I found the seventh paragraph on page 9 to be telling:
The conditions of the Kochen-Specker theorem are not carried out in the
approach described in present paper. ...
This might be the locus upon which the fallacy of the paper turns.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum mechanics without quantum logic
At 11:42 15/04/04 +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
Quantum mechanics without quantum logic
Authors: D.A. Slavnov
Comments: 24 pages, no figures, Latex
We describe a scheme of quantum mechanics in which the Hilbert space and
linear operators are only secondary structures of the theory. As primary
structures we consider observables, elements of noncommutative algebra,
and the physical states, the nonlinear functionals on this algebra, which
associate with results of single measurement. We show that in such scheme
the mathematical apparatus of the standard quantum mechanics does not
contradict a hypothesis on existence of an objective local reality, a
principle of a causality and Kolmogorovian probability theory.
To talk frankly it seems to me that Slavnov is a little bit unfair
about Quantum Logic (QL), confusing it with some Hilbert Space idolatry.
It looks still more unfair when you remember that, in the process of
writing the QL founding 1936 paper (ref in my thesis), von Neumann
wrote to Birkhoff and said:
I would like to make a confession which may seem immoral: I do not
believe absolutely in Hilbert space any more. (quoted at length in the
formidable book by Miklos Redei : Quantum Logic in Algebraic
Approach , Kluwer, 1998).
And so we can say that QL has been literally born from a first skeptical
move with respect to the Hilbert space worship. And as far as I
understand Slavnov his move seems similar to von Neumann's one.
Which I think is not a bad move at all. The reason why von Neumann
has abandonned the obvious orthomodular lattice of the closed linear
subspaces of an (infinite dimensional) Hilbert space was that he
wanted to keep *modularity* which is closer to the distributivity (of
the 'and' and the 'or') axioms of a Boolean Algebra, ... so close that
it makes it possible to define the unique
probabilities from the probability one logic, that is from Quantum
Logic (there would be some universal density operator).
I do believe this has no bearing at all with any magical trick capable
of making vanishing the other relative worlds, histories, minds,
maximal consistent extensions, possibilities ... That seems to me
the most preposterous part of Slavnov paper.
In 1939 von Neumann still invokes a magical
role of consciousness in his singling out a collapsed reality.
That Quantum logic *can* be a formidable tools is exemplified in
my thesis where I show that if we are turing-emulable then
physics (as a science of correct prediction) is necessarily
redefined as a measure on all the computational histories
going through our relatively actual states.
The all is managed by explicit appeal to Church thesis.
And then, translating this in the language of a sound
universal (lobian) machine I extract the logic of the
probability one (from and on all the maximal consistent
extensions) and got an (arithmetical) quantum logic (AQL*)
Is it modular, orthomodular? Open problems!
Of course modularity would help for the sequel (the derivation
of physics from arithmetics/machine 'psychology'). You can
look at the last pages of the following document for the
precise definition of the arithmetical quantum logic which I
call AQL* now but is named QuelQL* in the following document:
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada.
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: