Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:11:06.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The center of an orthologic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Extract

Since 1933, when Kolmogorov laid the foundations for probability and statistics as we know them today [1], it has been recognized that propositions asserting that such and such an event occurred as a consequence of the execution of a particular random experiment tend to band together and form a Boolean algebra. In 1936, Birkhoff and von Neumann [2] suggested that the so-called logic of quantum mechanics should not be a Boolean algebra, but rather should form what is now called a modular ortholattice [3]. Presumably, the departure from Boolean algebras encountered in quantum mechanics can be attributed to the fact that in quantum mechanics, one must consider more than one physical experiment, e.g., an experiment measuring position, an experiment measuring charge, an experiment measuring momentum, etc., and, because of the uncertainty principle, these experiments need not admit a common refinement in terms of which the Kolmogorov theory is directly applicable.

Mackey's Axioms I–VI for quantum mechanics [4] imply that the logic of quantum mechanics should be a σ-orthocomplete orthomodular poset [5]. Most contemporary practitioners of quantum logic seem to agree that a quantum logic is (at least) an orthomodular poset [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] or some variation thereof [11]. P. D. Finch [12] has shown that every completely orthomodular poset is the logic arising from sets of Boolean logics, where these sets have a structure similar to the structures generally given to quantum logic. In all of these versions of quantum logic, a fundamental relation, the relation of compatibility or commutativity, plays a decisive role.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Kolmogorov, A. N., Foundations of the theory of probability, 2nd edition, Chelsea, New York, 1956.Google Scholar
[2]Birkhoff, G. and von Neumann, J., The logic of quantum mechanics, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 37 (1936), pp. 823843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Birkhoff, G., Lattices in applied mathematics, Lattice theory, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 2, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1961, pp. 155184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Mackey, G. W., Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics, Benjamin, New York, 1963.Google Scholar
[5]Foulis, D. J., A note on orthomodular lattices, Portugaliae Mathematica, vol. 27 (1962), pp. 6572.Google Scholar
[6]Gudder, S. P., Hilbert space, independence, and generalized probability, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 20 (1967), pp. 4861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Varadarajan, V. S., Geometry of quantum theory, vol. 1, Van Nostrand, Princeton, N.J., 1968.Google Scholar
[8]Gunson, J., On the algebraic structure of quantum mechanics, Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 6 (1967), pp. 262285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Pool, J. C. T., Simultaneous observability and the logic of quantum mechanics, Thesis, State University of Iowa, 1963.Google Scholar
[10]MacLaren, M. D., Notes on axioms for quantum mechanics, ANL 7065, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Kochan, S. and Specker, E. P., The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, vol. 17 (1967), pp. 5987.Google Scholar
[12]Finch, P. D., On the structure of quantum logic, this Journal, vol. 34 (1969), pp. 275282.Google Scholar
[13]Randall, C. H. and Foulis, D. J., An approach to empirical logic, American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 77 (1970), pp. 363374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Randall, C. H. and Foulis, D. J., Operational statistics, part I, preprint, University of Massachusetts, 1970.Google Scholar