Quantum structures do not exist in reality (Q1266057)

The author starts this short paper by setting down what is required of a probability theory (following Kolmogorov an algebra of events and probability measure over them), what is generally agreed about quantum probabilities (following von Neumann and Gleason in terms of density operators over subspaces of Hilbert space) and finally presents the view (following Birkhoff and von Neumann?) that set operations on the subspaces correspond to operations over quantum events. Having set up this framework in just one page, the author immediately rejects it as only a mathematical abstraction and, as we will see soon, untenable. Part two of the paper, also just one page long, presents a simple example illustrating the interest of quantum probabilities -- two one-dimensional subspaces of Hilbert Space H2 demonstrate that one quantum state may assign another orthogonal state a non-zero probability even though the joint probability of the two states is zero. This example alone supports the claim that the subspaces of Hilbert space do not provide an algebra of events and that quantum probabilities are not relative frequencies. Next is presented the view that quantum probabilities are conditional on measurement, and that incorrectly combining probability assignments with different initial conditions is what produces the seemingly non-classical quantum violations of probability theory. In fact three out of four pages in this section detail a simple example of classical conditionals, showing that incorrectly combining such probabilities can lead to apparently non-classical inequalities similar to EPR. Having made this point, the major claim in this paper gets little more than one page. It is stated rather than argued that just as we properly combine classical conditional probabilities by extending the event space of our probability theory to include the conditioning events, so too we can properly combine quantum assignments by similarly enlarging our quantum event space. It is apparently to include the conditioning measurements along with their observed relative frequencies. Here however we are not presented with a simple example, but rather the claim that such a Kolmogorov probability space can be found in quantum theories is set down as a theorem. For the proof, we are referred to a previous publication. The brief conclusion of this paper exaggerates his argument, for example apparently moving from the claim that quantum probabilities are not relative frequencies, to suggest they have nothing to do with reality and hence that quantum logic is meaningless too. All in all one wishes for a less condensed discussion, where each claim is more carefully presented and argued. However the paper is undoubtedly interesting. Other writers (including the reviewer, among others published in this same journal) have previously pointed out the conditional nature of quantum probabilities. We apparently must turn to other papers for the answers to the important questions which inevitably arise, in particular how are these conditional probabilities expressed in Kolmogorovian terms? This reader at least will be turning to the other more substantial publications by this author which are referenced here.