Skip to main content
Log in

On quantum logic

  • Published:
Foundations of Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The status and justification of quantum logic are reviewed. On the basis of several independent arguments it is concluded that it cannot be a logic in the philosophical sense of a general theory concerning the structure of valid inferences. Taken as a calculus for combining quantum mechanical propositions, it leaves a number of significant aspects of quantum physics unaccounted for. It is shown, moreover, that quantum logic, far from being more general than Boolean logic, forms a subset of a slight and natural extension of Boolean logic, a subset which corresponds to incomplete statements. The philosophical background of this unsatisfactory state of affairs is briefly explored.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. G. Birkhoff and J. von Neumann,Ann. Math. 36, 823 (1936).

    Google Scholar 

  2. K. R. Popper,Nature (London) 219, 682 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  3. G. W. Mackey,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Benjamin, Reading, Massachusetts, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. M. Jauch,Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  5. C. Piron,Foundations of Quantum Physics (Benjamin, Reading, Massachusetts, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  6. S. P. Gudder, inProbabilistic Methods in Applied Mathematics, A. Bharucha-Reid, ed. (Academic Press, New York, 1970);J. Math. Phys. 8, 1848 (1967);Stochastic Methods in Quantum Mechanics (North-Holland, New York, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  7. H. Putnam, inBoston Studies in the Philosophy of Science V, R. S. Cohen and M. W. Wartofsky, eds. (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1969), p. 216; see also D. Finkelstein,ibid., p. 177; J. Bub,The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1974); H. Putnam,Synthese 29, 55 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  8. P. Suppes,Philos. Science 33, 14 (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  9. S. P. Gudder,J. Math. Phys. 11, 431 (1970);Int. J. Theor. Phys. 19, 163 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  10. D. Hilbert and W. Ackermann,Grundzüge der Theoretischen Logik (Springer, Berlin, 1949), 3rd. edn.

    Google Scholar 

  11. R. J. Greechie and S. P. Gudder,Helv. Phys. Acta 44, 238 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  12. G. M. Hardegree, inLogic and Probability in Quantum Mechanics, P. Suppes, ed. (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1976), p. 55.

    Google Scholar 

  13. P. Mittelstaedt,Naturwissenschaften 47, 385 (1960);Fortschr. Phys. 9, 106 (1961);Rendiconti Scuola Int. di Fisca “Enrico Fermi” LXXII (North-Holland, New York, 1979), p. 264.

    Google Scholar 

  14. S. C. Kleene,Introduction to Metamathematics (D. Van Nostrand, Princeton, New Jersey, 1952), p. 82.

    Google Scholar 

  15. M. J. Mçaczyński,Rep. Math. Phys. 2, 135 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  16. M. Jammer,The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1974), Chapter 8.

    Google Scholar 

  17. T. A. Brody,Rev. Mex. Fís. 27, 583 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  18. A. Shimony,Found. Phys. 1, 325 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  19. S. P. Gudder, inMathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory A. R. Marlow, ed. (Academic Press, New York, 1978), p. 87.

    Google Scholar 

  20. M. J. Mçaczyński, inCurrent Issues in Quantum Logic, E. G. Beltrametti and B. C. van Fraassen, eds. (Plenum, New York, 1981), p. 355.

    Google Scholar 

  21. P. C. Deliyannis,J. Math. Phys. 14, 249 (1973);17, 248 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  22. V. Cantoni,Commun. Math. Phys. 44, 125 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  23. B. Mielnik, inCurrent Issues in Quantum Logic, E. G. Beltrametti and B. C. van Frassen, eds. (Plenum, New York, 1981), p. 465.

    Google Scholar 

  24. B. Mielnik, inQuantum Mechanics, Determinism, Causality and Particles, M. Flato et al., eds. (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1976), p. 117.

    Google Scholar 

  25. R. M. Cooke and J. Hilgevoord, inCurrent Issues in Quantum Logic, E. G. Beltrametti and B. C. van Fraassen, eds. (Plenum, New York, 1981), p. 101.

    Google Scholar 

  26. T. A. Brody,Symbol-Manipulation Techniques for Physicists (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  27. W. Guz,Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré A 28, 1 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  28. R. Carnap,Der logische Aufbau der Welt (Weltkreisverlag, Berlin, 1928).

    Google Scholar 

  29. C. G. Hempel,Aspects of Scientific Explanation (Macmillan, New York, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  30. P. Achinstein and S. F. Barker, eds.,The Legacy of Logical Positivism (Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  31. M. Cornforth,Science versus Idealism (Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1946).

    Google Scholar 

  32. P. Heelan,Synthese 21, 2 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  33. A. Fine, inParadigms and Paradoxes, R. G. Colodny, ed. (Pittsburgh University Press, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, 1972), p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  34. M. Born,Z. Phys. 38, 803 (1926).

    Google Scholar 

  35. W. O. Amrein, inScattering Theory in Mathematical Physics, J. A. Lavita and J.-P. Marchand, eds. (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1974), p. 97; D. B. Pearson,Helv. Phys. Acta 47, 249 (1974);J. Funct. Anal. 28, 182 (1978); M. Reed and B. Simon,Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics, Vol. 3:Scattering Theory (Academic Press, New York, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  36. T. A. Brody,Rev. Mex. Fís. 29, 461 (1983), and references cited therein.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brody, T.A. On quantum logic. Found Phys 14, 409–430 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00738809

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00738809

Keywords

Navigation