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

Physical Review Letters

Hidden Variables, Joint Probability, and the Bell Inequalities

Arthur I. Fine

Published Feb 1, 1982• 1,181 citations
Publisher

Abstract

It is shown that the following statements about a quantum correlation experiment are mutually equivalent. (1) There is a deterministic hidden-variables model for the experiment. (2) There is a factorizable, stochastic model. (3) There is one joint distribution for all observables of the experiment, returning the experimental probabilities. (4) There are well-defined, compatible joint distributions for all pairs and triples of commuting and noncommuting observables. (5) The Bell inequalities hold.

DOI
10.1103/physrevlett.48.291

Related papers

Joint distributions, quantum correlations, and commuting observables

Arthur I. Fine

We provide necessary and sufficient conditions for several observables to have a joint distribution. When applied to the bivalent observables of a quantum correlation experiment, we show that these conditions are equivalent to the Bell inequalities, and also to the existence of deterministic hidden variables. We connect the no-hidden-variables theorem of Kochen and Specker to these conditions for joint distributions. We conclude with a new theorem linking joint distributions and commuting observables, and show how violations of the Bell inequalities correspond to violations of commutativity, as in the theorem.

Journal of Mathematical Physics•Jul 1, 1982•337 citations

Bell's Theorem: What it Takes

Jeremy Butterfield

I compare deterministic and stochastic hidden variable models of the Bell experiment, exphasising philosophical distinctions between the various ways of combining conditionals and probabilities. I make four main claims. (1) Under natural assumptions, locality as it occurs in these models is equivalent to causal independence, as analysed (in the spirit of Lewis) in terms of probabilities and conditionals. (2) Stochastic models are indeed more general than deterministic ones. (3) For factorizable stochastic models, relativity's lack of superluminal causation does not favour locality over completeness. (4) If we prohibit all superluminal causation, then the violation of the Bell inequality teaches us a lesson, besides quantum mechanics' familiar ones that quantities can lack precise values and that pairs of quantities can lack joint probabilities: namely, some pairs of events are not screened off by their common past.

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Mar 1, 1992•80 citations

On the Implication of Bell's Probability Distribution and Proposed Experiments of Quantum Measurement

Hai-Long Zhao

In the derivation of Bell's inequalities, probability distribution is supposed to be a function of only hidden variable. We point out that the true implication of the probability distribution of Bell's correlation function is the distribution of the joint measurement outcomes on the two sides. So it is a function of both hidden variable and 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, thus violation of Bell's inequalities cannot rule out the existence of local hidden variable. In order to explain the results of EPR-type experiments, we suppose that 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 non-local influence on it. Then several experiments are suggested to reveal the components of polarization entangled photon pair. The last one uses successive polarization measurements on a pair of EPR photons to show that two photons with a same quantum state will behave in the same way under the same measuring condition.

•Jun 1, 2009•0 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:0906.0279•Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics•Dec 1, 2013•4 citations

Local probability model for the Bell correlation based on the statistics of chaotic light and non-commutative processes

Louis Sica

As discussed below, Bell's inequalities and experimental results rule out commutative hidden variable models as a basis for Bell correlations, but not necessarily non-commutative probability models. A local probability model is constructed for Bell correlations based on non-commutative operations involving polarizers. As in the entanglement model, the Bell correlation is obtained from a probability calculus without explicit use of deterministic hidden variables. The probability calculus used is associated with chaotic light. Joint wave intensity correlations at spatially separated polarization analyzers are computed using common information originating at the source. When interpreted as photon count rates, these yield quantum mechanical joint probabilities after the contribution of indeterminate numbers of photon pairs greater than one is subtracted out. The formalism appears to give a local account of Bell correlations.

arXiv:1106.1453•Jun 7, 2011•1 citation

Mathematical and physical meaning of the Bell inequalities

Emilio Santos

Abstract It is shown that the Bell inequalities are closely related to the triangle inequalities involving distance functions amongst pairs of random variables with values { 0 , 1 } . A hidden variables model may be defined as a mapping between a set of quantum projection operators and a set of random variables. The model is noncontextual if there is a joint probability distribution. The Bell inequalities are necessary conditions for its existence. The inequalities are most relevant when measurements are performed at space-like separation, thus showing a conflict between quantum mechanics and local realism (Bell's theorem). The relations of the Bell inequalities with contextuality, the Kochen–Specker theorem, and quantum entanglement are briefly discussed.

arXiv:1410.4935•European Journal of Physics•Jun 29, 2016•8 citations
It is shown that the following statements about a quantum correlation experiment are mutually equivalent. (1) There is a deterministic hidden-variables model for the experiment. (2) There is a factorizable, stochastic model. (3) There is one joint distribution for all observables of the experiment, returning the experimental probabilities. (4) There are well-defined, compatible joint distributions for all pairs and triples of commuting and noncommuting observables. (5) The Bell inequalities hold.
We provide necessary and sufficient conditions for several observables to have a joint distribution. When applied to the bivalent observables of a quantum correlation experiment, we show that these conditions are equivalent to the Bell inequalities, and also to the existence of deterministic hidden variables. We connect the no-hidden-variables theorem of Kochen and Specker to these conditions for joint distributions. We conclude with a new theorem linking joint distributions and commuting observables, and show how violations of the Bell inequalities correspond to violations of commutativity, as in the theorem.
I compare deterministic and stochastic hidden variable models of the Bell experiment, exphasising philosophical distinctions between the various ways of combining conditionals and probabilities. I make four main claims. (1) Under natural assumptions, locality as it occurs in these models is equivalent to causal independence, as analysed (in the spirit of Lewis) in terms of probabilities and conditionals. (2) Stochastic models are indeed more general than deterministic ones. (3) For factorizable stochastic models, relativity's lack of superluminal causation does not favour locality over completeness. (4) If we prohibit all superluminal causation, then the violation of the Bell inequality teaches us a lesson, besides quantum mechanics' familiar ones that quantities can lack precise values and that pairs of quantities can lack joint probabilities: namely, some pairs of events are not screened off by their common past.
In the derivation of Bell's inequalities, probability distribution is supposed to be a function of only hidden variable. We point out that the true implication of the probability distribution of Bell's correlation function is the distribution of the joint measurement outcomes on the two sides. So it is a function of both hidden variable and 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, thus violation of Bell's inequalities cannot rule out the existence of local hidden variable. In order to explain the results of EPR-type experiments, we suppose that 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 non-local influence on it. Then several experiments are suggested to reveal the components of polarization entangled photon pair. The last one uses successive polarization measurements on a pair of EPR photons to show that two photons with a same quantum state will behave in the same way under the same measuring condition.
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.
As discussed below, Bell's inequalities and experimental results rule out commutative hidden variable models as a basis for Bell correlations, but not necessarily non-commutative probability models. A local probability model is constructed for Bell correlations based on non-commutative operations involving polarizers. As in the entanglement model, the Bell correlation is obtained from a probability calculus without explicit use of deterministic hidden variables. The probability calculus used is associated with chaotic light. Joint wave intensity correlations at spatially separated polarization analyzers are computed using common information originating at the source. When interpreted as photon count rates, these yield quantum mechanical joint probabilities after the contribution of indeterminate numbers of photon pairs greater than one is subtracted out. The formalism appears to give a local account of Bell correlations.
Abstract It is shown that the Bell inequalities are closely related to the triangle inequalities involving distance functions amongst pairs of random variables with values { 0 , 1 } . A hidden variables model may be defined as a mapping between a set of quantum projection operators and a set of random variables. The model is noncontextual if there is a joint probability distribution. The Bell inequalities are necessary conditions for its existence. The inequalities are most relevant when measurements are performed at space-like separation, thus showing a conflict between quantum mechanics and local realism (Bell's theorem). The relations of the Bell inequalities with contextuality, the Kochen–Specker theorem, and quantum entanglement are briefly discussed.