Current Issues in Quantum Logic pp 381-403 | Cite as

# Description of Compound Physical Systems and Logical Interaction of Physical Systems

## Abstract

It seems to be difficult to give a description of the whole universe at once, so we are always obliged to consider subsystems of a bigger physical system. We all know that quantum mechanics is not compatible with this situation. A lot of problems of interpretation are due to this fact. Some physicists do not bother about this situation because for them an isolated system is an idealization of the real situation and the theory need not be able to describe such an idealization. I think the procedure of considering subsystems and describing them as isolated systems is much more fundamental. One can ask for example the following question: “Should we ever have found mathematics without considering our fingers as isolated systems?” One could protest by saying that to do quantum logic one does not need mathematics. But then it is possible to ask the following question: “Should we ever have agreed to treat two symbols a and b written on the blackboard as being two symbols and not a mass of chalk dust if we should never have seen and understood two cars as two cars, two houses as two houses, etc…”. So the situation seems to be that we use a language to describe nature and this language is built up with the notion of isolated systems. There have been several attempts to axiomatize this language (e.g. logic, set theory).

### Keywords

Dust Posite Verse Chalk## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

### References

- 1.I. Tjing: first division, 4 Meng, The Folly of Youth (p. 15 in the Dutch translation edited by A.N.K.H. Hermes and B.V. Deventer, 1977 ).Google Scholar
- 2.Carlos Casteneda, Three witnesses to the nagual, in “Tales of Power”, Penguin, Harmondworth, Middlesex (1974).Google Scholar
- 3.C. Piron, “Foundations of Quantum Physics”, W.A. Benjamin (1976),Google Scholar
- 4.D. Aerts, Ph.D. Thesis (in preparation), Vrije Universiteit Brüssel.Google Scholar
- 5.C. Piron, Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie 3, no. 3 (1978), pp. 131 - 173.Google Scholar
- 6.R.P. Morash, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 27, no. 3 (1971).Google Scholar
- 7.J. Wilbur, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 233 (1977).Google Scholar
- 8.E. Artin, “Geometric Algebra”, Interscience Publishers, New York (1957).MATHGoogle Scholar
- 9.B. Mitchell, “Theory of Categories”, Academic Press, New York-London (1965).MATHGoogle Scholar
- 10.D. Aerts and I. Daubechies, Helv. Phys. Acta 51 (1978), pp. 661–675.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 11.M. Günaydin et al., Comm. Math. Phys. 61 (1978), pp. 69–85.MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.D. Aerts, Sybsystem in physics described by bi-linear maps between the corresponding vector spaces, to be published in J. Math. Phys.Google Scholar
- 13.D. Aerts, Construction of a structure which makes it possible to describe the joint system of a classical system together with a quantum system, (submitted to Reports on Math. Phys.).Google Scholar
- 14.D. Aerts, Tensor products of lattices, (in preparation).Google Scholar
- 15.D. Finkelstein et al., CERN Report 59, no. 7 (1959).Google Scholar
- 16.D. Aerts and C. Piron, “Physical Justification for using the Anti-symmetric Tensor Product to Describe the Joint System of Identical Systems in Quantum Mechanics”, preprint, TENA, Free University of Brussels.Google Scholar
- 17.D. Aerts, “Identical Systems in Physics Described by Antisymmetric Bi-linear maps Between the Corresponding Vector Spaces”, preprint, TENA, Free University of Brussels.Google Scholar