# Foundations of Quantum Physics: A General Realistic and Operational Approach

## Abstract

We present a general formalism with the aim ofdescribing the situation of an entity, how it is, how itreacts to experiments, how we can make statistics withit, and how it ‘changes’ under the influence of the rest of the universe. Therefore we baseour formalism on the following basic notions: (1) thestates of the entity, which describe the modes of beingof the entity, (2) the experiments that can be performed on the entity, which describe how weact upon and collect knowledge about the entity, (3) theoutcomes of our experiments, which describe how theentity and the experiments "are" and “behave” together, (4) theprobabilities, which describe our repeated experimentsand the statistics of these repeated experiments, and(5) the symmetries, which describe the interactions ofthe entity with the external world without beingexperimented upon. Starting from these basic notions weformulate the necessary derived notions: mixed states,mixed experiments and events, an eigenclosure structure describing the properties of theentity, an orthoclosure structure introducing anorthocomplementation, outcome determination, experimentdetermination, state determination, and atomicity giving rise to some of the topological separationaxioms for the closures. We define the notion ofsubentity in a general way and identify the morphisms ofour structure. We study specific examples in detail in the light of this formalism: a classicaldeterministic entity and a quantum entity described bythe standard quantum mechanical formalism. We present apossible solution to the problem of the description of subentities within the standard quantummechanical procedure using the tensor product of theHilbert spaces, by introducing a new completed quantummechanics in Hilbert space, were new ‘pure’states are introduced, not represented by rays of theHilbert space.

## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

### REFERENCES

- Aerts, D. (1981). The one and the many, Doctoral Thesis, Free University of Brussels, Brussels.Google Scholar
- Aerts, D. (1982). Description of many physical entities without the paradoxes encountered in quantum mechanics,
*Found. Phys.***12**, 1131.Google Scholar - Aerts, D. (1983a). Classical theories and non classical theories as a special case of a more general theory,
*J. Math. Phys.***24**, 2441.Google Scholar - Aerts, D. (1983b). The description of one and many physical systems, in
*Foundations of Quantum Mechanics*, C. Gruber, ed., A.V.C.P., Lausanne, p. 63.Google Scholar - Aerts, D. (1984a). Construction of a structure which makes it possible to describe the joint system of a classical and a quantum system,
*Rep. Math. Phys.***20**, 421.Google Scholar - Aerts, D. (1984b). Construction of the tensor product for lattices of properties of physical entities,
*J. Math. Phys.***25**, 1434.Google Scholar - Aerts, D. (1986). A possible explanation for the probabilities of quantum mechanics,
*J. Math. Phys.***27**, 202.Google Scholar - Aerts, D. (1991). A mechanistic classical laboratory situation violating the Bell inequalities with √2, exactly ‘in the same way’ as its violations by the EPR experiments,
*Helv. Phys. Acta***64**, 1.Google Scholar - Aerts, D. (1994). Quantum structures, separated physical entities and probability,
*Found. Phys.***24**, 1227.Google Scholar - Aerts, D. (1995). Quantum structures: An attempt to explain their appearance in nature,
*Int. J. Theor. Phys.***34**, 1165.Google Scholar - Aerts, D. (1999). A possible solution of the sub entity problem of standard quantum mechanics leading to a new type of Hilbert space quantum mechanics, Preprint FUND-CLEA, Free University of Brussels.Google Scholar
- Aerts, D. and Daubechies, I. (1978). Physical justification for using the tensor product to describe two quantum systems as one joint system,
*Helv. Phys. Acta***51**, 661.Google Scholar - Aerts, D., and Durt, T. (1994). Quantum, classical and intermediate, an illustrative example,
*Found. Phys.***24**, 1353.Google Scholar - Aerts, D., and Valckenborgh, F. (1999). Lattice extensions and the description of compound entities, FUND, Brussels Free University, Preprint.Google Scholar
- Aerts, D., and Van Steirteghem, B., (1999). Quantum axiomatics and a theorem of M.P. Solèr,
*International Journal of Theoretical Physics*, submitted.Google Scholar - Aerts, D., Coecke, B., Durt, T., and Valckenborgh, F. (1997a). Quantum, classical and intermediate; a model on the Poincarésphere,
*Tatra Mountains Math. Publ.***10**, 225.Google Scholar - Aerts, D., Coecke, B., Durt, T., and Valckenborgh, F. (1997b). Quantum, classical and intermediate; the vanishing vector space structure,
*Tatra Mountains Math. Publ.***10**, 241.Google Scholar - Aerts, D., Colebunders, E., Van der Voorde, A., and Van Steirteghem, B. (1999). State property systems and closure spaces: A study of categorical equivalence,
*Int. J. Theor. Phys.*, this issue.Google Scholar - Birkhoff, G., (1973).
*Lattice Theory, Amer. Math. Soc.*, Colloq. Publ. Vol. XXV, Providence.Google Scholar - Birkhoff, G., and Von Neumann, J. (1936). The logic of quantum mechanics,
*Ann. Math.***37**, 823.Google Scholar - Beltrametti, E., and Cassinelli, G. (1981). The logic of quantum mechanics, Reading, Mass. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Diu, B., and Laloë, F. (1973).
*Mécanique Quantique*, Vol. I, Hermann, Paris.Google Scholar - Foulis, D., and Randall, C. (1981). What are quantum logics and what ought they to be? in
*Current Issues in Quantum Logic*, E. Beltrametti and B. van Fraassen, eds., Plenum Press, New York, p. 35.Google Scholar - Foulis, D., Piron, C., and Randall, C. (1983). Realism, operationalism, and quantum mechanics,
*Found. Phys.***13**, 813.Google Scholar - Jauch, J. (1968).
*Foundations of Quantum Mechanics*, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar - Ludwig, G. (1983), Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, New York and Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Ludwig, G. (1985), An Axiomatic Basis for Quantum Mechanics, New York and Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Mackey, G. W. (1963).
*Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics*, Benjamin, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar - Piron, C. (1976).
*Foundations of Quantum Physics*, Benjamin, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar - Piron, C. (1990).
*Mècanique Quantique: Bases et Applications*, Press Polytechnique de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.Google Scholar - Pulmannova, S. (1984). On the product of quantum logics,
*Suppl. Circ. Mat. Palermo Ser. II*, 231.Google Scholar - Randall, C., and Foulis, D. (1976). A mathematical setting for inductive reasoning, in
*Foundations of Probability Theory, Statistical Inference, and Statistical Theories of Science III*, C. Hooker, ed., Reidel, Dordrecht, p. 169.Google Scholar - Randall, C., and Foulis, D. (1978). The operational approach to quantum mechanics, in
*Physical Theories as Logico-Operat ional Structures*, C. A. Hooker, ed., Reidel, Dordrecht, p. 167.Google Scholar - Randall, C., and Foulis, D. (1981). Operational statistics and tensor products, in
*Interpretations and Foundations of Quantum Theory*, H. Neumann, ed., B. I. Wissenschaftsversl ag, Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim, p. 21.Google Scholar - Randall, C., and Foulis, D. (1983). Properties and operational propositions in quantum mechanics,
*Found. Phys.***13**, 835.Google Scholar - Von Neumann, J. (1932).
*Mathematische Grundlagen der Quanten-Mechanik*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar - Varadarajan, V. (1968).
*Geometry of Quantum Theory*, von Nostrand, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar - Zierler, N. (1961). Axioms for non-relativistic quantum mechanics,
*Pac. J. Math.***11**, 1151.Google Scholar