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:1412.6987 · Open Systems & Information Dynamics

Bell Could Become the Copernicus of Probability

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Published Jun 1, 2016• 13 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Our aim is to emphasize the role of mathematical models in physics, especially models of geometry and probability. We briefly compare developments of geometry and probability by pointing to similarities and differences: from Euclid to Lobachevsky and from Kolmogorov to Bell. In probability, Bell could play the same role as Lobachevsky in geometry. In fact, violation of Bell’s inequality can be treated as implying the impossibility to apply the classical probability model of Kolmogorov (1933) to quantum phenomena. Thus the quantum probabilistic model (based on Born’s rule) can be considered as the concrete example of the non-Kolmogorovian model of probability, similarly to the Lobachevskian model — the first example of the non-Euclidean model of geometry. This is the “probability model” interpretation of the violation of Bell’s inequality. We also criticize the standard interpretation—an attempt to add to rigorous mathematical probability models additional elements such as (non)locality and (un)realism. Finally, we compare embeddings of non-Euclidean geometries into the Euclidean space with embeddings of the non-Kolmogorovian probabilities (in particular, quantum probability) into the Kolmogorov probability space. As an example, we consider the CHSH-test.

DOI
10.1142/s1230161216500086

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

Two-slit experiment: quantum and classical probabilities

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Inter-relation between quantum and classical probability models is one of the most fundamental problems of quantum foundations. Nowadays this problem also plays an important role in quantum technologies, in quantum cryptography and the theory of quantum random generators. In this letter, we compare the viewpoint of Richard Feynman that the behavior of quantum particles cannot be described by classical probability theory with the viewpoint that quantum–classical inter-relation is more complicated (cf, in particular, with the tomographic model of quantum mechanics developed in detail by Vladimir Man'ko). As a basic example, we consider the two-slit experiment, which played a crucial role in quantum foundational debates at the beginning of quantum mechanics (QM). In particular, its analysis led Niels Bohr to the formulation of the principle of complementarity. First, we demonstrate that in complete accordance with Feynman's viewpoint, the probabilities for the two-slit experiment have the non-Kolmogorovian structure, since they violate one of basic laws of classical probability theory, the law of total probability (the heart of the Bayesian analysis). However, then we show that these probabilities can be embedded in a natural way into the classical (Kolmogorov, 1933) probability model. To do this, one has to take into account the randomness of selection of different experimental contexts, the joint consideration of which led Feynman to a conclusion about the non-classicality of quantum probability. We compare this embedding of non-Kolmogorovian quantum probabilities into the Kolmogorov model with well-known embeddings of non-Euclidean geometries into Euclidean space (e.g., the Poincaré disk model for the Lobachvesky plane).

Physica Scripta•Jun 1, 2015•8 citations

On the applicability of Kolmogorov's theory of probability to the description of quantum phenomena. Part II: Bell inequalities

Maik Reddiger

Among the various "no-go theorems" in the foundations of quantum mechanics, Bell inequalities are among the few, which do not implicitly rely on the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. Instead, Bell inequalities are commonly understood to rest on Kolmogorov's theory of probability and a "locality" assumption. Physical evidence supporting their violation is hence taken as evidence against at least one of these two assumptions. This work provides a comprehensive analysis of the physical debate on Bell inequalities from the point of view of Kolmogorov's theory of probability, focusing on the Bell-Clauser-Horn-Shimony-Holt inequality (BCHSH inequality). The central contribution is the motivation and mathematical study of the notion of contextuality in Bell experiments: in so-called contextual Bell models the detectors themselves behave randomly and the distribution of the random detector parameters depends on the chosen detector settings. It is shown how even "classical" Bell experiments motivate such a description. The need to account for contextuality was pointed out before by de la Peña, Cetto, Brody, Lochak, Bohm, Hiley and others. A broad class of contextual models is proven to satisfy the BCHSH inequality, thereby generalizing a previous result by Gill and Lambare. Nonetheless, even under strong locality requirements, contextual Bell models may violate the BCHSH inequality: based on work by Popescu and Rohrlich, we consider a "proof of concept" example exhibiting the maximum possible violation. Contrary to the much debated "loopholes" in empirical tests of Bell inequalities, contextuality thus reveals a conceptual misunderstanding in the physical conclusions commonly drawn from Bell inequality violations.

quant-pharXiv:2609.31075•Sep 28, 2026•0 citations

Wigner's inequality for conditional probabilities and nonexistence of a realistic model for the two dimensional Hilbert space

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

We perform the analysis of probabilistic assumptions of Bell's approach. We emphasize that J. Bell wrote about probability without to specify the concrete axiomatics of probability theory. The careful analysis demonstrated that (surprisingly) J. Bell did not apply the classical probability model (Kolmogorov) to describe ``classical physical framework.'' In fact, he created his own probabilistic model and compared it with the quantum one. The crucial point is that J. Bell did not pay attention to {\it conditional probabilities.} We show that conditional probability in his model cannot be defined by classical Bayes' formula. We also use the approach based on Bell-type inequalities in the conventional probabilistic approach, Kolmogorov model. We prove an analog of Wigner's inequality for conditional probabilities and by using this inequality show that predictions of the conventional and quantum probability models disagree already in the case of noncomposite systems (even in the two dimensional case).

arXiv:quant-ph/0308078•Aug 14, 2003•3 citations

Foundations of quantum probability

Luigi Accardi

The main thesis advocated in the present paper is that some well-established laws of classical probability theory (typically the theorem of composite probabilities) are model dependent assertions, like some theorems of Euclidean geometry. In Sections (1) and (2) we briefly describe how this thesis is framed in the wider context of quantum probability and how it can throw some light on the open debate concerning the interpretation of quantum theory, as well as on the necessity of using a non-Kolmogorovian model in quantum theory. In Sections (3), (4) and (5) we show that the general ideas formulated in Sections (1) and (2), when given a precise mathematical form, allow one to account for all the nonstandard features of the quantum probability model (C -numbers, Hilbert spaces,... ) as well as to exhibit statistical models which are neither Kolmogorovian nor quantum.

•Jan 1, 1982•21 citations

Violation of Bell’s Inequality and non-Kolmogorovness

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov, Luigi Accardi, Guillaume Adenier +5 more

In this paper we would like to stress that, besides two commonly discussed conditions inducing violation of Bell’s inequality—nonlocality and death of realism—there is the third condition having the same consequence. This is the condition of probabilistic incompatibility (PI) of random variables—impossibility to realize them on a single probability space—“non‐Kolmogorovness.” This additional source of violation of Bell’s inequality should be taken into account. We remark that PI can be a consequence of nonlocality or impossibility to use the realistic model. However, PI is essentially more general condition. Random variables can be of the PI‐type even in absence of nonolocal effects.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2009•21 citations
Our aim is to emphasize the role of mathematical models in physics, especially models of geometry and probability. We briefly compare developments of geometry and probability by pointing to similarities and differences: from Euclid to Lobachevsky and from Kolmogorov to Bell. In probability, Bell could play the same role as Lobachevsky in geometry. In fact, violation of Bell’s inequality can be treated as implying the impossibility to apply the classical probability model of Kolmogorov (1933) to quantum phenomena. Thus the quantum probabilistic model (based on Born’s rule) can be considered as the concrete example of the non-Kolmogorovian model of probability, similarly to the Lobachevskian model — the first example of the non-Euclidean model of geometry. This is the “probability model” interpretation of the violation of Bell’s inequality. We also criticize the standard interpretation—an attempt to add to rigorous mathematical probability models additional elements such as (non)locality and (un)realism. Finally, we compare embeddings of non-Euclidean geometries into the Euclidean space with embeddings of the non-Kolmogorovian probabilities (in particular, quantum probability) into the Kolmogorov probability space. As an example, we consider the CHSH-test.
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.
Inter-relation between quantum and classical probability models is one of the most fundamental problems of quantum foundations. Nowadays this problem also plays an important role in quantum technologies, in quantum cryptography and the theory of quantum random generators. In this letter, we compare the viewpoint of Richard Feynman that the behavior of quantum particles cannot be described by classical probability theory with the viewpoint that quantum–classical inter-relation is more complicated (cf, in particular, with the tomographic model of quantum mechanics developed in detail by Vladimir Man'ko). As a basic example, we consider the two-slit experiment, which played a crucial role in quantum foundational debates at the beginning of quantum mechanics (QM). In particular, its analysis led Niels Bohr to the formulation of the principle of complementarity. First, we demonstrate that in complete accordance with Feynman's viewpoint, the probabilities for the two-slit experiment have the non-Kolmogorovian structure, since they violate one of basic laws of classical probability theory, the law of total probability (the heart of the Bayesian analysis). However, then we show that these probabilities can be embedded in a natural way into the classical (Kolmogorov, 1933) probability model. To do this, one has to take into account the randomness of selection of different experimental contexts, the joint consideration of which led Feynman to a conclusion about the non-classicality of quantum probability. We compare this embedding of non-Kolmogorovian quantum probabilities into the Kolmogorov model with well-known embeddings of non-Euclidean geometries into Euclidean space (e.g., the Poincaré disk model for the Lobachvesky plane).
Among the various "no-go theorems" in the foundations of quantum mechanics, Bell inequalities are among the few, which do not implicitly rely on the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. Instead, Bell inequalities are commonly understood to rest on Kolmogorov's theory of probability and a "locality" assumption. Physical evidence supporting their violation is hence taken as evidence against at least one of these two assumptions. This work provides a comprehensive analysis of the physical debate on Bell inequalities from the point of view of Kolmogorov's theory of probability, focusing on the Bell-Clauser-Horn-Shimony-Holt inequality (BCHSH inequality). The central contribution is the motivation and mathematical study of the notion of contextuality in Bell experiments: in so-called contextual Bell models the detectors themselves behave randomly and the distribution of the random detector parameters depends on the chosen detector settings. It is shown how even "classical" Bell experiments motivate such a description. The need to account for contextuality was pointed out before by de la Peña, Cetto, Brody, Lochak, Bohm, Hiley and others. A broad class of contextual models is proven to satisfy the BCHSH inequality, thereby generalizing a previous result by Gill and Lambare. Nonetheless, even under strong locality requirements, contextual Bell models may violate the BCHSH inequality: based on work by Popescu and Rohrlich, we consider a "proof of concept" example exhibiting the maximum possible violation. Contrary to the much debated "loopholes" in empirical tests of Bell inequalities, contextuality thus reveals a conceptual misunderstanding in the physical conclusions commonly drawn from Bell inequality violations.
We perform the analysis of probabilistic assumptions of Bell's approach. We emphasize that J. Bell wrote about probability without to specify the concrete axiomatics of probability theory. The careful analysis demonstrated that (surprisingly) J. Bell did not apply the classical probability model (Kolmogorov) to describe ``classical physical framework.'' In fact, he created his own probabilistic model and compared it with the quantum one. The crucial point is that J. Bell did not pay attention to {\it conditional probabilities.} We show that conditional probability in his model cannot be defined by classical Bayes' formula. We also use the approach based on Bell-type inequalities in the conventional probabilistic approach, Kolmogorov model. We prove an analog of Wigner's inequality for conditional probabilities and by using this inequality show that predictions of the conventional and quantum probability models disagree already in the case of noncomposite systems (even in the two dimensional case).
The main thesis advocated in the present paper is that some well-established laws of classical probability theory (typically the theorem of composite probabilities) are model dependent assertions, like some theorems of Euclidean geometry. In Sections (1) and (2) we briefly describe how this thesis is framed in the wider context of quantum probability and how it can throw some light on the open debate concerning the interpretation of quantum theory, as well as on the necessity of using a non-Kolmogorovian model in quantum theory. In Sections (3), (4) and (5) we show that the general ideas formulated in Sections (1) and (2), when given a precise mathematical form, allow one to account for all the nonstandard features of the quantum probability model (C -numbers, Hilbert spaces,... ) as well as to exhibit statistical models which are neither Kolmogorovian nor quantum.
In this paper we would like to stress that, besides two commonly discussed conditions inducing violation of Bell’s inequality—nonlocality and death of realism—there is the third condition having the same consequence. This is the condition of probabilistic incompatibility (PI) of random variables—impossibility to realize them on a single probability space—“non‐Kolmogorovness.” This additional source of violation of Bell’s inequality should be taken into account. We remark that PI can be a consequence of nonlocality or impossibility to use the realistic model. However, PI is essentially more general condition. Random variables can be of the PI‐type even in absence of nonolocal effects.