Skip to main content
Log in

Effect algebras and unsharp quantum logics

  • Part III. Invited Papers Dedicated to Constantin Piron
  • Published:
Foundations of Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The effects in a quantum-mechanical system form a partial algebra and a partially ordered set which is the prototypical example of the effect algebras discussed in this paper. The relationships among effect algebras and such structures as orthoalgebras and orthomodular posets are investigated, as are morphisms and group- valued measures (or charges) on effect algebras. It is proved that there is a universal group for every effect algebra, as well as a universal vector space over an arbitrary field.

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. Aerts, D., “Description of many physical entities without the paradoxes encountered in quantum mechanics,”Found. Phys. 12, 1131–1170 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ali, S. T., “Stochastic localization, quantum mechanics on phase space and quantum space-time,”Nuovo Cimento 8, No. 11, 1–128 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Beltrametti, E., and Cassinelli, G.,The Logic of Quantum Mechanics (Encyclopaedia of Mathematics and Its Applications, Gian-Carlo Rota, ed., Vol. 15) (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bennett, M. K., and Foulis, D., “Tensor products of orthoalgebras,”Order 10, No. 3, 271–282 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Birkhoff, G.,Lattice Theory, 3rd edn. (American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, XXV, Providence, Rhode Island, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boole, G.,An Investigation of the Laws of Thought (Macmillan, London, 1854; reprinted by Dover, New York, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bunce, L., and Maitland Wright, J., “The Mackey-Gleason problem,”Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 26, No. 2, 288–293 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Busch, P., Lahti, P., and Mittelstaedt, P.,The Quantum Theory of Measurement (Lecture Notes in Physics, New Series m2) (Springer, Berlin, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cattaneo, G., and Nistico, G., “Brouwer-Zadeh posets and three-valued Lukasiewicz posets,”Int. J. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 33, 165–190 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Della Chiara, M. L., and Giuntini, R., “Paraconsistent quantum logics”,Found. Phys. 19, No. 7, 891–904 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dvurečenskij, A., “Tensor product of difference posets,” to appear inProc. Am. Math. Soc.

  12. Foulis, D., Greechie, R., and Rüttimann, G., “Filters and supports in orthoalgebras,”Int. J. Theor. Phys. 31, No. 5, 789–802 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Foulis, D., Piron, C., and Randall, C., “Realism, operationalism, and quantum mechanics,”Found. Phys. 13, No. 8, 813–842 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fuchs, L.,Partially Ordered Algebraic Systems (International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 28) (Pergamon, Oxford, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Giuntini, R., and Greuling, H., “Toward a formal language for unsharp properties,”Found. Phys. 19, No. 7, 931–945 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hardegree, G., and Frazer, P., “Charting the labyrinth of quantum logics,” inCurrent Issues in Quantum Logic, E. Beltrametti and B. van Fraassen, eds. (Ettore Majorana International Science Series, 8) (Plenum, New York, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kalmbach, G.,Orthomodular Lattices (Academic, New York, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kläy, M., Randall, C., and Foulis, D., “Tensor products and probability weights,”Int. J. Theor. Phys. 26, No. 3, 199–219 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kôpka, F., and Chovanec, F., “D posets,”Math. Slovaca 44, No. 1, 21–34 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lock, P., and Hardegree, G., “Connections among quantum logics, Parts 1 and 2, Quantum prepositional logica,”Int. J. Theor. Phys. 24, No. 1, 43–61 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ludwig, G.,Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Vols. I and II (Springer, New York, 1983/1985).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ludwig, G.,An Axiomatic Basis for Quantum Mechanics, Vol. 2 (Springer, New York, 1986/87).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Maeda, F.,Kontinuierliche Geometrien (Springer, Berlin, 1958).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Navara, M., An orthomodular lattice admitting no group-valued measures,Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 122, No. 1, 7–12 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Navara, M., and Pták, P., “Difference posets and orthoalgebras,” Department of Mathematics Report Series, Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, No. 93–8 (1993), pp. 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Neumann, J. von,Continuous Geometry (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1960).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Obeid, M., “Pastings and Centeria of Orthoalgebras,” Ph.D. Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Piron, C.,Foundations of Quantum Physics (Mathematical Physics Monograph Series, A. Wightman, ed.) (Benjamin, Reading, Massachusetts, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Prugovecki, E.,Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space Time, 2nd edn. (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Schroeck, F., and Foulis, D., “Stochastic quantum mechanics viewed from the language of manuals,”Found. Phys. 20, No. 7, 823–858 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Foulis, D.J., Bennett, M.K. Effect algebras and unsharp quantum logics. Found Phys 24, 1331–1352 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02283036

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02283036

Keywords

Navigation