dialectica

The Light of Quantum Mechanics

David Atkinson

Published Jan 1, 1998• 3 citations

Abstract

Although classical probability theory, as it is encapsulated in the axioms of Kolmogorov and in his criterion for the independence of two events, can consistently be employed in quantum mechanics, this can only be accomplished at an exorbitant price. By considering first the classic two-slit experiment, and then the passage of one photon through three polarizers, the applicability of Kolmogorov's last axiom is called into question, but the standard rebuff of the Copenhagen interpretation is shown to be adequate to this challenge. In the EPR experiment of Aspect, and the violation of the Bell inequalities, the matter is more delicate: it is not directly Kolmogorov's last axiom, but rather his criterion of independence that is at issue. It is explained how two events with space-like separation cannot be independent in Kolmogorov's sense, even in the presence of hidden variables. The escape route of supposing the variables to be nonlocal, with a heavy metaphysical ballast of holism, which however is cosmically censored to prevent superluminal information transfer, has all the trappings of an ad hoc makeshift. The adoption of quantum mechanical probability, which does not obey the rules of Kolmogorov, but does survive empirical testing in terms of relative frequencies of events, is more economical. The solution is simple: correlations obey the rules of quantum mechanics and probability is a theory laden concept that is tested by, but not defined in terms of, the relative frequency of selected classes of events. Quantum mechanics appears to be nonlocal only if one tries to force it into a classical, realist straitjacket. However, this is a shortcoming of the straitjacket: it is not a property of quantum mechanics. That follows from the fact that a Bell telephone does not work!

DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-8361.1998.tb00044.x

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:0709.3909Sep 25, 200732 citations

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:2405.05710Quantum Studies Mathematics and FoundationsOct 23, 20252 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:2609.31075Sep 28, 20260 citations

Classical Probabilities and Bell' s Theorem

Tan Tian-rong

It is proved that: What the two-slit experiments have refuted is the preconceived idea that of the event that a micro particle passing through one slit arrives somewhere on the screen is irrelative to the condition that whether or not the other slit is open. Consideringaddition theorem of probabilities, the above idea can be expressed as follows: (a)Assum that a beam passes through a partition with two slit and arrives a screen. The of the event that an indivedual particle falls on somewhere of the screen under the condition that two slit open simultaneously, is equal to the sum of two of the same event under that two slit open in turn. Defining the experimental condition such as two slit open simultaneously or in turn as passage the proposition (a)is manifested as probabilities is independent of passage conditions. On the other hand, in terms of the above, superposition principle of in quantum mechanics ought to be indicated as probability amplitudes is independent of passage conditions. Correspondingly, (a)is named hereof as superposition presumption of probability. For lack of the conception of passage conditions, (a)is confused with theorem of probabilities. As a result, classical physics tacitly approve (a), and thereby it fails to comprehend the two-slit experiments. In reverse, to explain two-slit experiments, quantum mechanics spurns addition theorem of so that it meets with various difficults about explanation. Any alternative of quantum mechanics must be able to explain two-slit experiments, therefore it must contain passage conditions or amplitudes. But hidden variable theory Bell used dissatisfies such a prerequisite. It comes thus into conflict with experiment facts inevitably. As a result, Lochak's argument that Bell's inequality is irrelative to locality is rediscovered.

Journal of Changzhou Institute of TechnologyJan 1, 20020 citations

On the implication of Bell’s probability distribution and proposed experiments of quantum measurement

Hai-Long Zhao

In derivating of Bell’s inequalities, the probability distribution is supposed to be a function only of a hidden variable. We point out that the true implication of the probability distribution of Bell’s correlation function is the distribution of joint measurement outcomes on the two sides. It is therefore a function of both the hidden variable and the settings. In this case, Bell’s inequalities fail. Our further analysis shows that Bell’s locality holds neither for dependent events nor for independent events. We think that the measurements of EPR pairs are dependent events, and hence violation of Bell’s inequalities cannot rule out the existence of local hidden variable. To explain the results of EPR-type experiments, we suppose that a polarization-entangled photon pair can be composed of two circularly or linearly polarized photons with correlated hidden variables, and a couple of experiments of quantum measurement are proposed. The first uses delayed measurement on one photon of the EPR pair to demonstrate directly whether measurement on the other could have any nonlocal influence on it. Then several experiments are suggested to reveal the components of the polarization-entangled photon pair. The last one uses successive polarization measurements on a pair of EPR photons to show that two photons with the same quantum state behave the same under the same measuring conditions.

arXiv:0906.0279Journal of Experimental and Theoretical PhysicsDec 1, 20134 citations

Kolmogorov’s Probability Spaces for “Entangled” Data-Subsets of EPRB Experiments: No Violation of Einstein’s Separation Principle

K. Hess

It is demonstrated that the use of Kolmogorov’s probability theory to describe results of quantum probability for EPRB (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm) experiments requires extreme care when different subsets of measurement outcomes are considered. J. S. Bell and his followers have committed critical inaccuracies related to spin-gauge and probability measures of such subsets, because they use exclusively a single probability space for all data sets and sub-sets of data. It is also shown that Bell and followers use far too stringent epistemological requirements for the consequences of space-like separation. Their requirements reach way beyond Einstein’s separation principle and cannot be met by the major existing physical theories including relativity and even classical mechanics. For example, the independent free will does not empower the experimenters to choose multiple independent spin-gauges in the two EPRB wings. It is demonstrated that the suggestion of instantaneous influences at a distance (supposedly “derived” from experiments with entangled quantum entities) is a consequence of said inaccuracies and takes back rank as soon as the Kolmogorov probability measures are related to a consistent global spin-gauge and permitted to be different for different data subsets: Using statistical interpretations and different probability spaces for certain subsets of outcomes instead of probability amplitudes related to single quantum entities, permits physical explanations without a violation of Einstein’s separation principle.

Journal of Modern PhysicsJan 1, 20205 citations