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

Imprecise Probabilities in Quantum Mechanics

Stephan Hartmann

Published Jan 1, 2015• 4 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

In his entry on "Quantum Logic and Probability Theory" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Alexander Wilce (2012) writes that "it is uncontroversial (though remarkable) the formal apparatus quantum mechanics reduces neatly to a generalization of classical probability in which the role played by a Boolean algebra of events in the latter is taken over the 'quantum logic' of projection operators on a Hilbert space." For a long time, Patrick Suppes has opposed this view (see, for example, the paper collected in Suppes and Zanotti (1996). Instead of changing the logic and moving from a Boolean algebra to a non-Boolean algebra, one can also 'save the phenomena' by weakening the axioms of probability theory and work instead with upper and lower probabilities. However, it is fair to say that despite Suppes' efforts upper and lower probabilities are not particularly popular in physics as well as in the foundations of physics, at least so far. Instead, quantum logic is booming again, especially since quantum information and computation became hot topics. Interestingly, however, imprecise probabilities are becoming more and more popular in formal epistemology as recent work by authors such as James Joye (2010) and Roger White (2010) demonstrates.

Related papers

Probabilistic frames for non-Boolean phenomena

Louis Narens

Classical probability theory, as axiomatized in 1933 by Andrey Kolmogorov, has provided a useful and almost universally accepted theory for describing and quantifying uncertainty in scientific applications outside quantum mechanics. Recently, cognitive psychologists and mathematical economists have provided examples where classical probability theory appears inadequate but the probability theory underlying quantum mechanics appears effective. Formally, quantum probability theory is a generalization of classical probability. This article explores relationships between generalized probability theories, in particular quantum-like probability theories and those that do not have full complementation operators (e.g. event spaces based on intuitionistic logic), and discusses how these generalizations bear on important issues in the foundations of probability and the development of non-classical probability theories for the behavioural sciences.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Nov 30, 2015•4 citations

Quantum mechanics as a generalized probability theory

William Icefield

When quantum mechanics is understood as a new generalized theory of probability - to be called the quantum probability theory - mysteries and controversies regarding quantum mechanics are dissolved. In the classical probability theory, that a measurement of some system requires an additional measurement apparatus is of insignificant importance - in the quantum probability theory, this comes to change. For one central single reason around a particular classical probability equation, the generalized probability view has not gained much traction, despite the fact that this essentially echoes (and provides logical underpinnings of) the conventional wisdom that `quantum mechanics just works as it is.' A classical probability axiom is just an initial intuition - there is no reason why we have to dogmatically cling onto axioms that can clearly be generalized. Issues with the principle of indifference in the classical probability theory are emphasized, along with the quantum reconstruction project of deriving quantum mechanics from epistemic requirements and potential quantum gravity consequences from the principle of maximum entropy.

•Sep 26, 2020•0 citations

Imprecise probability for non-commuting observables

ARMEN E. ALLAHVERDYAN

It is known that non-commuting observables in quantum mechanics do not have joint probability. This statement refers to the precise (additive) probability model. I show that the joint distribution of any non-commuting pair of variables can be quantified via upper and lower probabilities, i.e. the joint probability is described by an interval instead of a number (imprecise probability). I propose transparent axioms from which the upper and lower probability operators follow. The imprecise probability depend on the non-commuting observables, is linear over the state (density matrix) and reverts to the usual expression for commuting observables.

arXiv:1411.4319•New Journal of Physics•Aug 13, 2015•9 citations

Quantum Probability Theory and the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics

Jürg Martin Fröhlich, Baptiste Schubnel

We attempt to contribute some novel points of view to the "foundations of quantum mechanics", using mathematical tools from "quantum probability theory" (such as the theory of operator algebras). We first introduce an abstract algebraic framework for the formulation of mathematical models of physical systems that is general enough to encompass classical and quantum mechanical models. After a short discussion on the properties of classical systems (realism and determinism), we move on to the study of a general class of quantum-mechanical models of physical systems and explain what some of the key problems in a quantum theory of observations and measurements are. In the last part of our essay, we attempt to elucidate the roles played by entanglement between a system and its environment and of information loss in understanding "decoherence" and "dephasing", which are key mechanisms in a quantum theory of measurements and experiments. We also discuss the problem of "time in quantum mechanics" and sketch an answer to the question when an experiment can be considered to have been completed successfully.

arXiv:1310.1484•Oct 5, 2013•6 citations

Quantum Probabilities

There are well known mathematical models of quantum structures ([3]) including probability aspects of the theories. One of the successful ways for the theories can be in using MV-algebras ([2]). Recall that MV-algebras play in multi-valued logics the same role as Boolean algebras in two-valued logics. The probability theory on MV-algebras was reviewed in [8] and [9]. The aim of this contribution is in using the methods of MV-algebra probability theory in some structures dierent

Palgrave Macmillan eBooks•Nov 7, 2014•0 citations

Quantum Probability: An Introduction

Guido Bacciagaluppi

The topic of probabilty in quantum mechanics is rather vast, and in this article, we shall choose to discuss it from the perspective of whether and in what sense quantum mechanics requires a generalisation of the usual (Kolmogorovian) concept of probability. We shall focus on the case of finite-dimensional quantum mechanics (which is analogous to that of discrete probability spaces), partly for simplicity and partly for ease of generalisation. While we shall largely focus on formal aspects of quantum probability (in particular the non-existence of joint distributions for incompatible observables), our discussion will relate also to notorious issues in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Indeed, whether quantum probability can or cannot be ultimately reduced to classical probability connects rather nicely to the question of 'hidden variables' in quantum mechanics. An abridged version of this essay will appear in A. Hajek and C. Hitchcock (eds.), 'The Oxford Handbook of Probability and Philosophy', Oxford University Press. The present version includes in particular many more footnotes and references and the Appendix with the proofs of the Lemma and Proposition of Section 5.

•Feb 14, 2014•3 citations
In his entry on "Quantum Logic and Probability Theory" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Alexander Wilce (2012) writes that "it is uncontroversial (though remarkable) the formal apparatus quantum mechanics reduces neatly to a generalization of classical probability in which the role played by a Boolean algebra of events in the latter is taken over the 'quantum logic' of projection operators on a Hilbert space." For a long time, Patrick Suppes has opposed this view (see, for example, the paper collected in Suppes and Zanotti (1996). Instead of changing the logic and moving from a Boolean algebra to a non-Boolean algebra, one can also 'save the phenomena' by weakening the axioms of probability theory and work instead with upper and lower probabilities. However, it is fair to say that despite Suppes' efforts upper and lower probabilities are not particularly popular in physics as well as in the foundations of physics, at least so far. Instead, quantum logic is booming again, especially since quantum information and computation became hot topics. Interestingly, however, imprecise probabilities are becoming more and more popular in formal epistemology as recent work by authors such as James Joye (2010) and Roger White (2010) demonstrates.
Classical probability theory, as axiomatized in 1933 by Andrey Kolmogorov, has provided a useful and almost universally accepted theory for describing and quantifying uncertainty in scientific applications outside quantum mechanics. Recently, cognitive psychologists and mathematical economists have provided examples where classical probability theory appears inadequate but the probability theory underlying quantum mechanics appears effective. Formally, quantum probability theory is a generalization of classical probability. This article explores relationships between generalized probability theories, in particular quantum-like probability theories and those that do not have full complementation operators (e.g. event spaces based on intuitionistic logic), and discusses how these generalizations bear on important issues in the foundations of probability and the development of non-classical probability theories for the behavioural sciences.
When quantum mechanics is understood as a new generalized theory of probability - to be called the quantum probability theory - mysteries and controversies regarding quantum mechanics are dissolved. In the classical probability theory, that a measurement of some system requires an additional measurement apparatus is of insignificant importance - in the quantum probability theory, this comes to change. For one central single reason around a particular classical probability equation, the generalized probability view has not gained much traction, despite the fact that this essentially echoes (and provides logical underpinnings of) the conventional wisdom that `quantum mechanics just works as it is.' A classical probability axiom is just an initial intuition - there is no reason why we have to dogmatically cling onto axioms that can clearly be generalized. Issues with the principle of indifference in the classical probability theory are emphasized, along with the quantum reconstruction project of deriving quantum mechanics from epistemic requirements and potential quantum gravity consequences from the principle of maximum entropy.
It is known that non-commuting observables in quantum mechanics do not have joint probability. This statement refers to the precise (additive) probability model. I show that the joint distribution of any non-commuting pair of variables can be quantified via upper and lower probabilities, i.e. the joint probability is described by an interval instead of a number (imprecise probability). I propose transparent axioms from which the upper and lower probability operators follow. The imprecise probability depend on the non-commuting observables, is linear over the state (density matrix) and reverts to the usual expression for commuting observables.
We attempt to contribute some novel points of view to the "foundations of quantum mechanics", using mathematical tools from "quantum probability theory" (such as the theory of operator algebras). We first introduce an abstract algebraic framework for the formulation of mathematical models of physical systems that is general enough to encompass classical and quantum mechanical models. After a short discussion on the properties of classical systems (realism and determinism), we move on to the study of a general class of quantum-mechanical models of physical systems and explain what some of the key problems in a quantum theory of observations and measurements are. In the last part of our essay, we attempt to elucidate the roles played by entanglement between a system and its environment and of information loss in understanding "decoherence" and "dephasing", which are key mechanisms in a quantum theory of measurements and experiments. We also discuss the problem of "time in quantum mechanics" and sketch an answer to the question when an experiment can be considered to have been completed successfully.
The topic of probabilty in quantum mechanics is rather vast, and in this article, we shall choose to discuss it from the perspective of whether and in what sense quantum mechanics requires a generalisation of the usual (Kolmogorovian) concept of probability. We shall focus on the case of finite-dimensional quantum mechanics (which is analogous to that of discrete probability spaces), partly for simplicity and partly for ease of generalisation. While we shall largely focus on formal aspects of quantum probability (in particular the non-existence of joint distributions for incompatible observables), our discussion will relate also to notorious issues in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Indeed, whether quantum probability can or cannot be ultimately reduced to classical probability connects rather nicely to the question of 'hidden variables' in quantum mechanics. An abridged version of this essay will appear in A. Hajek and C. Hitchcock (eds.), 'The Oxford Handbook of Probability and Philosophy', Oxford University Press. The present version includes in particular many more footnotes and references and the Appendix with the proofs of the Lemma and Proposition of Section 5.