The relational interpretation of quantum mechanics (RQM) has received a growing interest since its first formulation in 1996. Usually presented as an interpretational layer over the usual quantum mechanics formalism, it appears as a philosophical perspective without proper mathematical counterparts. This state of affairs has direct consequences on the scientific debate on RQM which still suffers from misunderstandings and imprecise statements. In an attempt to clarify those debates, the present paper proposes a radical reformulation of the mathematical framework of quantum (...) mechanics which is relational from the start: fact-nets. The core idea is that all statements about the world, facts, are binary entities involving two systems that can be symmetrically thought of as observed and observer. We initiate a study of the fact-nets formalism and outline how it can shed new relational light on some familiar quantum features. (shrink)

Observables have a dual nature in both classical and quantum kinematics: they are at the same time quantities, allowing to separate states by means of their numerical values, and generators of transformations, establishing relations between different states. In this work, we show how this twofold role of observables constitutes a key feature in the conceptual analysis of classical and quantum kinematics, shedding a new light on the distinguishing feature of the quantum at the kinematical level. We first take a look (...) at the algebraic description of both classical and quantum observables in terms of Jordan–Lie algebras and show how the two algebraic structures are the precise mathematical manifestation of the twofold role of observables. Then, we turn to the geometric reformulation of quantum kinematics in terms of Kähler manifolds. A key achievement of this reformulation is to show that the twofold role of observables is the constitutive ingredient defining what an observable is. Moreover, it points to the fact that, from the restricted point of view of the transformational role of observables, classical and quantum kinematics behave in exactly the same way. Finally, we present Landsman’s general framework of Poisson spaces with transition probability, which highlights with unmatched clarity that the crucial difference between the two kinematics lies in the way the two roles of observables are related to each other. (shrink)

Observables have a dual nature in both classical and quantum kinematics: they are at the same time quantities, allowing to separate states by means of their numerical values, and generators of transformations, establishing relations between different states. In this work, we show how this twofold role of observables constitutes a key feature in the conceptual analysis of classical and quantum kinematics, shedding a new light on the distinguishing feature of the quantum at the kinematical level. We first take a look (...) at the algebraic description of both classical and quantum observables in terms of Jordan–Lie algebras and show how the two algebraic structures are the precise mathematical manifestation of the twofold role of observables. Then, we turn to the geometric reformulation of quantum kinematics in terms of Kähler manifolds. A key achievement of this reformulation is to show that the twofold role of observables is the constitutive ingredient defining what an observable is. Moreover, it points to the fact that, from the restricted point of view of the transformational role of observables, classical and quantum kinematics behave in exactly the same way. Finally, we present Landsman’s general framework of Poisson spaces with transition probability, which highlights with unmatched clarity that the crucial difference between the two kinematics lies in the way the two roles of observables are related to each other. (shrink)

When dealing with a certain class of physical systems, the mathematical characterization of a generic system aims to describe the phase portrait of all its possible states. Because they are defined only up to isomorphism, the mathematical objects involved are “schematic structures”. If one imposes the condition that these mathematical definitions completely capture the physical information of a given system, one is led to a strong requirement of individuation for physical states. However, we show there are not enough qualitatively distinct (...) properties in an abstract Hilbert space to fulfill such a requirement. It thus appears there is a fundamental tension between the physicist’s purpose in providing a mathematical definition of a mechanical system and a feature of the basic formalism used in the theory. We will show how group theory provides tools to overcome this tension and to define physical properties. (shrink)