Abstract
Following an article by John von Neumann on infinite tensor products, we develop the idea that the usual formalism of quantum mechanics, associated with unitary equivalence of representations, stops working when countable infinities of particles (or degrees of freedom) are encountered. This is because the dimension of the corresponding Hilbert space becomes uncountably infinite, leading to the loss of unitary equivalence, and to sectorisation. By interpreting physically this mathematical fact, we show that it provides a natural way to describe the “Heisenberg cut”, as well as a unified mathematical model including both quantum and classical physics, appearing as required incommensurable facets in the description of nature.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The concepts introduced by this paper by von Neumann have been generalised to give birth to the domain of operator algebras. Although the latter are richer, the approach of ref. [5] is sufficient for our present discussion of quantum macroscopic systems.
We mean low-energy physicists, a full quantum field theory presentation is outside the scope of the present article. We note also that a non-mathematically-minded reader may skip Sect. 2 in a first read, and to come back to it later on, bearing in mind that the most important result of this section is the Hilbert space breakdown theorem.
Note that this requires the axiom of choice.
References
Kochen, S., Specker, E.P.: The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. J. Math. Mech. 17, 59 (1967)
Bell, J.S.: On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox. Physics 1, 195–200 (1964)
Gleason, A.M.: Measures on the Closed Subspaces of a Hilbert Space. J. Math. Mech. 6, 885 (1957). See also: Cooke, R., Keanes, M., Moran, W.: An elementary proof of Gleason’s theorem. Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 98, 117 (1985)
Heisenberg, W.: Ist eine deterministische Ergänzung der Quantenmechanik möglich? English translation by Elise Crull and Guido Bacciagaluppi (2011). https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00996315
von Neumann, J.L.: On infinite direct products. Compos. Math. 6, 1–77 (1939)
Grangier, P.: Contextual objectivity: a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Eur. J. Phys. 23(3), 331 (2002)
Auffèves, A., Grangier, P.: Contexts, systems and modalities: a new ontology for quantum mechanics. Found. Phys. 46, 121 (2016)
Grangier, P., Auffèves, A.: What is quantum in quantum randomness? Philos. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci 376(2123), 20170322 (2018)
Auffèves, A., Grangier, P.: A generic model for quantum measurements. Entropy 21(9), 904 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/e21090904
Auffèves, A., Grangier, P.: Deriving Born’s rule from an inference to the best explanation. Found. Phys. 50, 1781–1793 (2020)
Auffeves, A., Grangier, P.: Revisiting Born’s rule through Uhlhorn’s and Gleason’s theorems. Entropy 24, 199 (2022)
Grangier, P.: Completing the quantum formalism in a contextually objective framework. Found. Phys. 51, 76 (2021)
Grangier, P.: Contextual inferences, nonlocality, and the incompleteness of quantum mechanics. Entropy 23, 1660 (2021)
Grangier, P.: Revisiting quantum mysteries. In: Plotnitsky, A., Haven, E. (eds.) The Quantum-Like Revolution: A Festschrift for A. Khrennikov. Springer, New York. arxiv:2105.14448
Grangier, P.: Revisiting Quantum Contextuality. arxiv preprint. arxiv:2201.00371
Streater, R.F., Wightman, A.S.: PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That. Princeton Landmarks in Mathematics and Physics, Princeton (1964)
Zeh, H.D.: On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory. Found. Phys. 1, 69–76 (1970)
Zurek, W.H.: Emergence of the classical from within the quantum universe. In: Fundamental Theories of Physics, Dedicated to the Memory of H. Dieter Zeh. arxiv:2107.03378
Rovelli, C.: The relational interpretation of quantum physics. In: Oxford Handbook of the History of Interpretation of Quantum Physics. arxiv preprint. arxiv:2109.09170
von Neumann, J.: Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Springer, London (1932)
Lüders, G.: Über die zustandsänderung durch den messprozess. Ann. Phys. 443, 332 (1950)
Pokorny, F., et al.: Tracking the dynamics of an ideal quantum measurement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 080401 (2020)
Grangier, P., Levenson, J.A., Poizat, J.P.: Quantum non-demolition measurements in optics. Nature 396, 537–542 (1998)
Haroche, S., Raimond, J.-M.: Exploring the Quantum. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006)
Hume, D.B., Rosenband, T., Wineland, D.J.: High-fidelity adaptive qubit detection through repetitive quantum nondemolition measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 120502 (2007)
Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Diu, B., Laloë, F.: Méc. Quant. Hermann, Paris (1977)
Peres, A.: Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1995)
Ara, P., Lledó, F., Perera, F.: Basic definitions and results for operator algebras. Contemp. Math. 534, 157–168 (2011)
Landsman, N.P.: Foundations of Quantum Theory: From Classical Concepts to Operator Algebras. Springer, Cham (2017)
Fewster, C.J., Rejzner, K.: Algebraic Quantum Field Theory: An Introduction. arxiv preprint. arxiv:1904.04051
Blasone, M., Jizba, P., Vitiello, G.: Quantum Field Theory and Its Macroscopic Manifestations. Imperial College Press, London (2011)
Svozil, K.: Extending Kolmogorov’s axioms for a generalized probability theory on collections of contexts. Entropy 24(9), 1285 (2022)
Drossel, B., Ellis, G.: Contextual wavefunction collapse: an integrated theory of quantum measurement. New J. Phys. 20, 113025 (2018)
Allahverdyan, A.E., Balian, R., Nieuwenhuizen, T.M.: Understanding quantum measurement from the solution of dynamical models. Phys. Rep. 525, 1–166 (2013)
Hilbert, D.: On the infinite. Math. Ann. 95, 161 (1926), translated by E. Putnam and G.J. Massey. https://math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/HowManyAngels/Philosophy/Philosophy.html
Acknowledgements
PG thanks Alexia Auffèves, Nayla Farouki, Franck Laloë, Roger Balian, Karl Svozil, for many interesting and useful discussions. MvdB thanks the Thales engineers discovering quantum technologies for their candid but actually extremely relevant questions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Proof of the Sectorisation Limit Lemmata
1.1 Proof of the Vector Sectorisation Limit Lemma
Let \(\mathcal{C}\) and \(\mathcal{C}'\) be two distinct sectors of \(\mathcal{H} = \otimes _{\alpha \in I}{\mathcal{H}}_\alpha\).
Let \(\mathcal{C} \ni \vert \Phi \rangle = \otimes _{\alpha \in I} \vert \phi _\alpha \rangle\) and \(\mathcal{C}'\ni \vert \Psi \rangle = \otimes _{\alpha \in I} \vert \psi _\alpha \rangle\).
By Breakdown theorem a), one has \(\langle \Psi \vert \Phi \rangle = \prod _{\alpha \in I} \langle \psi _\alpha \vert \phi _\alpha \rangle =0\)
By the definition of the convergence of infinite products, the fact that this infinite complex product converges to value 0 means that \(\forall \varepsilon >0, \exists \hbox { a finite } J_\varepsilon \subset I\) such that \(\forall I_N =\{ \alpha _1,...,\alpha _N\}\subset I\), all \(\alpha _i\)’s different and \(J_\varepsilon \subset I_N\), and then \(\vert \prod _{\alpha \in I_N} \langle \psi _\alpha \vert \phi _\alpha \rangle \vert < \varepsilon .\) Thereby \(\vert \Phi _N\rangle = \otimes _{\alpha \in I_N} \vert \phi _\alpha \rangle\) and \(\vert \Psi _N\rangle = \otimes _{\alpha \in I_N} \vert \psi _\alpha \rangle\). \(\square\)
1.2 Proof of the Operator Sectorisation Limit Lemma
As \(\vert \Psi \rangle \in \mathcal{C} \ni \vert \Phi \rangle\), \(\#\{\alpha \in I, \vert \psi _\alpha \rangle \ne \vert \phi _\alpha \rangle \}< \infty\). As \(\hat{A}\) is defined over \({\mathcal{H}}\), and \({\mathcal{H}}\) being the direct sum of all sectors, including \(\mathcal{C}\), by the principle of the excluded middle, \(\forall \vert \Psi \rangle \in \mathcal{C}\), either \({\hat{A}} \vert \Psi \rangle \in \mathcal{C}\) or \({\hat{A}} \vert \Psi \rangle \notin \mathcal{C}\).
-
\({\hat{A}} \vert \Psi \rangle \in \mathcal{C} \Leftrightarrow {\hat{A}}\) has non-zero matrix elements only for \((\vert \psi _\alpha \rangle ,\vert \phi _\alpha \rangle ), \alpha \in I_N:=\{\alpha _1,...,\alpha _N \}\) finite , i.e. \(p(\hat{A})< \infty\). In this case, \({\hat{A}}\) is of the form \({\hat{A}} = {\hat{A}}_N \otimes \otimes _{\alpha \in I{\setminus } I_N }\hat{I}_\alpha\), where \({\hat{A}}_N\) can be viewed as an \(N\times N\) complex matrix that allows computing the inner product \(\langle {\Phi }\vert {\hat{A}} \vert \Psi \rangle\) to a finite complex value.
-
If \({\hat{A}}\) acts on an infinite number of \(\alpha _i\)’s i.e. \(p(\hat{A})\) infinite, one still has to prove that \({\hat{A}} \vert \Psi \rangle\) relies on convergent sequences. For this let us examine \(\hat{A} \vert \Psi \rangle\). Since \(\vert \Psi \rangle \in {\mathcal{H}}\)
$$\begin{aligned} \vert \Psi \rangle = \sum _{k \in K} { \Psi _k} \otimes _{\alpha \in I} \vert \psi _\alpha ^k\rangle \end{aligned}$$(A1)where the \(\{ \vert \psi _\alpha ^k\rangle \}_{\alpha \in I}, k\in K\) are \(\# K\) convergent sequences. Now \({\hat{A}}\) is not necessarily the tensor product of operators in each \({\mathcal{H}}_{\alpha }\), but at least shall decompose on the sum of such products,
$$\begin{aligned} {\hat{A}} = \sum _{p} {a}_p \otimes _{\alpha \in I} {\hat{A}}^p_\alpha \hbox { and } {\hat{A}}\vert \Psi \rangle = \sum _{k,p} { \Psi _k} {a}_p\otimes _{\alpha \in I} {\hat{A}}^p_\alpha \vert \psi _\alpha ^k\rangle . \end{aligned}$$(A2)So
$$\begin{aligned} \langle \Psi \vert {\hat{A}}^\dagger {\hat{A}}\vert \Psi \rangle = \sum _{k,l} \Psi _k^*\Psi _l \sum _{p,q}{a}_p^*{a}_q{\prod _{\alpha \in I}}\langle \psi _\alpha ^k\vert {\hat{A}}_\alpha ^{p \dagger }{\hat{A}}_\alpha ^q \vert \psi _\alpha ^l\rangle \end{aligned}$$(A3)and \(\langle \Psi \vert \Psi \rangle = \sum _{k,l} \Psi _k^*\Psi _l\)
Now, as \({\hat{A}}\) is bounded, \(\exists c\in \mathbb {R}, \langle \Psi \vert {\hat{A}}^\dagger {\hat{A}} \vert \Psi \rangle \le c \langle \Psi \vert \Psi \rangle\). As \(\langle \Psi \vert \Psi \rangle\) is bounded so is \(\langle \Psi \vert {\hat{A}}^\dagger {\hat{A}} \vert \Psi \rangle\) which entails that \({\hat{A}} \vert \Psi \rangle\) relies on convergent sequences \(\{{\hat{A}}_\alpha ^q \vert \psi _\alpha ^l\rangle \}_{\alpha \in I}, \forall q,l\). Therefore \({\hat{A}} \vert \Psi \rangle \in \mathcal{H} {\setminus} \mathcal{C}\) so the Vector sectorisation limit lemma applies to \(\langle \Phi \vert \hat{A} \vert \Psi \rangle .\). \(\square\)
Appendix 2: About Ontology and Infinities
The CSM ontology relies on the general idea of contextual objectivity, as introduced in [6]. In this framework the systems within contexts are objectively real, modalities are actual (repeatable) events, and projectors in Hilbert spaces are mathematical tools used to calculate non-classical probabilities. For CSM there is only one factual reality, the role of agents is the same as in classical probabilities, and there are no hidden variables—but the usual state vector \(\vert \psi \rangle\) must be completed by specifying the measurement/observation context in order to define a modality. The so-called quantum non-locality is better understood as predictive incompleteness, associated with the fundamental randomness that is a necessary consequence of contextual quantisation and is fully compatible with relativistic causality [13]. All these features fit well in the mathematical framework presented in this article, and since there is no free lunch, the price to pay is embedding infinities in the formalism.
A very interesting discussion on the role of infinities in physics and mathematics can be found in a conference given in 1925 by Hilbert [35]. On the one hand Hilbert writes that infinities (as defined by Cantor) are a required ingredient for the completeness on mathematics: “No one shall drive us out of the paradise which Cantor has created for us”. On the other hand he writes that “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality, no matter what experiences, observations, and knowledge are appealed to”. Our point of view is somehow different: we consider that, with respect to natural sciences, mathematics are basically a language used to describe (or to model) physical reality: they are neither reality itself, nor are we constrained to any sort of ontological identity between physics and mathematics.
Admitting that, there is no reason for not using the full power of the mathematical language, including infinities. In practice this is done already in differential or integral calculus; but here these ideas are pushed further, towards Cantor-type incommensurability, with not only numbers but full algebraic structures appearing at the infinite limit. It is true that such concepts are not easy to grasp, and may lead to currently intractable calculations; but this should not be a reason for the physicists not to enter Cantor’s paradise.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Van Den Bossche, M., Grangier, P. Contextual Unification of Classical and Quantum Physics. Found Phys 53, 45 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-023-00678-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-023-00678-x