International Journal of Theoretical Physics

, Volume 43, Issue 6, pp 1343–1354 | Cite as

Quantum Logic and Decoherence

  • Peter Mittelstaedt

Abstract

The quantum logical approach to quantum mechanics in Hilbert space presupposes value definiteness of elementary propositions. Although the description of the measurement process by sequential quantum logic seems to justify this precondition, it is found to be incompatible with the quantum theory of measurement, which does not provide the decoherence of pointer values. The attempts to solve the measurement problem by means of histories and by quantum gravity fail, since these approaches are based on sequential quantum logic and its preconditions, too. Finally, we discuss consequences of these results.

quantum logic decoherence objectification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Birkhoff, G. and von Neumann, J. (1936). The logic of quantum mechanics. Annals of Mathematics 37, 823–843.Google Scholar
  2. Busch, P. (1998). Can unsharp objectification solve the measurement problem. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 37, 241–247.Google Scholar
  3. Busch, P., Lahti, P., and Mittelstaedt, P. (1996). The Quantum Theory of Measurement, 2nd edn., Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
  4. Dalla Chiara, M. L. (1995). Unsharp quantum logics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 34, 1331–1336.Google Scholar
  5. Foulis, D. J. (1960). Baer*-Semigroups. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 11, 648–654.Google Scholar
  6. Gell-Mann, M. and Hartle, J. B. (1993). Classical equations for quantum systems. Physical Review 47, 3345–3382.Google Scholar
  7. Giuntini, R. (1990). Brower-Zadeh logic and the operational approach to quantum mechanics. Foun-dations of Physics 20, 701–714.Google Scholar
  8. Hartle, J. B. (1995). Spacetime quantum mechanics and the quantum mechanics of spacetime. In Les Houches 1993, Session LVIIGravitation and Quantisation,” B. Julia and J. Zinn-Justin, eds., Elsevier, New York, 285–480.Google Scholar
  9. Isham, C. J. (1994). Quantum logic and the history approach to quantum theory. Journal of Mathemat-ical Physics 35, 2157–2185.Google Scholar
  10. Jauch, J. M. (1968). Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA.Google Scholar
  11. Kiefer, C. (1996). Consistent histories and decoherence, In Decoherence and the Appearence of a Classical World in Quantum Theory, D. Giulini et al., eds., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 157–186.Google Scholar
  12. Mittelstaedt, P. (1978). Quantum Logic, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  13. Mittelstaedt, P. (1983). Relativistic quantum logic. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 22, 293–314.Google Scholar
  14. Mittelstaedt, P. (1987). Language and reality in quantum physics. In Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics, World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 229–250.Google Scholar
  15. Mittelstaedt, P. (1983). The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and the Measurement Process, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  16. Omnes, R. (1994). The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Chap. 4, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  17. Penrose, R. (1999 (a)). The large, the small and the human mind, Paperback edn., Appendix 2, Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  18. Penrose, R. (1999(b)). Quantum computation, entanglement and state reduction. Philosophical Trans-actions of the Royal Society of London A356, 1927–1939.Google Scholar
  19. Piron, C. (1976). Foundations of Quantum Physics, W. A. Benjamin, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  20. Solér, M. P. (1995). Characterisation of Hilbert spaces by orthomodular lattices. Communications in Algebra 23(1), 219–243.Google Scholar
  21. Stachow, E. W. (1980). Logical foundation of quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 19, 251–304.Google Scholar
  22. 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, Germany, pp. 129–145.Google Scholar
  23. Stachow, E. W. (2004). Experimental approach to quantum logical connectives. In Alternative Logics- Do Sciences Need Them? P. Weingartner, ed. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  24. Wigner, E. (1971). The subject of our discussion. In Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, B. D'Espagnat, ed. Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi,” Course IL, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Mittelstaedt
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations