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

AIP conference proceedings

Mathematical Questions Related to Non-Existence of Hidden Variables

Mirko Navara, Luigi Accardi, Guillaume Adenier, Christopher A. Fuchs, Gregg S. Jaeger, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov, Jan-Åke Larsson, Stig Stenholm

Published Jan 1, 2009• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

The famous Gleason’s Theorem gives a characterization of states on lattices of subspaces of Hilbert spaces. The attempts to simplify its proof have led to easy proofs of some consequences, mainly the non‐existence of hidden variables (dispersion‐free states). Here we simplify some of them. We also formulate related open problems concerning spaces with rational coordinates and group‐valued measures.

DOI
10.1063/1.3109931

Related papers

On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics

James S. Bell

Introduction To know the quantum mechanical state of a system implies, in general, only statistical restrictions on the results of measurements. It seems interesting to ask if this statistical element be thought of as arising, as in classical statistical mechanics, because the states in question are averages over better defined states for which individually the results would be quite determined. These hypothetical ‘dispersion free’ states would be specified not only by the quantum mechanical state vector but also by additional ‘hidden variables’ – ‘hidden’ because if states with prescribed values of these variables could actually be prepared, quantum mechanics would be observably inadequate. Whether this question is indeed interesting has been the subject of debate. The present paper does not contribute to that debate. It is addressed to those who do find the question interesting, and more particularly to those among them who believe that ‘the question concerning the existence of such hidden variables received an early and rather decisive answer in the form of von Neumann's proof on the mathematical impossibility of such variables in quantum theory.’ An attempt will be made to clarify what von Neumann and his successors actually demonstrated. This will cover, as well as von Neumann's treatment, the recent version of the argument by Jauch and Piron, and the stronger result consequent on the work of Gleason. It will be urged that these analyses leave the real question untouched.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jun 3, 2004•12 citations

About Hidden Variables

J. C. Aron

The problem of hidden variables, purely conceptual at the start, has been early influenced by the practical aims of “causal theories” towards a mathematical scheme broader than the quantum formalism. Thus several authors have examined if a new formalism, built in the same spirit as that of quantum mechanics, however more general, might admit a determination by means of hidden parameters, and concluded negatively. In the present paper the two aspects (conceptual and practical) are considered separately. It first contains a study of the unrestricted proofs (Von Neumann, Jauch and Piron), given for the non-existence of hidden parameters. They are focussed on the dispersion-free states bound to them. Thus a preliminary stage consists in analyzing what properties these states should have. A method is given here for displaying these; they are shown to have an artificial character, which fits neither Von Neumann's proof nor that of Jauch and Piron and other authors (Misra). Thus, these proofs do not establish the inexistence of hidden variables, but only that of dispersion free states built more or less on the pattern of the quantum states. Suggestions are then proposed on the probable features of hidden parameters. They lead us to regard as improbable the hope of building a new deterministic scheme to be substituted for the quantum formalism. Thus, the determinism which can be maintained appears as purely conceptual. The question of a “deeper level” and the relation between determination and pictorial description are discussed briefly.

Progress of Theoretical Physics•Sep 1, 1969•2 citations

The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics

Simon Kochen, Ernst P. Specker

Forty years after the advent of quantum mechanics the problem of hidden variables, that is, the possibility of imbedding quantum theory into a classical theory, remains a controversial and obscure subject. Whereas to most physicists the possibility of a classical reinterpretation of quantum mechanics remains remote and perhaps irrelevant to current problems, a minority have kept the issue alive throughout this period. (See Freistadt [5] for a review of the problem and a comprehensive bibliography up to 1957.) As far as results are concerned there are on the one hand purported proofs of the non-existence of hidden variables, most notably von Neumann’s proof, and on the other, various attempts to introduce hidden variables such as de Broglie [4] and Bohm [1] and [2]. One of the difficulties in evaluating these contradictory results is that no exact mathematical criterion is given to enable one to judge the degree of success of these proposals. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Birkhäuser Basel eBooks•Jan 1, 1990•43 citations

Quantum States and Generalized Observables: A Simple Proof of Gleason’s Theorem

Paul Busch

A quantum state can be understood in a loose sense as a map that assigns a value to every observable. Formalizing this characterization of states in terms of generalized probability distributions on the set of effects, we obtain a simple proof of the result, analogous to Gleason's theorem, that any quantum state is given by a density operator. As a corollary we obtain a von Neumann-type argument against noncontextual hidden variables. It follows that on an individual interpretation of quantum mechanics the values of effects are appropriately understood as propensities.

arXiv:quant-ph/9909073•Physical Review Letters•Sep 19, 2003•300 citations

Can hidden variables be excluded in quantum mechanics?

J. M. Jauch, C. Piron

The question of the possible existence of hidden variables is re-examined. It is shown that hidden variables can exist only if every proposition (yes-no experiment) is compatible with every other one. It is further shown that this property is in contradiction with empirical facts. The theorem which leads to this conclusion is a strengthening of the theorem of von Neumann on the same subject. The question is raised whether there exist perhaps quantum mechanical systems which admit approximate dispersion-free states.

•Dec 15, 1963•99 citations

Contextual hidden variables theories and Bell's Inequalities

Abner Shimony

Noncontextual hidden variables theories, assigning simultaneous values to all quantum mechanical observables, are inconsistent by theorems of Gleason and others. These theorems do not exclude contextual hidden variables theories, in which a complete state assigns values to physical quantities only relative to contexts. However, any contextual theory obeying a certain factorisability condition implies one of Bell's Inequalities, thereby precluding complete agreement with quantum mechanical predictions. The present paper distinguishes two kinds of contextual theories, ‘algebraic’ and ‘environmental’, and investigates when factorisability is reasonable. Some statements by Fine about the philosophical significance of Bell's Inequalities are then assessed. INTRODUCTION In most of the discussions of Bell's Inequalities little notice is taken of the historical circumstances of their discovery. J. S. Bell was told by J. Jauch of the work of A. Gleason [1957] which showed that simultaneous values cannot be assigned to all observables of a quantum mechanical system in a way that respects their algebraic structure (except in the simple case in which the relevant Hilbert space has dimension less than three). Gleason's theorem thus precludes a type of hidden variables theory that has come to be called ‘noncontextual’. The question of agreement between the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics and those of a noncontextual hidden variables theory does not even arise, since such a theory cannot be consistently formulated.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Feb 26, 1993•2 citations
The famous Gleason’s Theorem gives a characterization of states on lattices of subspaces of Hilbert spaces. The attempts to simplify its proof have led to easy proofs of some consequences, mainly the non‐existence of hidden variables (dispersion‐free states). Here we simplify some of them. We also formulate related open problems concerning spaces with rational coordinates and group‐valued measures.
Introduction To know the quantum mechanical state of a system implies, in general, only statistical restrictions on the results of measurements. It seems interesting to ask if this statistical element be thought of as arising, as in classical statistical mechanics, because the states in question are averages over better defined states for which individually the results would be quite determined. These hypothetical ‘dispersion free’ states would be specified not only by the quantum mechanical state vector but also by additional ‘hidden variables’ – ‘hidden’ because if states with prescribed values of these variables could actually be prepared, quantum mechanics would be observably inadequate. Whether this question is indeed interesting has been the subject of debate. The present paper does not contribute to that debate. It is addressed to those who do find the question interesting, and more particularly to those among them who believe that ‘the question concerning the existence of such hidden variables received an early and rather decisive answer in the form of von Neumann's proof on the mathematical impossibility of such variables in quantum theory.’ An attempt will be made to clarify what von Neumann and his successors actually demonstrated. This will cover, as well as von Neumann's treatment, the recent version of the argument by Jauch and Piron, and the stronger result consequent on the work of Gleason. It will be urged that these analyses leave the real question untouched.
The problem of hidden variables, purely conceptual at the start, has been early influenced by the practical aims of “causal theories” towards a mathematical scheme broader than the quantum formalism. Thus several authors have examined if a new formalism, built in the same spirit as that of quantum mechanics, however more general, might admit a determination by means of hidden parameters, and concluded negatively. In the present paper the two aspects (conceptual and practical) are considered separately. It first contains a study of the unrestricted proofs (Von Neumann, Jauch and Piron), given for the non-existence of hidden parameters. They are focussed on the dispersion-free states bound to them. Thus a preliminary stage consists in analyzing what properties these states should have. A method is given here for displaying these; they are shown to have an artificial character, which fits neither Von Neumann's proof nor that of Jauch and Piron and other authors (Misra). Thus, these proofs do not establish the inexistence of hidden variables, but only that of dispersion free states built more or less on the pattern of the quantum states. Suggestions are then proposed on the probable features of hidden parameters. They lead us to regard as improbable the hope of building a new deterministic scheme to be substituted for the quantum formalism. Thus, the determinism which can be maintained appears as purely conceptual. The question of a “deeper level” and the relation between determination and pictorial description are discussed briefly.
Forty years after the advent of quantum mechanics the problem of hidden variables, that is, the possibility of imbedding quantum theory into a classical theory, remains a controversial and obscure subject. Whereas to most physicists the possibility of a classical reinterpretation of quantum mechanics remains remote and perhaps irrelevant to current problems, a minority have kept the issue alive throughout this period. (See Freistadt [5] for a review of the problem and a comprehensive bibliography up to 1957.) As far as results are concerned there are on the one hand purported proofs of the non-existence of hidden variables, most notably von Neumann’s proof, and on the other, various attempts to introduce hidden variables such as de Broglie [4] and Bohm [1] and [2]. One of the difficulties in evaluating these contradictory results is that no exact mathematical criterion is given to enable one to judge the degree of success of these proposals. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
A quantum state can be understood in a loose sense as a map that assigns a value to every observable. Formalizing this characterization of states in terms of generalized probability distributions on the set of effects, we obtain a simple proof of the result, analogous to Gleason's theorem, that any quantum state is given by a density operator. As a corollary we obtain a von Neumann-type argument against noncontextual hidden variables. It follows that on an individual interpretation of quantum mechanics the values of effects are appropriately understood as propensities.
The question of the possible existence of hidden variables is re-examined. It is shown that hidden variables can exist only if every proposition (yes-no experiment) is compatible with every other one. It is further shown that this property is in contradiction with empirical facts. The theorem which leads to this conclusion is a strengthening of the theorem of von Neumann on the same subject. The question is raised whether there exist perhaps quantum mechanical systems which admit approximate dispersion-free states.
Noncontextual hidden variables theories, assigning simultaneous values to all quantum mechanical observables, are inconsistent by theorems of Gleason and others. These theorems do not exclude contextual hidden variables theories, in which a complete state assigns values to physical quantities only relative to contexts. However, any contextual theory obeying a certain factorisability condition implies one of Bell's Inequalities, thereby precluding complete agreement with quantum mechanical predictions. The present paper distinguishes two kinds of contextual theories, ‘algebraic’ and ‘environmental’, and investigates when factorisability is reasonable. Some statements by Fine about the philosophical significance of Bell's Inequalities are then assessed. INTRODUCTION In most of the discussions of Bell's Inequalities little notice is taken of the historical circumstances of their discovery. J. S. Bell was told by J. Jauch of the work of A. Gleason [1957] which showed that simultaneous values cannot be assigned to all observables of a quantum mechanical system in a way that respects their algebraic structure (except in the simple case in which the relevant Hilbert space has dimension less than three). Gleason's theorem thus precludes a type of hidden variables theory that has come to be called ‘noncontextual’. The question of agreement between the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics and those of a noncontextual hidden variables theory does not even arise, since such a theory cannot be consistently formulated.