Axiomatization of quantum mechanics and physics in general ?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the axiomatization of quantum mechanics and its relationship with mathematical formulations in physics. Participants explore the implications of formal systems, the nature of proofs in mathematics and physics, and the mapping of physical concepts to mathematical objects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that every physical theory is expressed through mathematical objects, necessitating a set of rules to map physical concepts to these objects.
  • Others argue that there is a relationship between axiomatic formulations and mathematical formulations, suggesting that formal proofs in mathematics correspond to theorems derived from axioms.
  • A participant highlights that while formal proofs exist for many mathematical statements, the interpretation of symbols in relation to experiments and observations remains a challenge.
  • Some contributions emphasize the need for intuitive notions when interpreting mathematical symbols in physics, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics.
  • A later reply discusses the application of formal mathematical systems to real-world phenomena, noting that the mapping of formal objects to physical entities is often assumed rather than explicitly stated.
  • One participant mentions the fundamental axiom in quantum mechanics regarding observations and measurements, indicating that this leads to interpretational challenges within the field.
  • There is a mention of different interpretations of probability in applied mathematics, with some preferring a frequentist view while others consider Bayesian interpretations, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the relationship between axiomatization and mathematical formulation, as well as the interpretation of symbols in physics. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to these topics.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of mathematical objects and the unresolved nature of how symbols correspond to physical observations. The discussion also reflects varying interpretations of probability and the implications for quantum mechanics.

  • #211
atyy said:
Where did you learn to derive CHSH?

Originally a combination of an introduction to Bell's theorem by Travis Norsen [arXiv:0707.0401 [quant-ph]], one of Bell's explanations ["The theory of local Beables"], and just sitting down and working it out. I'd read both Bell's original 1964 article the 1969 CHSH article before that but didn't find the reasoning quite as clear.

Deriving the local bound on a given linear Bell correlator isn't really an issue though. Like you pointed out earlier in post #192, it's sufficient to consider deterministic models. You can always work out the local bound on a linear Bell correlator just by maximising it over the set of local deterministic strategies (i.e., deterministic ways of mapping inputs ##x## and ##y## to outputs ##a_{x}## and ##b_{y}##), and there are a finite number of these (e.g., there are sixteen in the situation that the CHSH correlator applies to).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 113 ·
4
Replies
113
Views
10K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K