Classical version of QM axioms

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the search for information regarding the axiomatic treatment of classical physics, particularly in relation to the Dirac-Von Neumann axioms of quantum mechanics. The original poster expresses difficulty in finding resources that outline the classical version of these axioms, where observables are treated as random variables. They note the existence of various philosophical attempts to axiomatize physics, but clarify that these are distinct from the specific axiomatization they seek. A suggestion is made to utilize Google for further research, indicating that some classical content may have been overlooked in previous searches. The conversation highlights a gap in accessible resources on classical axiomatic frameworks in physics.
Logic Cloud
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I am looking for more information on the axiomatic treatment of physics. I have found some articles concerning the axioms of quantum mechanics, i.e. the Dirac-Von Neumann axioms. However, I am having a hard time finding anything on the classical version of these axioms. In these axioms, observables are represented by random variables, for instance. There also seem to be numerous attemps of philosphers to axiomatise physics, but these seem to distinct from the particular axiomatisation I am searching for. Can someone help me find some more information?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Logic Cloud said:
Hello,

I am looking for more information on the axiomatic treatment of physics. I have found some articles concerning the axioms of quantum mechanics, i.e. the Dirac-Von Neumann axioms. However, I am having a hard time finding anything on the classical version of these axioms. In these axioms, observables are represented by random variables, for instance. There also seem to be numerous attemps of philosphers to axiomatise physics, but these seem to distinct from the particular axiomatisation I am searching for. Can someone help me find some more information?

Hell lot of information here:

https://www.google.co.in/#hl=en&tbo...56,d.bmk&fp=6918368d471197b7&biw=1024&bih=653

Professor google is useful sort of thing.
 
My apologies, I had of course googled it but it seems I overlooked the classical content of some of the links. Many thanks.
 

Thread 'Need help understanding particle physics and quantum physics'

So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
View full post »

Similar threads

I Born rule as an axiom or as a theorem?
Replies
7
Views
2K
A Concrete examples of randomness in math vs. probability theory
Replies
11
Views
3K
A Formal axiom systems and the finite/infinite sets
Replies
10
Views
2K
A Is irreducibility justified as a Wightman axiom?
Replies
4
Views
2K
I 'Formulations' of Physical Theories: Overview?
Replies
2
Views
14K
A Is QM Foundations Facing a Crisis?
Replies
31
Views
5K
I Classical/QM justification of principle of least action
Replies
6
Views
2K
I What Do Most Physicists Call the Quantum-To-Classical Cut?
Replies
24
Views
3K
A What Constitutes a Natural Completion of a Physical Theory?
Replies
6
Views
2K
B Doesn't the choice of measurement prove free will
2
Replies
65
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top