Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1012.2536

Is realism compatible with true randomness ?

Nicolas Gisin

Published Dec 12, 2010• 4 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

It is argued that realism and true randomness are fully compatible. Realistic true random events are acts of pure creation that obey strict laws, but do not necessarily satisfy Kolmogorov's axioms of probabilities. Realistic true randomness is some sort of nondeterministic force, or propensity of physical systems to manifest such and such properties under such and such conditions. Realistic random events reflect preexisting properties, as required by realism, simply the reflection is not deterministic; still, the preexisting properties determine the propensities of the different possible events. It is argued that deterministic extensions of quantum physics are necessarily incompatible with special relativity. Hence, from today's violations of Bell's inequalities one can conclude that all future physics theories will display true randomness as does quantum physics. It is argued that accepting true randomness and realism leads to new questions with interesting answers, allowing one 1) to study nonlocality in configurations with many independent sources and 2) to bound how much free will is needed for a proper violation of Bell's inequality.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1012.2536

Related papers

Bell's inequality: Physics meets Probability

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

We remind the viewpoint that violation of Bell's inequality might be interpreted not only as an evidence of the alternative -- either nonlocality or ``death of reality'' (under the assumption the quantum mechanics is incomplete). Violation of Bell's type inequalities is a well known sufficient condition of incompatibility of random variables -- impossibility to realize them on a single probability space. Thus, in fact, we should take into account an additional interpretation of violation of Bell's inequality -- a few pairs of random variables (two dimensional vector variables) involved in the EPR-Bohm experiment are incompatible. They could not be realized on a single Kolmogorov probability space. Thus one can choose between: a) completeness of quantum mechanics; b) nonlocality; c) `` death of reality''; d) non-Kolmogorovness. In any event, violation of Bell's inequality has a variety of possible interpretations. Hence, it could not be used to derive the unique conclusion on the relation between quantum and classical models.

arXiv:0709.3909•Sep 25, 2007•32 citations

Experiment indicates that Realism, not Locality, is false in Quantum Mechanics

Mónica Agüero, Bordieu, Juliana, Hnilo, Alejandro +2 more

The interpretation of the meaning of Quantum Mechanics has faced controversy since its inception. Bell's inequalities are a touchstone in this controversy. Their observed violation demonstrates that at least one of the hypotheses involved in their derivation and test is false in Nature. In principle, one has to choose between accepting that Locality is false, what implies a possible contradiction with the Theory of Relativity, or accepting that Realism is false, what means to give up the existence of a physical world independent of the observer. The right answer has consequences both foundational and practical, and theoretical discussions have searched it for decades. We report the results of a Bell's experiment designed and performed to add observational information to the discussion. Three proposals to reveal the false hypothesis are carried out, namely: search of attractors in time series of observations, variation of randomness of binary series of outcomes between space-like and not-space-like separated conditions of observation, and test of a bound of Kolmogorov's complexity. The results are consistent with the absence of the specific form of Realism usually involved in the derivation of Bell's inequalities, while remaining compatible with Locality within the sensitivity of the tests. Independently of the foundational problem and of any interpretation, some bare observations have immediate practical impact on the best use of device-independent quantum Random Number Generators and Quantum Key Distribution.

arXiv:2504.03921•Apr 4, 2025•0 citations

Potentiality realism: a realistic and indeterministic physics based on propensities

Flavio Del Santo, Nicolas Gisin

Abstract We propose an interpretation of physics named potentiality realism . This view, which can be applied to classical as well as to quantum physics, regards potentialities (i.e. intrinsic, objective propensities for individual events to obtain) as elements of reality, thereby complementing the actual properties taken by physical variables. This allows one to naturally reconcile realism and fundamental indeterminism in any theoretical framework. We discuss our specific interpretation of propensities, that require them to depart from being probabilities at the formal level, though allowing for statistics and the law of large numbers. This view helps reconcile classical and quantum physics by showing that most of the conceptual problems that are customarily taken to be unique issues of the latter -- such as the measurement problem -- are actually in common to all indeterministic physical theories.

arXiv:2305.02429•European Journal for Philosophy of Science•Dec 1, 2023•10 citations

Bell's Inequality, Quantum Measurement and Einstein Realism: A Unified Perspective

J. V. Corbett, Dipankar Home

The logical foundations of Bell's inequality are reexamined. We argue that the form of the reality condition that underpins Bell's inequality comes from the requirement of solving the quantum measurement problem. Hence any violation of Bell's inequality necessarily implies nonlocality because of the measurement problem. The differences in the implications of deterministic and stochastic formulations of Bell's inequality are highlighted. The reality condition used in Bell's inequality is shown to be a generalisation of Einstein's later form of realism.

arXiv:0802.2443•Feb 18, 2008•2 citations

Statistics, Causality and Bell’s Theorem

Richard David Gill

Bell’s [Physics 1 (1964) 195–200] theorem is popularly supposed to establish the nonlocality of quantum physics. Violation of Bell’s inequality in experiments such as that of Aspect, Dalibard and Roger [Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 1804–1807] provides empirical proof of nonlocality in the real world. This paper reviews recent work on Bell’s theorem, linking it to issues in causality as understood by statisticians. The paper starts with a proof of a strong, finite sample, version of Bell’s inequality and thereby also of Bell’s theorem, which states that quantum theory is incompatible with the conjunction of three formerly uncontroversial physical principles, here referred to as locality, realism and freedom. Locality is the principle that the direction of causality matches the direction of time, and that causal influences need time to propagate spatially. Realism and freedom are directly connected to statistical thinking on causality: they relate to counterfactual reasoning, and to randomisation, respectively. Experimental loopholes in state-of-the-art Bell type experiments are related to statistical issues of post-selection in observational studies, and the missing at random assumption. They can be avoided by properly matching the statistical analysis to the actual experimental design, instead of by making untestable assumptions of independence between observed and unobserved variables. Methodological and statistical issues in the design of quantum Randi challenges (QRC) are discussed. The paper argues that Bell’s theorem (and its experimental confirmation) should lead us to relinquish not locality, but realism.

arXiv:1207.5103•Statistical Science•Nov 1, 2014•94 citations

On the applicability of Kolmogorov’s theory of probability to the description of quantum phenomena. Part I: foundations

Maik Reddiger

Abstract By formulating the axioms of quantum mechanics, von Neumann also laid the foundations of a “quantum probability theory”. As such, it is regarded a generalization of the “classical probability theory” due to Kolmogorov. Outside of quantum physics, however, Kolmogorov’s axioms enjoy universal applicability. This raises the question of whether quantum physics indeed requires such a generalization of our conception of probability or if von Neumann’s axiomatization of quantum mechanics was contingent on the absence of a general theory of probability in the 1920s. This work argues in favor of the latter position. In particular, it shows how to construct a mathematically rigorous theory for non-relativistic N -body quantum systems subject to a time-independent scalar potential, which is based on Kolmogorov’s axioms and physically natural random variables. Though this theory is provably distinct from its quantum-mechanical analog, it nonetheless reproduces central predictions of the latter. Further work may make an empirical comparison possible. Moreover, the approach can in principle be adapted to other classes of quantum-mechanical models. Part II of this series discusses the empirical violation of Bell inequalities in the context of this approach. Part III addresses the projection postulate and the question of measurement.

arXiv:2405.05710•Quantum Studies Mathematics and Foundations•Oct 23, 2025•2 citations
It is argued that realism and true randomness are fully compatible. Realistic true random events are acts of pure creation that obey strict laws, but do not necessarily satisfy Kolmogorov's axioms of probabilities. Realistic true randomness is some sort of nondeterministic force, or propensity of physical systems to manifest such and such properties under such and such conditions. Realistic random events reflect preexisting properties, as required by realism, simply the reflection is not deterministic; still, the preexisting properties determine the propensities of the different possible events. It is argued that deterministic extensions of quantum physics are necessarily incompatible with special relativity. Hence, from today's violations of Bell's inequalities one can conclude that all future physics theories will display true randomness as does quantum physics. It is argued that accepting true randomness and realism leads to new questions with interesting answers, allowing one 1) to study nonlocality in configurations with many independent sources and 2) to bound how much free will is needed for a proper violation of Bell's inequality.
We remind the viewpoint that violation of Bell's inequality might be interpreted not only as an evidence of the alternative -- either nonlocality or ``death of reality'' (under the assumption the quantum mechanics is incomplete). Violation of Bell's type inequalities is a well known sufficient condition of incompatibility of random variables -- impossibility to realize them on a single probability space. Thus, in fact, we should take into account an additional interpretation of violation of Bell's inequality -- a few pairs of random variables (two dimensional vector variables) involved in the EPR-Bohm experiment are incompatible. They could not be realized on a single Kolmogorov probability space. Thus one can choose between: a) completeness of quantum mechanics; b) nonlocality; c) `` death of reality''; d) non-Kolmogorovness. In any event, violation of Bell's inequality has a variety of possible interpretations. Hence, it could not be used to derive the unique conclusion on the relation between quantum and classical models.
The interpretation of the meaning of Quantum Mechanics has faced controversy since its inception. Bell's inequalities are a touchstone in this controversy. Their observed violation demonstrates that at least one of the hypotheses involved in their derivation and test is false in Nature. In principle, one has to choose between accepting that Locality is false, what implies a possible contradiction with the Theory of Relativity, or accepting that Realism is false, what means to give up the existence of a physical world independent of the observer. The right answer has consequences both foundational and practical, and theoretical discussions have searched it for decades. We report the results of a Bell's experiment designed and performed to add observational information to the discussion. Three proposals to reveal the false hypothesis are carried out, namely: search of attractors in time series of observations, variation of randomness of binary series of outcomes between space-like and not-space-like separated conditions of observation, and test of a bound of Kolmogorov's complexity. The results are consistent with the absence of the specific form of Realism usually involved in the derivation of Bell's inequalities, while remaining compatible with Locality within the sensitivity of the tests. Independently of the foundational problem and of any interpretation, some bare observations have immediate practical impact on the best use of device-independent quantum Random Number Generators and Quantum Key Distribution.
Abstract We propose an interpretation of physics named potentiality realism . This view, which can be applied to classical as well as to quantum physics, regards potentialities (i.e. intrinsic, objective propensities for individual events to obtain) as elements of reality, thereby complementing the actual properties taken by physical variables. This allows one to naturally reconcile realism and fundamental indeterminism in any theoretical framework. We discuss our specific interpretation of propensities, that require them to depart from being probabilities at the formal level, though allowing for statistics and the law of large numbers. This view helps reconcile classical and quantum physics by showing that most of the conceptual problems that are customarily taken to be unique issues of the latter -- such as the measurement problem -- are actually in common to all indeterministic physical theories.
The logical foundations of Bell's inequality are reexamined. We argue that the form of the reality condition that underpins Bell's inequality comes from the requirement of solving the quantum measurement problem. Hence any violation of Bell's inequality necessarily implies nonlocality because of the measurement problem. The differences in the implications of deterministic and stochastic formulations of Bell's inequality are highlighted. The reality condition used in Bell's inequality is shown to be a generalisation of Einstein's later form of realism.
Bell’s [Physics 1 (1964) 195–200] theorem is popularly supposed to establish the nonlocality of quantum physics. Violation of Bell’s inequality in experiments such as that of Aspect, Dalibard and Roger [Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 1804–1807] provides empirical proof of nonlocality in the real world. This paper reviews recent work on Bell’s theorem, linking it to issues in causality as understood by statisticians. The paper starts with a proof of a strong, finite sample, version of Bell’s inequality and thereby also of Bell’s theorem, which states that quantum theory is incompatible with the conjunction of three formerly uncontroversial physical principles, here referred to as locality, realism and freedom. Locality is the principle that the direction of causality matches the direction of time, and that causal influences need time to propagate spatially. Realism and freedom are directly connected to statistical thinking on causality: they relate to counterfactual reasoning, and to randomisation, respectively. Experimental loopholes in state-of-the-art Bell type experiments are related to statistical issues of post-selection in observational studies, and the missing at random assumption. They can be avoided by properly matching the statistical analysis to the actual experimental design, instead of by making untestable assumptions of independence between observed and unobserved variables. Methodological and statistical issues in the design of quantum Randi challenges (QRC) are discussed. The paper argues that Bell’s theorem (and its experimental confirmation) should lead us to relinquish not locality, but realism.
Abstract By formulating the axioms of quantum mechanics, von Neumann also laid the foundations of a “quantum probability theory”. As such, it is regarded a generalization of the “classical probability theory” due to Kolmogorov. Outside of quantum physics, however, Kolmogorov’s axioms enjoy universal applicability. This raises the question of whether quantum physics indeed requires such a generalization of our conception of probability or if von Neumann’s axiomatization of quantum mechanics was contingent on the absence of a general theory of probability in the 1920s. This work argues in favor of the latter position. In particular, it shows how to construct a mathematically rigorous theory for non-relativistic N -body quantum systems subject to a time-independent scalar potential, which is based on Kolmogorov’s axioms and physically natural random variables. Though this theory is provably distinct from its quantum-mechanical analog, it nonetheless reproduces central predictions of the latter. Further work may make an empirical comparison possible. Moreover, the approach can in principle be adapted to other classes of quantum-mechanical models. Part II of this series discusses the empirical violation of Bell inequalities in the context of this approach. Part III addresses the projection postulate and the question of measurement.