Abstract
I define sublaltices of quantum propositions that can be taken as having determinate (but perhaps unknown) truth values for a given quantum state, in the sense that sufficiently many two-valued maps satisfying a Boolean homomorphism condition exist on each determinate sublattice to generate a Kolmogorov probability space for the probabilities defined by the slate. I show that these sublattices are maximal, subject to certain constraints, from which it follows easily that they are unique. I discuss the relevance of this result for the measurement problem, relating it to an early proposal by Jauch and Piron for defining a new notion of state for quantum systems, to a recent uniqueness proof by Clifton for the sublattice of propositions specified as determinate by modal interpretations of quantum mechanics that exploit the polar decompostion theorem, and to my own previous suggestions for interpreting quantum mechanics without the projection postulate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
J. M. Jauch and C. Piron, “On the structure of quantal proposition systems,”Helv. Phys. Acta 42, 842–848 (1969).
S. Kochen and E. P. Specker, “On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics,”J. Math. & Mech. 17, 59–87 (1967).
N. D. Mermin, “Simple unified form for the major no-hidden-variables theorems,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 3373–3376 (1990).
S. Kochen, “A new interpretation of quantum mechanics,” inSymposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics, P. Lathi and P. Mittelstaedt, eds. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1985), pp. 151–170.
D. Dieks, “Resolution of the measurement problem through decoherence of the quantum state,”Phys. Lett. A 142, 439–446 (1989); “Modal interpretation of quantum mechanics, measurements, and macroscopic behavior,”Phys. Rev. A 49, 2290-2300 (1994).
R. Healey,The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: An Interactive Interpretation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989); “Measurement and quantum indeterminateness,”Found. Phys. Lett. 6, 307–316 (1993).
B. van Fraassen, “Hidden variables and the modal interpretation of quantum statistics,”Synthese 42, 155–165 (1981); “A Modal interpretation of quantum mechanics,” in E. Beltrametti and B. C. van Fraassen, eds.,Current Issues in Quantum Logic (Plenum, New York, 1991);Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View (Clarendon, Oxford, 1991).
R. Clifton, “Independently motivating the Kochen-Dieks modal interpretation of quantum mechanics,” forthcoming inBrit. J. Phil. Sci., 1994.
J. Bub, “Measurement and ‘beables’ in quantum mechanics,”Found. Phys. 21, 25–42 (1991); “Quantum mechanics without the projection postulate,”Found. Phys. 22, 737–754, 1992; “Quantum mechanics as a theory of ‘beables’” in A. van der Merwe, F. Selleri, and G. Tarozzi, eds,Bell's Theorem and the Foundations of Modern Physics (World Scientific, Singapore 1992), pp. 117–124; “Measurement: It ain't over till it's over,”Found. Phys. Lett. 6, 21–35, 1993.
D. Bohm, “A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of hidden variables,”Phys. Rev. 85, 166, 180 (1952).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bub, J. On the structure of quantal proposition systems. Found Phys 24, 1261–1279 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02148567
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02148567