Abstract
Quantum theory does not only predict probabilities, but also relative phases for any experiment, that involves measurements of an ensemble of systems at different moments of time. We argue, that any operational formulation of quantum theory needs an algebra of observables and an object that incorporates the information about relative phases and probabilities. The latter is the (de)coherence functional, introduced by the consistent histories approach to quantum theory. The acceptance of relative phases as a primitive ingredient of any quantum theory, liberates us from the need to use a Hilbert space and non-commutative observables. It is shown, that quantum phenomena are adequately described by a theory of relative phases and non-additive probabilities on the classical phase space. The only difference lies on the type of observables that correspond to sharp measurements. This class of theories does not suffer from the consequences of Bell's theorem (it is not a theory of Kolmogorov probabilities) and Kochen–Specker's theorem (it has distributive “logic”). We discuss its predictability properties, the meaning of the classical limit and attempt to see if it can be experimentally distinguished from standard quantum theory. Our construction is operational and statistical, in the spirit of Copenhagen, but makes plausible the existence of a realist, geometric theory for individual quantum systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
J. von Neumann, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1996).
H. Everett, “Relative state formulation of quantum mechanics,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454 (1957).
B. DeWitt and N. Graham, eds., The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1973).
R. B. Griffiths, “Consistent histories and the interpretation of quantum mechanics,” J. Stat. Phys. 36, 219 (1984).
R. Omnès, “Logical reformulation of quantum mechanics: I Foundations, J. Stat. Phys. 53, 893 (1988); The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1994); “Consistent interpretations of quantum mechanics,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 64, 339 (1992).
M. Gell-Mann and J. B. Hartle, “Quantum mechanics in the light of quantum cosmology,” in Complexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information, W. Zurek, ed. (Addison Wesley, Reading, 1990); “Classical equations for quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. D 47, 3345 (1993).
J. B. Hartle, “Spacetime quantum mechanics and the quantum mechanics of spacetime,” in Proceedings on the 1992 Les Houches School, Gravitation and Quantisation, 1993.
J. S. Bell, “On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox,” Physics 1, 195 (1964).
S. Kochen and R. P. Specker, “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanicsa,” J. Math. Mech. 17, 59 (1967).
A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, “Experimental realization of Einstein–Podolsky– Rosen–Bohm gedanken experiment: A N's Inequalities,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91 (1982).
D. Bohm, “A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of hidden variables,” Phys. Rev. 85, 166 (1952).
D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley, The Undivided Universe (Routledge, London, 1993).
Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, “Significance of electromagnetic potentials in the quantum theory,” Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959).
C. Anastopoulos and K. Savvidou, “Quantum mechanical histories and the berry phase,” quant-ph/0007093.
K. Savvidou, “The action operator in continuous time histories,” J. Math. Phys. 40, 5657 (1999).
J. J. Jauch, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1968).
E. B. Davies, Quantum Theory of Open System (Academic, London, 1976).
P. Busch, M. Grabowski, and P. J. Lahti, Operational Quantum Physics (Springer, Berlin, 1995).
R. G. Chambers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 5, 3 (1960).
J. Samuel and R. Bhandari, “General setting for Berry phase,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2339 (1988).
D. Suter, K. T. Mueller, and A. Pines, “Study of the Aharonov–Anandan quantum phase by NMR Interferometry,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1218 (1988).
F. Dowker and A. Kent, “On the consistent histories approach to quantum mechanics,” J. Stat. Phys. 82, 1575 (1996).
A. Kent, “Consistent sets yield contradictory inferences in quantum theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2874 (1997).
R. Griffiths and J. B. Hartle, “Comment on consistent sets yield contrary inferences in quantum theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1981 (1998).
R. Griffiths, “Consistent quantum counterfactuals,” Phys. Rev. A 60, 5 (1999).
C. J. Isham, “Topos theory and consistent histories:the internal logic of the set of all consistent sets,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 36, 785 (1997).
R. D. Sorkin, “Quantum mechanics as quantum measure theory,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 9, 3119 (1994).
R. D. Sorkin, “Quantum measure theory and its interpretation,” in Quantum Classical Correspondence, D. H. Feng and B. L. Huy, eds. (International Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997).
C. Anastopoulos, “Selection of preferred consistent sets,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 37, 2261 (1998).
C. J. Isham, “Quantum logic and the histories approach to quantum theory,” J. Math. Phys. 35, 2157 (1994).
C. J. Isham and N. Linden, “Continuous histories and the history group in generalised quantum theory,” J. Math. Phys. 36, 5392 (1995).
C. J. Isham and N. Linden, “Quantum temporal logic and decoherence functionals in the histories approach to generalised quantum theory,” J. Math. Phys. 35, 5452 (1994).
E. Nelson, Quantum Fluctuations (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1985).
J. S. Schwinger, “Brownian motion of a quantum oscillator,” J. Math. Phys. 2, 407 (1961).
L. V. Keldysh, “Diagram technique for nonequilibrium processes,” Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 47, 1515 (1964).
C. Anastopoulos, “Continuous-time histories:observables, probabilities, phase space structure and the classical limit,” quant-ph/0008052.
J. Klauder, “The action option and a Feynman quantization of spinor fields in terms of ordinary c-numbers,” Ann. Phys. 11, 123 (1959).
A. Khrennikov, “Einstein and Bell, von Mises and Kolmogorov:Reality and locality, frequency and probability,” quant-ph/0006016.
E. C. G. Stueckelberg, “Quantum theory in real Hilbert space,” Helv. Phys. Acta 33, 727 (1960).
A. Kent, “Quasiclassical dynamics in a closed quantum system,” Phys. Rev. A 54, 4670 (1996).
D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, “Going beyond Bell's theorem” in Bell's Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, M. Kafatos, ed. (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1989).
N. J. Woodhouse, Geometric Quantization (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992).
C. J. Isham, “Topological and global aspects of quantum theory,” in Proceedings of the 1983 Les Houches School, Relativity, Groups and Topology II.
G. S. Agarwal, “Perspective of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen spin correlations in the phase space formulation for arbitrary values of the spin,” Phys. Rev. A 47, 4608 (1993).
C. Isham, N. Linden, K. Savvidou, and S. Schreckenberg, “Continuous time and consistent histories,” J. Math. Phys. 37, 2261 (1998).
K. Savvidou, “Continuous time in consistent histories,” gr-qc/9912076.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Anastopoulos, C. Quantum Theory Without Hilbert Spaces. Foundations of Physics 31, 1545–1580 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012690715414
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012690715414