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

Foundations of Physics

Elucidation of the probabilistic structure of quantum mechanics and definition of a compatible joint probability

Mioara Mugur-Schächter

Published Nov 1, 1982• 5 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/bf01300547

Related papers

Elucidation of the probabilistic structure of quantum mechanics and definition of a compatible joint probability

Mioara Mugur-Schächter

Foundations of Physics•Apr 1, 1983•7 citations

Quantum mechanics and the concept of joint probability

Michael J. W. Hall

Foundations of Physics•Feb 1, 1989•3 citations

A Hierarchy of Compatibility and Comeasurability Levels in Quantum Logics with Unique Conditional Probabilities

Gerd Niestegge

In the quantum mechanical Hilbert space formalism, the probabilistic interpretation is a later ad-hoc add-on, more or less enforced by the experimental evidence, but not motivated by the mathematical model itself. A model involving a clear probabilistic interpretation from the very beginning is provided by the quantum logics with unique conditional probabilities. It includes the projection lattices in von Neumann algebras and here probability conditionalization becomes identical with the state transition of the Lüders-von Neumann measurement process. This motivates the definition of a hierarchy of five compatibility and comeasurability levels in the abstract setting of the quantum logics with unique conditional probabilities. Their meanings are: the absence of quantum interference or influence, the existence of a joint distribution, simultaneous measurability, and the independence of the final state after two successive measurements from the sequential order of these two measurements. A further level means that two elements of the quantum logic (events) belong to the same Boolean subalgebra. In the general case, the five compatibility and comeasurability levels appear to differ, but they all coincide in the common Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics, in von Neumann algebras, and in some other cases.

arXiv:1001.1542•Communications in Theoretical Physics•Dec 1, 2010•6 citations

Joint Probability Distributions in Quantum Mechanics

Leon W. Cohen

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1973•7 citations

Probabilistic Inequalities and Upper Probabilities in Quantum Mechanical Entanglement

J. Acácio de Barros, Patrick Suppes

In this paper we analyze the existence of joint probabilities for the Bell-type and GHZ entangled states. We then propose the usage of nonmonotonic upper probabilities as a tool to derive consistent joint upper probabilities for the contextual hidden variables. Finally, we show that for the extreme example of no error, the GHZ state allows for the definition of a joint upper probability that is consistent with the strong correlations.

arXiv:1010.3064•Manuscrito•Oct 15, 2010•12 citations

Quantum measurements and contextuality

Robert B. Griffiths

In quantum physics, the term ‘contextual’ can be used in more than one way. One usage, here called ‘Bell contextual’ since the idea goes back to Bell, is that if A , B and C are three quantum observables, with A compatible (i.e. commuting) with B and also with C , whereas B and C are incompatible, a measurement of A might yield a different result (indicating that quantum mechanics is contextual) depending upon whether A is measured along with B (the { A , B } context) or with C (the { A , C } context). An analysis of what projective quantum measurements measure shows that quantum theory is Bell non-contextual: the outcome of a particular A measurement when A is measured along with B would have been exactly the same if A had, instead, been measured along with C . A different definition, here called ‘globally (non)contextual’ refers to whether or not there is (non-contextual) or is not (contextual) a single joint probability distribution that simultaneously assigns probabilities in a consistent manner to the outcomes of measurements of a certain collection of observables, not all of which are compatible. A simple example shows that such a joint probability distribution can exist even in a situation where the measurement probabilities cannot refer to properties of a quantum system, and hence lack physical significance, even though mathematically well defined. It is noted that the quantum sample space, a projective decomposition of the identity, required for interpreting measurements of incompatible properties in different runs of an experiment using different types of apparatus, has a tensor product structure, a fact sometimes overlooked. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Contextuality and probability in quantum mechanics and beyond’.

arXiv:1902.05633•Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Sep 16, 2019•21 citations
In the quantum mechanical Hilbert space formalism, the probabilistic interpretation is a later ad-hoc add-on, more or less enforced by the experimental evidence, but not motivated by the mathematical model itself. A model involving a clear probabilistic interpretation from the very beginning is provided by the quantum logics with unique conditional probabilities. It includes the projection lattices in von Neumann algebras and here probability conditionalization becomes identical with the state transition of the Lüders-von Neumann measurement process. This motivates the definition of a hierarchy of five compatibility and comeasurability levels in the abstract setting of the quantum logics with unique conditional probabilities. Their meanings are: the absence of quantum interference or influence, the existence of a joint distribution, simultaneous measurability, and the independence of the final state after two successive measurements from the sequential order of these two measurements. A further level means that two elements of the quantum logic (events) belong to the same Boolean subalgebra. In the general case, the five compatibility and comeasurability levels appear to differ, but they all coincide in the common Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics, in von Neumann algebras, and in some other cases.
In quantum physics, the term ‘contextual’ can be used in more than one way. One usage, here called ‘Bell contextual’ since the idea goes back to Bell, is that if A , B and C are three quantum observables, with A compatible (i.e. commuting) with B and also with C , whereas B and C are incompatible, a measurement of A might yield a different result (indicating that quantum mechanics is contextual) depending upon whether A is measured along with B (the { A , B } context) or with C (the { A , C } context). An analysis of what projective quantum measurements measure shows that quantum theory is Bell non-contextual: the outcome of a particular A measurement when A is measured along with B would have been exactly the same if A had, instead, been measured along with C . A different definition, here called ‘globally (non)contextual’ refers to whether or not there is (non-contextual) or is not (contextual) a single joint probability distribution that simultaneously assigns probabilities in a consistent manner to the outcomes of measurements of a certain collection of observables, not all of which are compatible. A simple example shows that such a joint probability distribution can exist even in a situation where the measurement probabilities cannot refer to properties of a quantum system, and hence lack physical significance, even though mathematically well defined. It is noted that the quantum sample space, a projective decomposition of the identity, required for interpreting measurements of incompatible properties in different runs of an experiment using different types of apparatus, has a tensor product structure, a fact sometimes overlooked. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Contextuality and probability in quantum mechanics and beyond’.