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:2609.31075

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

Maik Reddiger

quant-phmath-phSubmitted Sep 25, 2026• Announced Sep 28, 2026• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.

Comments
44 pages + 15 pages of references, 2 figures; supplementary material in anc folder; Keywords: Bell's theorem, CHSH inequality, geometric quantum theory, contextuality, quantum nonlocality

Related papers

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

Violation of Bell Inequalities: Mapping the Conceptual Implications

Brian Drummond

This short article concentrates on the conceptual aspects of the violation of Bell inequalities, and acts as a map to the 265 cited references. The article outlines (a) relevant characteristics of quantum mechanics, such as statistical balance and entanglement, (b) the thinking that led to the derivation of the original Bell inequality, and (c) the range of claimed implications, including realism, locality and others which attract less attention. The main conclusion is that violation of Bell inequalities appears to have some implications for the nature of physical reality, but that none of these are definite. The violations constrain possible prequantum (underlying) theories, but do not rule out the possibility that such theories might reconcile at least one understanding of locality and realism to quantum mechanical predictions. Violation might reflect, at least partly, failure to acknowledge the contextuality of quantum mechanics, or that data from different probability spaces have been inappropriately combined. Many claims that there are definite implications reflect one or more of (i) imprecise non-mathematical language, (ii) assumptions inappropriate in quantum mechanics, (iii) inadequate treatment of measurement statistics and (iv) underlying philosophical assumptions.

arXiv:2106.14767•Jun 28, 2021•3 citations

Classicality and Bell’s theorem

Márton Gömöri, Carl Hoefer

Abstract A widespread view among physicists is that Bell’s theorem rests on an implicit assumption of “classicality,” in addition to locality. According to this understanding, the violation of Bell’s inequalities poses no challenge to locality, but simply reinforces the fact that quantum mechanics is not classical. The paper provides a critical analysis of this view. First we characterize the notion of classicality in probabilistic terms. We argue that classicality thus construed has nothing to do with the validity of classical physics, nor of classical probability theory, contrary to what many believe. At the same time, we show that the probabilistic notion of classicality is not an additional premise of Bell’s theorem, but a mathematical corollary of locality in conjunction with the standard auxiliary assumptions of Bell. Accordingly, any theory that claims to get around the derivation of Bell’s inequalities by giving up classicality, in fact has to give up one of those standard assumptions. As an illustration of this, we look at two recent interpretations of quantum mechanics, Reinhard Werner’s operational quantum mechanics and Robert Griffiths’ consistent histories approach, that are claimed to be local and non-classical, and identify which of the standard assumptions of Bell’s theorem each of them is forced to give up. We claim that while in operational quantum mechanics the Common Cause Principle is violated, the consistent histories approach is conspiratorial. Finally, we relate these two options to the idea of realism, a notion that is also often identified as an implicit assumption of Bell’s theorem.

European Journal for Philosophy of Science•Sep 1, 2023•0 citations

Bell Inequalities

Reinhold A. Bertlmann, Nicolai Friis

Abstract This chapter presents a detailed discussion of Bell inequalities and their experimental tests. Starting from the Aharonov-Bohm version of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, we review EPR’s criteria for realism and completeness and Bell’s locality condition, before deriving the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality. This is followed by an exposition on Bell’s original inequality and other Bell inequalities by Wigner, as well as Clauser and Horne. We then discuss the milestones in the experimental violation of Bell inequalities, from the experiment of Freedman and Clauser in the 1970s, to the efforts of Aspect et al. in the 1980s, the experiments by the teams of Zeilinger and Gisin in the 1990s, and culminating the loophole-free tests in 2015. Finally we turn to a brief discussion of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, focusing on contrasting the realist views held by, e.g., Einstein and Bell, and the informational views with proponents such as Brukner and Zeilinger

•Sep 7, 2023•1 citation

Conditions for logical contextuality and nonlocality

Leonardo Santos, Bárbara Amaral

Contextuality and nonlocality are nonclassical properties exhibited by quantum statistics whose implications profoundly impact both the foundations and applications of quantum theory. In this paper we provide some insights into logical contextuality and inequality-free proofs. The former can be understood as the possibility version of contextuality, while the latter refers to proofs of quantum contextuality and nonlocality that are not based on violations of some noncontextuality (or Bell) inequality. By ``possibilistic'' we mean a description in terms of possibilities for the outcomes, which are Boolean variables assuming value one when the corresponding probability is strictly larger than zero and zero otherwise. The present work aims to build a bridge between these two concepts from what we call possibilistic paradoxes, which are sets of possibilistic conditions whose occurrence implies contextuality and nonlocality. As the main result, we demonstrate the existence of possibilistic paradoxes whose occurrence is a necessary and sufficient condition for logical contextuality in a very important class of scenarios. Finally, we discuss some interesting consequences arising from the completeness of these possibilistic paradoxes.

arXiv:2011.04111•Physical Review A•Aug 4, 2021•7 citations

Bell nonlocality and device-independent quantum information

Sachin .

Bell nonlocality is the experimentally testable incompatibility between quantum correlations and explanations based on local hidden variables. Its significance now extends beyond the foundations of quantum mechanics: a Bell-inequality violation can certify entanglement, randomness, measurement incompatibility, and cryptographic security without requiring a detailed model of the devices producing the observed data. This article develops the mathematical structure of Bell experiments and explains its role in device-independent quantum information. Conditional probability distributions are classified into local, quantum, and no-signalling sets; the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality is derived, and its classical, quantum, and algebraic limits are distinguished. Tsirelson’s bound is obtained from the CHSH operator, while Popescu-Rohrlich correlations demonstrate that no-signalling alone does not identify the quantum set. The relation between entanglement and nonlocality is examined through local entangled states, hidden nonlocality, and activation. Nonlocal games, semidefinite relaxations, self-testing, certified randomness, and device-independent quantum key distribution are treated as operational consequences of Bell violation. Particular attention is given to entropy accumulation, finite-data security, loophole-free experiments, and the limitations of device independence. Bell nonlocality emerges as both a foundational separation between classical and quantum causal models and a quantitative resource for cryptographic and informational tasks.

International Journal of Physics and Mathematics•Jan 1, 2026•0 citations
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.
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.
This short article concentrates on the conceptual aspects of the violation of Bell inequalities, and acts as a map to the 265 cited references. The article outlines (a) relevant characteristics of quantum mechanics, such as statistical balance and entanglement, (b) the thinking that led to the derivation of the original Bell inequality, and (c) the range of claimed implications, including realism, locality and others which attract less attention. The main conclusion is that violation of Bell inequalities appears to have some implications for the nature of physical reality, but that none of these are definite. The violations constrain possible prequantum (underlying) theories, but do not rule out the possibility that such theories might reconcile at least one understanding of locality and realism to quantum mechanical predictions. Violation might reflect, at least partly, failure to acknowledge the contextuality of quantum mechanics, or that data from different probability spaces have been inappropriately combined. Many claims that there are definite implications reflect one or more of (i) imprecise non-mathematical language, (ii) assumptions inappropriate in quantum mechanics, (iii) inadequate treatment of measurement statistics and (iv) underlying philosophical assumptions.
Abstract A widespread view among physicists is that Bell’s theorem rests on an implicit assumption of “classicality,” in addition to locality. According to this understanding, the violation of Bell’s inequalities poses no challenge to locality, but simply reinforces the fact that quantum mechanics is not classical. The paper provides a critical analysis of this view. First we characterize the notion of classicality in probabilistic terms. We argue that classicality thus construed has nothing to do with the validity of classical physics, nor of classical probability theory, contrary to what many believe. At the same time, we show that the probabilistic notion of classicality is not an additional premise of Bell’s theorem, but a mathematical corollary of locality in conjunction with the standard auxiliary assumptions of Bell. Accordingly, any theory that claims to get around the derivation of Bell’s inequalities by giving up classicality, in fact has to give up one of those standard assumptions. As an illustration of this, we look at two recent interpretations of quantum mechanics, Reinhard Werner’s operational quantum mechanics and Robert Griffiths’ consistent histories approach, that are claimed to be local and non-classical, and identify which of the standard assumptions of Bell’s theorem each of them is forced to give up. We claim that while in operational quantum mechanics the Common Cause Principle is violated, the consistent histories approach is conspiratorial. Finally, we relate these two options to the idea of realism, a notion that is also often identified as an implicit assumption of Bell’s theorem.
Abstract This chapter presents a detailed discussion of Bell inequalities and their experimental tests. Starting from the Aharonov-Bohm version of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, we review EPR’s criteria for realism and completeness and Bell’s locality condition, before deriving the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality. This is followed by an exposition on Bell’s original inequality and other Bell inequalities by Wigner, as well as Clauser and Horne. We then discuss the milestones in the experimental violation of Bell inequalities, from the experiment of Freedman and Clauser in the 1970s, to the efforts of Aspect et al. in the 1980s, the experiments by the teams of Zeilinger and Gisin in the 1990s, and culminating the loophole-free tests in 2015. Finally we turn to a brief discussion of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, focusing on contrasting the realist views held by, e.g., Einstein and Bell, and the informational views with proponents such as Brukner and Zeilinger
Contextuality and nonlocality are nonclassical properties exhibited by quantum statistics whose implications profoundly impact both the foundations and applications of quantum theory. In this paper we provide some insights into logical contextuality and inequality-free proofs. The former can be understood as the possibility version of contextuality, while the latter refers to proofs of quantum contextuality and nonlocality that are not based on violations of some noncontextuality (or Bell) inequality. By ``possibilistic'' we mean a description in terms of possibilities for the outcomes, which are Boolean variables assuming value one when the corresponding probability is strictly larger than zero and zero otherwise. The present work aims to build a bridge between these two concepts from what we call possibilistic paradoxes, which are sets of possibilistic conditions whose occurrence implies contextuality and nonlocality. As the main result, we demonstrate the existence of possibilistic paradoxes whose occurrence is a necessary and sufficient condition for logical contextuality in a very important class of scenarios. Finally, we discuss some interesting consequences arising from the completeness of these possibilistic paradoxes.
Bell nonlocality is the experimentally testable incompatibility between quantum correlations and explanations based on local hidden variables. Its significance now extends beyond the foundations of quantum mechanics: a Bell-inequality violation can certify entanglement, randomness, measurement incompatibility, and cryptographic security without requiring a detailed model of the devices producing the observed data. This article develops the mathematical structure of Bell experiments and explains its role in device-independent quantum information. Conditional probability distributions are classified into local, quantum, and no-signalling sets; the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality is derived, and its classical, quantum, and algebraic limits are distinguished. Tsirelson’s bound is obtained from the CHSH operator, while Popescu-Rohrlich correlations demonstrate that no-signalling alone does not identify the quantum set. The relation between entanglement and nonlocality is examined through local entangled states, hidden nonlocality, and activation. Nonlocal games, semidefinite relaxations, self-testing, certified randomness, and device-independent quantum key distribution are treated as operational consequences of Bell violation. Particular attention is given to entropy accumulation, finite-data security, loophole-free experiments, and the limitations of device independence. Bell nonlocality emerges as both a foundational separation between classical and quantum causal models and a quantitative resource for cryptographic and informational tasks.