We study the possibility to describe pure quantum states and evens with classical probability distributions and conditional probabilities and show that the distributions and/or conditional probabilities have to assume negative values, except for a simple model whose realistic space dimension is not smaller than the Hilbert space dimension of the quantum system. This gives a negative answer to a question proposed by Montina [Phys.Rev.Lett.{\bf 97}, 180401 (2006)] whether or not does there exist a classical theory whose phase-space dimension is much smaller than the Hilbert space dimension for any quantum system. Thus, any realistic theory of quantum mechanics with nonnegative probability distributions and conditional probabilities requires a number of variables grows exponentially with the physical size.
We study the possibility to describe pure quantum states and evens with classical probability distributions and conditional probabilities and show that the distributions and/or conditional probabilities have to assume negative values, except for a simple model whose realistic space dimension is not smaller than the Hilbert space dimension of the quantum system. This gives a negative answer to a question proposed by Montina [Phys.Rev.Lett.{\bf 97}, 180401 (2006)] whether or not does there exist a classical theory whose phase-space dimension is much smaller than the Hilbert space dimension for any quantum system. Thus, any realistic theory of quantum mechanics with nonnegative probability distributions and conditional probabilities requires a number of variables grows exponentially with the physical size.
In quantum physics, the density operator completely describes the state. Instead, in classical physics the mean value of physical quantities is evaluated by means of a probability distribution. We study the possibility to describe pure quantum states and events with classical probability distributions and conditional probabilities and prove that the distributions have to be nonlinear functions of the density operator. Some examples are considered. Finally, we deal with the exponential complexity problem of quantum physics and introduce the concept of classical dimension for a quantum system.
It is a scientific truism nowadays that quantum mechanical predictions are of statistical or rather of probabilistic nature: a quantum theory assigns a probability distribution to each measurable quantity (observable) of a physical system prepared according to a given preparation prescription (state). Such sets of probability distributions represent the most general quantitative predictions of physical theories. The aim of this study is to determine all theoretical frameworks which yield such a kind of output taking the probabilistic nature of quantitative physical predictions as initial hypothesis. Astonishingly, this project succeeds with a minimal number of additional assumptions, which arise quite naturally in the course of the analysis, and which essentially amount to regularity conditions. The result is that there exist only two classes of physical theories providing quantitative probabilistic predictions: classical theories where observables are represented by real functions over a phase space and states are represented by probability measures upon the phase space, and quantum theories where observables are represented by selfadjoint operators acting on a complex Hilbert space and states are represented by state operators. On empirical grounds, classical theories cannot provide the all-encompassing, fundamental frame for the mathematical description of physical systems. Quantum theories remain, and there is no more complete formal frame for quantitative physical theories. As an additional result, it is shown that there exist physical systems which possess a quantum mechanical but no classical description; a prominent example is the spin system of two spin-1/2 particles. The classical hidden variables model, which J. Bell relates to this system in order to prove his theorem, cannot be a true description of it because no such classical model exists, and Bell's theorem loses its foundation.
The nature of quantum description is clarified. It is shown that complex-valued probability amplitudes are admissible within classical Hamiltonian mechanics. According to standard probability theory, such a description is always possible. The case of a spherical phase space is considered. It is shown that, in such a classical theory, there appears a universal constant that has dimensions of action ( h ), as well as Fock space and all attributes of quantum mechanics. Excitations of a chain of such systems are described by the equations of quantum mechanics with a correct normalization condition. It is shown that an answer to the question of what a particle and its wave function are is provided by quantum field theory (these are a single-particle field excitation and a function that describes it). Experiments are proposed that would make it possible to solve the problem of the physical nature of the wave function.
The Question of the Completeness of Quantum Mechanics When a classical system is in a pure state, that is, when its preparation represents maximal information, the value of every physical quantity is uniquely predicted. In other words, classical pure states are dispersion-free, and classical mechanics is deterministic. Only in case the state is nonpure, thus representing nonmaximal information about the system, does probability enter into the theory. Things are different with quantum systems. Even in case the state of the system is pure, it is impossible to predict a definite value of every physical quantity: only the probability distributions of the physical quantities are given. Pure quantum states have dispersion (though, of course, they can be dispersion-free for particular physical quantities), and probability enters into quantum theory at a much more fundamental level. The basic idea of so-called hidden-variable theories is to reject the fundamental role of probability in quantum theory and to argue that probability arises because quantum states, even the pure ones, do not represent the ultimate information about the system. Accordingly, it is conjectured that there are certain hidden variables, not yet subject to experimental detection, which would complete the information carried by the quantum states, thus giving rise to so precise a knowledge of the system that probabilities would disappear and precise values of all physical quantities would be uniquely determined.
Does there exist a limit for the applicability of quantum theory for objects of large mass or size, or objects whose states are of large complexity or dimension of the Hilbert space? The possible answers range from practical limitations due to decoherence within quantum theory to fundamental limits due to collapse models that modify quantum theory. Here, we suggest the viewpoint that there might be also fundamental limits without altering the quantum laws. We first demonstrate that for two quantum spins systems of a given spin length, no violation of local realism can be observed, if the measurements are sufficiently coarse-grained. Then we show that there exists a fundamental limit for the precision of measurements due to (i) the Heisenberg uncertainty relation which has to be applied to the measuring apparatus, (ii) relativistic causality, and (iii) the finiteness of resources in any laboratory including the whole universe. This suggests that there might exist a limit for the size of the systems (dimension of the Hilbert space) above which no violation of local realism can be seen anymore.
Even after a hundred years of quantum theory, the true meaning of the quantum state has not yet been clearly understood. Does a pure quantum state, described by a wave function φ, represent a real physical quantity, comparable to position and momentum in classical mechanics, or does it, even as a pure state, only have a statistical significance, similar to a probability distribution? In this paper, we show that there is no contradiction between these two interpretations. Two concepts must be distinguished here: on the one hand, physical objects, which have a finite lifetime, and on the other hand, subsystems (i.e., tensor factors) of the Hilbert space of the universe. A complete description of an object at a point in time t is given by a linear subspace A of its Hilbert space, which, in the case of dim A = 1, can be specified by a wave function φ as A = [φ]. However, for every subsystem Q, for each point in time t, and for every condition B, the conditional quantum state W = W(Q,t|B) can be defined as a statistical operator on the Hilbert space of Q. Using W, certain (conditional) probabilities can be calculated. In the case of rank W = 1, the operator W can also be specified by a wave function φ, namely as W = |φ><φ|. It is the subsystems of the Hilbert space that play the role of "quantum systems" in the Copenhagen formalism, and the quantum states defined for them behave exactly as described by this formalism. If a wave function φ represents the description of a (quantum) object, then we are dealing with a real physical property, that is, φ plays an "ontic" role. However, if φ represents a quantum state, then its role is merely "statistical". If, in this case, condition B corresponds to the knowledge of a subject, φ plays an "epistemic" role. Additional Remarks The reasoning in this paper is largely based on a new systematic approach to solving the interpretation problem of quantum theory, which was originally published in 2018 (in German) under the title "Realistische Quantentheorie". A comprehensive account of this approach (in English) was published in February 2026 under the title "Realistic Quantum Theory: Solving the Interpretation Problem". It is available in the Zenodo repository (zenodo.18644694, see link below under "Related works" / "References"). The present document provides an English version of an earlier paper in German under the same title, which is also available in the Zenodo repository (zenodo.10694813, see link below).