Quantum Logic and Ensembles
Probability, as it appears in quantum mechanics, is a measure on the non- boolean lattice of propositions known as quantum logic. It is therefore no surprise that quantum probability is non-classical and that attempting to impose on quantum probability a classical ensemble interpretation leads to paradox. One such paradox is provided by the ignorance interpretation of mixtures, another by the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) thought-experiment. I shall argue, in reply to Dr. Redhead, that a quantum logical ensemble (QLE) interpretation of quantum mechanics resolves these paradoxes in a natural way and that in the case of the EPR paradox one need not invoke superluminal causal connections to account for the non-locality. This paper therefore has somewhat narrower scope than Dr. Redhead’s for I shall have no need to examine tachyonic mechanisms to explain the EPR correlations.
KeywordsDensity Operator Quantum Logic Individual System Quantum Probability Spin Measurement
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bohm, D.: 1951, Quantum Theory, Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- van Fraassen, B.: 1972, ‘A Formal Approach to the Philosophy of Science’, in Paradigms and Paradoxes, R. Colodny (ed.), Pittsburgh, pp. 303–366.Google Scholar
- Hooker, C.: 1972, ‘The Nature of Quantum Mechanical Reality’, in Paradims and Paradoxes, op. cit. pp. 67–302.Google Scholar
- Jauch, J. M.: 1968, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Popper, K.: 1971, ‘Particle Annihilation and the Argument of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen’, in Perspectives in Quantum Theory, Yourgrau W. and van der Merwe A. (eds.), Dover Books, pp. 182–198.Google Scholar