar