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:1803.06722 · Physical Review A

Excluding joint probabilities from quantum theory

ARMEN E. ALLAHVERDYAN, Arshag Danageozian

Published Mar 14, 2018• 6 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Quantum theory does not provide a unique definition for the joint probability of two noncommuting observables, which is the next important question after the Born's probability for a single observable. Instead, various definitions were suggested, e.g., via quasiprobabilities or via hidden-variable theories. After reviewing open issues of the joint probability, we relate it to quantum imprecise probabilities, which are noncontextual and are consistent with all constraints expected from a quantum probability. We study two noncommuting observables in a two-dimensional Hilbert space and show that there is no precise joint probability that applies for any quantum state and is consistent with imprecise probabilities. This contrasts with theorems by Bell and Kochen-Specker that exclude joint probabilities for more than two noncommuting observables, in Hilbert space with dimension larger than two. If measurement contexts are included into the definition, joint probabilities are not excluded anymore, but they are still constrained by imprecise probabilities.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.97.030102

Related papers

Quantum non-locality co-exists with locality

ARMEN E. ALLAHVERDYAN, Arshag Danageozian

Quantum non-locality is normally defined via violations of Bell's inequalities that exclude certain classical hidden variable theories from explaining quantum correlations. Another definition of non-locality refers to the wave function collapse thereby one can prepare a quantum state from arbitrary far away. In both cases one can debate on whether non-locality is a real physical phenomenon, e.g. , one can employ formulations of quantum mechanics that do not use collapse, or one can simply refrain from explaining quantum correlations via classical hidden variables. Here we point out that there is a non-local effect within quantum mechanics, i.e. , without involving hidden variables or collapse. This effect is seen via imprecise ( i.e. , interval-valued) joint probability of two observables, which replaces the ill-defined notion of the precise joint probability for non-commuting observables. It is consistent with all requirements for the joint probability, e.g. , those for commuting observales. The non-locality amounts to a fact that (in a two-particle system) the joint imprecise probability of non-commuting two-particle observables ( i.e. , tensor product of single-particle observables) does not factorize into single-particle contributions, even for uncorrelated states of the two-particle system. The factorization is recovered for a less precise ( i.e. , the one involving a wider interval) joint probability. This approach to non-locality reconciles it with locality, since the latter emerges as a less precise description.

arXiv:1807.02852•Europhysics Letters (EPL)•Jul 2, 2018•2 citations

The Intersections Based on Joint Observables In Fuzzy Probability

Murat Ozcek

“Fuzzy probability theory” appeared as a smooth extension of classical probability theory in 1995. It was expected that it will be of great importance in quantum mechanics, but the theory doesn’t keep its development as it was expected. This necessitates revising some of its fundamental basic concepts. We argue that if quantum probability theory should have less constrained than classical probability theory as can be seen in the case of joint random variables, we surely need to weaken the definition of the intersection operation. In this paper, discuss the definition validity in quantum probability theory and to discuss the consistency of the given definitions with the whole theory and the possibility to have a more suitable definition.

•Jan 1, 2023•0 citations

Hidden Variables and Incompatible Observables in Quantum Mechanics

Benjamin H. Feintzeig

This article takes up a suggestion that the reason we cannot find certain hidden variable theories for quantum mechanics, as in Bell’s theorem, is that we require them to assign joint probability distributions on incompatible observables. These joint distributions are problematic because they are empirically meaningless on one standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. Some have proposed getting around this problem by using generalized probability spaces. I present a theorem to show a sense in which generalized probability spaces can’t serve as hidden variable theories for quantum mechanics, so the proposal for getting around Bell’s theorem fails. 1 Introduction2 Bell’s Theorem and Classical Probability Spaces 2.1 Bell’s derivation of the Bell inequalities 2.2 Pitowsky’s derivation of the Bell inequalities3 Incompatible Observables4 Generalized Probability Spaces5 A ‘No-Go’ Theorem6 Conclusions

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Aug 31, 2014•5 citations

Joint distributions, quantum correlations, and commuting observables

Arthur I. Fine

We provide necessary and sufficient conditions for several observables to have a joint distribution. When applied to the bivalent observables of a quantum correlation experiment, we show that these conditions are equivalent to the Bell inequalities, and also to the existence of deterministic hidden variables. We connect the no-hidden-variables theorem of Kochen and Specker to these conditions for joint distributions. We conclude with a new theorem linking joint distributions and commuting observables, and show how violations of the Bell inequalities correspond to violations of commutativity, as in the theorem.

Journal of Mathematical Physics•Jul 1, 1982•337 citations

Characterization of the nonclassical relation between measurement outcomes represented by nonorthogonal quantum states

Ming Ji, Holger Friedrich Hofmann

Quantum mechanics describes seemingly paradoxical relations between the outcomes of measurements that cannot be performed jointly. In Hilbert space, the outcomes of such incompatible measurements are represented by nonorthogonal states. In this paper we investigate how the relation between outcomes represented by nonorthogonal quantum states differs from the relations suggested by a joint assignment of measurement outcomes that do not depend on the actual measurement context. The analysis is based on a well-known scenario where three statements about the impossibilities of certain outcomes would seem to make a specific fourth outcome impossible as well, yet quantum theory allows the observation of that outcome with a nonvanishing probability. We show that the Hilbert space formalism modifies the relation between the four measurement outcomes by defining a lower bound of the fourth probability that increases as the total probability of the first three outcomes drops to zero. Quantum theory thus not only makes the violation of noncontextual consistency between the measurement outcomes possible, but actually requires it as a necessary consequence of the Hilbert space inner products that describe the contextual relation between the outcomes of different measurements.

arXiv:2211.02199•Physical Review A•Feb 9, 2023•9 citations

Contextuality under weak assumptions

Andrew W. Simmons, Joel J. Wallman, Hakop Pashayan +2 more

The presence of contextuality in quantum theory was first highlighted by Bell, Kochen and Specker, who discovered that for quantum systems of three or more dimensions, measurements could not be viewed as deterministically revealing pre-existing properties of the system. More precisely, no model can assign deterministic outcomes to the projectors of a quantum measurement in a way that depends only on the projector and not the context (the full set of projectors) in which it appeared, despite the fact that the Born rule probabilities associated with projectors are independent of the context. A more general, operational definition of contextuality introduced by Spekkens, which we will term 'probabilistic contextuality', drops the assumption of determinism and allows for operations other than measurements to be considered contextual. Even two-dimensional quantum mechanics can be shown to be contextual under this generalised notion. Probabilistic noncontextuality represents the postulate that elements of an operational theory that cannot be distinguished from each other based on the statistics of arbitrarily many repeated experiments (they give rise to the same operational probabilities) are ontologically identical. In this paper, we introduce a framework that enables us to distinguish between different noncontextuality assumptions in terms of the relationships between the ontological representations of objects in the theory given a certain relation between their operational representations. This framework can be used to motivate and define a 'possibilistic' analogue, encapsulating the idea that elements of an operational theory that cannot be unambiguously distinguished operationally can also not be unambiguously distinguished ontologically. We then prove that possibilistic noncontextuality is equivalent to an alternative notion of noncontextuality proposed by Hardy. Finally, we demonstrate that these weaker noncontextuality assumptions are sufficient to prove alternative versions of known 'no-go' theorems that constrain ψ -epistemic models for quantum mechanics.

arXiv:1610.06897•New Journal of Physics•Feb 9, 2017•9 citations
Quantum theory does not provide a unique definition for the joint probability of two noncommuting observables, which is the next important question after the Born's probability for a single observable. Instead, various definitions were suggested, e.g., via quasiprobabilities or via hidden-variable theories. After reviewing open issues of the joint probability, we relate it to quantum imprecise probabilities, which are noncontextual and are consistent with all constraints expected from a quantum probability. We study two noncommuting observables in a two-dimensional Hilbert space and show that there is no precise joint probability that applies for any quantum state and is consistent with imprecise probabilities. This contrasts with theorems by Bell and Kochen-Specker that exclude joint probabilities for more than two noncommuting observables, in Hilbert space with dimension larger than two. If measurement contexts are included into the definition, joint probabilities are not excluded anymore, but they are still constrained by imprecise probabilities.
Quantum non-locality is normally defined via violations of Bell's inequalities that exclude certain classical hidden variable theories from explaining quantum correlations. Another definition of non-locality refers to the wave function collapse thereby one can prepare a quantum state from arbitrary far away. In both cases one can debate on whether non-locality is a real physical phenomenon, e.g. , one can employ formulations of quantum mechanics that do not use collapse, or one can simply refrain from explaining quantum correlations via classical hidden variables. Here we point out that there is a non-local effect within quantum mechanics, i.e. , without involving hidden variables or collapse. This effect is seen via imprecise ( i.e. , interval-valued) joint probability of two observables, which replaces the ill-defined notion of the precise joint probability for non-commuting observables. It is consistent with all requirements for the joint probability, e.g. , those for commuting observales. The non-locality amounts to a fact that (in a two-particle system) the joint imprecise probability of non-commuting two-particle observables ( i.e. , tensor product of single-particle observables) does not factorize into single-particle contributions, even for uncorrelated states of the two-particle system. The factorization is recovered for a less precise ( i.e. , the one involving a wider interval) joint probability. This approach to non-locality reconciles it with locality, since the latter emerges as a less precise description.
“Fuzzy probability theory” appeared as a smooth extension of classical probability theory in 1995. It was expected that it will be of great importance in quantum mechanics, but the theory doesn’t keep its development as it was expected. This necessitates revising some of its fundamental basic concepts. We argue that if quantum probability theory should have less constrained than classical probability theory as can be seen in the case of joint random variables, we surely need to weaken the definition of the intersection operation. In this paper, discuss the definition validity in quantum probability theory and to discuss the consistency of the given definitions with the whole theory and the possibility to have a more suitable definition.
This article takes up a suggestion that the reason we cannot find certain hidden variable theories for quantum mechanics, as in Bell’s theorem, is that we require them to assign joint probability distributions on incompatible observables. These joint distributions are problematic because they are empirically meaningless on one standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. Some have proposed getting around this problem by using generalized probability spaces. I present a theorem to show a sense in which generalized probability spaces can’t serve as hidden variable theories for quantum mechanics, so the proposal for getting around Bell’s theorem fails. 1 Introduction2 Bell’s Theorem and Classical Probability Spaces 2.1 Bell’s derivation of the Bell inequalities 2.2 Pitowsky’s derivation of the Bell inequalities3 Incompatible Observables4 Generalized Probability Spaces5 A ‘No-Go’ Theorem6 Conclusions
We provide necessary and sufficient conditions for several observables to have a joint distribution. When applied to the bivalent observables of a quantum correlation experiment, we show that these conditions are equivalent to the Bell inequalities, and also to the existence of deterministic hidden variables. We connect the no-hidden-variables theorem of Kochen and Specker to these conditions for joint distributions. We conclude with a new theorem linking joint distributions and commuting observables, and show how violations of the Bell inequalities correspond to violations of commutativity, as in the theorem.
Quantum mechanics describes seemingly paradoxical relations between the outcomes of measurements that cannot be performed jointly. In Hilbert space, the outcomes of such incompatible measurements are represented by nonorthogonal states. In this paper we investigate how the relation between outcomes represented by nonorthogonal quantum states differs from the relations suggested by a joint assignment of measurement outcomes that do not depend on the actual measurement context. The analysis is based on a well-known scenario where three statements about the impossibilities of certain outcomes would seem to make a specific fourth outcome impossible as well, yet quantum theory allows the observation of that outcome with a nonvanishing probability. We show that the Hilbert space formalism modifies the relation between the four measurement outcomes by defining a lower bound of the fourth probability that increases as the total probability of the first three outcomes drops to zero. Quantum theory thus not only makes the violation of noncontextual consistency between the measurement outcomes possible, but actually requires it as a necessary consequence of the Hilbert space inner products that describe the contextual relation between the outcomes of different measurements.
The presence of contextuality in quantum theory was first highlighted by Bell, Kochen and Specker, who discovered that for quantum systems of three or more dimensions, measurements could not be viewed as deterministically revealing pre-existing properties of the system. More precisely, no model can assign deterministic outcomes to the projectors of a quantum measurement in a way that depends only on the projector and not the context (the full set of projectors) in which it appeared, despite the fact that the Born rule probabilities associated with projectors are independent of the context. A more general, operational definition of contextuality introduced by Spekkens, which we will term 'probabilistic contextuality', drops the assumption of determinism and allows for operations other than measurements to be considered contextual. Even two-dimensional quantum mechanics can be shown to be contextual under this generalised notion. Probabilistic noncontextuality represents the postulate that elements of an operational theory that cannot be distinguished from each other based on the statistics of arbitrarily many repeated experiments (they give rise to the same operational probabilities) are ontologically identical. In this paper, we introduce a framework that enables us to distinguish between different noncontextuality assumptions in terms of the relationships between the ontological representations of objects in the theory given a certain relation between their operational representations. This framework can be used to motivate and define a 'possibilistic' analogue, encapsulating the idea that elements of an operational theory that cannot be unambiguously distinguished operationally can also not be unambiguously distinguished ontologically. We then prove that possibilistic noncontextuality is equivalent to an alternative notion of noncontextuality proposed by Hardy. Finally, we demonstrate that these weaker noncontextuality assumptions are sufficient to prove alternative versions of known 'no-go' theorems that constrain ψ -epistemic models for quantum mechanics.