Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Quantum logic
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Introduction == The most notable difference between quantum logic and [[classical logic]] is the failure of the [[propositional logic|propositional]] [[distributive law]]:<ref>Peter Forrest, "Quantum logic" in ''[[Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', vol. 7, 1998. p. 882ff: "[Quantum logic] differs from the standard sentential calculus....The most notable difference is that the distributive laws fail, being replaced by a weaker law known as orthomodularity."</ref> : ''p'' and (''q'' or ''r'') = (''p'' and ''q'') or (''p'' and ''r''), where the symbols ''p'', ''q'' and ''r'' are propositional variables. To illustrate why the distributive law fails, consider a particle moving on a line and (using some system of units where the [[reduced Planck constant]] is 1) let<ref group="Note">Due to technical reasons, it is not possible to represent these propositions as [[Operator (quantum mechanics)|quantum-mechanical operators]]. They are presented here because they are simple enough to enable intuition, and can be considered as limiting cases of operators that ''are'' feasible. See {{Slink||Quantum logic as the logic of observables}} ''et seq.'' for details.</ref> : ''p'' = "the particle has [[momentum]] in the interval {{closed-closed|0, +{{frac|1|6}}}}" : ''q'' = "the particle is in the interval {{closed-closed|β1, 1}}" : ''r'' = "the particle is in the interval {{closed-closed|1, 3}}" We might observe that: : ''p'' and (''q'' or ''r'') = ''true'' in other words, that the state of the particle is a weighted [[quantum superposition|superposition]] of momenta between 0 and +1/6 and positions between β1 and +3. On the other hand, the propositions "''p'' and ''q''" and "''p'' and ''r''" each assert tighter restrictions on simultaneous values of position and momentum than are allowed by the [[uncertainty principle]] (they each have uncertainty 1/3, which is less than the allowed minimum of 1/2). So there are no states that can support either proposition, and : (''p'' and ''q'') or (''p'' and ''r'') = ''false''
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)