International Journal of Theoretical Physics

, Volume 31, Issue 10, pp 1839–1848 | Cite as

Mechanistic classical laboratory situation with a quantum logic structure

  • Diederik Aerts
  • Bruno Van Bogaert


The difference between quantum entities and classical entities can be noticed in many different ways. Quantum logic has been profoundly interested in analyzing this difference and trying to understand it. Our aim is to represent a macroscopic classical mechanistic laboratory situation and to show that this situation entails a nonclassical logical structure. The example was presented some time ago by one of us, showing it to have a quantum probability model, and analyzing the effect of this on a possible understanding of the origin of quantum probabilities. In this paper we make a similar attempt, but now concentrate on the logical aspects of the example.


Field Theory Elementary Particle Quantum Field Theory Probability Model Logic Structure 
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. Aerts, D. (1981). The one and the many. Towards a unification of the quantum and classical description of one and many physical entities, Doctoral dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.Google Scholar
  2. Aerts, D. (1983). Classical theories and non-classical theories as a special case of a more general theory,Journal of Mathematical Physics,24, 2441.Google Scholar
  3. Aerts, D. (1986). A possible explanation for the probabilities of quantum mechanics,Journal of Mathematical Physics,27, 203.Google Scholar
  4. Aerts, D. (1987). The origin of the non-classical character of the quantum probability model, inInformation Complexity and Control in Quantum Physics, A. Blanquiere, S. Diner, and G. Lochak, eds., Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Aerts, D. (1991). A macroscopic classical laboratory situation with only macroscopical classical entities giving rise to a quantum mechanical probability model, inQuantum Probability, Volume VI, Luigi Accardi, ed., World Scientific.Google Scholar
  6. Aerts, D. (1992). The construction of reality and its influence on the understanding of quantum structures,International Journal of Theoretical Physics, this issue.Google Scholar
  7. Foulis, D. J., and Randall, C. H. (1978). Manuals morphism, and quantum mechanics, inMathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory, A. Marlow, ed., Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Foulis, D. J., and Randall, C. H. (1981). What are quantum logics and what ought they to be? inCurrent Issues in Quantum Logic, E. Beltrametti and B. C. van Fraassen, eds., Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Piron, C. (1976).Foundations of Quantum Physics, Benjamin, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  10. Piron, C. (1990).Mécanique Quantique, Bases et Applications, Press Polytechnique et Universitaire Romande, Lausanne.Google Scholar
  11. Poincaré, H. (1902).La science et l'hypothèse, Flammarion, Paris.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diederik Aerts
    • 1
  • Bruno Van Bogaert
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Theoretical PhysicsVrije Universiteit BrusselBrussels

Personalised recommendations