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.
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.
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.
In this paper, we examine an argument of Jauch and Piron, which aims to prove the impossibility of hidden variables underlying the quantum theory, on the basis of certain assumptions that are weaker than those used by von Neumann for the same purpose. We show that, while the assumptions of Jauch and Piron are in fact weaker than those of von Neumann, the net result is that they actually prove nothing new at all. The conclusions of Jauch and Piron concerning the nonexistence of hidden variables are indeed seen to follow from a false assumption; i.e., that the impossibility of propositions that describe simultaneously the results of measurements of two noncommuting observables is an "empirical fact." Actually, it is shown that this assumption follows if and only if one first assumes what the authors set out to prove; i.e., that the current linguistic structure of quantum mechanics is the only one that can be used correctly to describe the empirical facts underlying the theory.
Abstract Hidden variables are hypothetical parameters that, if known, would deterministically specify quantum measurement outcomes, aiming to restore determinism and causality typical of classical mechanics. This work provides a modern and pedagogical exposition of John von Neumann’s 1932 proof on the incompatibility of hidden variables with quantum mechanics. We detail his two main conclusions: (1) dispersion-free ensembles (as defined within the framework of hidden variable theories) are incompatible with quantum mechanics; and (2) the quantum state provides a complete description of physical reality. We critically analyze the key assumptions in von Neumann’s proof, highlighting later challenges—particularly John Bell’s critique and the development of contextual hidden-variable theories by Kochen and Specker. This discussion clarifies von Neumann’s historical role as a pioneer in this debate, while showing how modern hidden-variable theories, such as Bohmian mechanics, remain compatible with quantum predictions. Conversion tables are included between this article’s notation and von Neumann’s original book.
In this paper, we shall show how the theory of measurements is to be understood from the point of view of a physical interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of "hidden" variables, developed in a previous paper. We find that in principle, these "hidden" variables determine the precise results of each individual measurement process. In practice, however, in measurements that we now know how to carry out, the observing apparatus disturbs the observed system in an unpredictable and uncontrollable way, so that the uncertainty principle is obtained as a practical limitation on the possible precision of measurements. This limitation is not, however, inherent in the conceptual structure of our interpretation. We shall see, for example, that simultaneous measurements of position and momentum having unlimited precision would in principle be possible if, as suggested in the previous paper, the mathematical formulation of the quantum theory needs to be modified at very short distances in certain ways that are consistent with our interpretation but not with the usual interpretation.We give a simple explanation of the origin of quantum-mechanical correlations of distant objects in the hypothetical experiment of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, which was suggested by these authors as a criticism of the usual interpretation.Finally, we show that von Neumann's proof that quantum theory is not consistent with hidden variables does not apply to our interpretation, because the hidden variables contemplated here depend both on the state of the measuring apparatus and the observed system and therefore go beyond certain of von Neumann's assumptions.In two appendixes, we treat the problem of the electromagnetic field in our interpretation and answer certain additional objections which have arisen in the attempt to give a precise description for an individual system at the quantum level.
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.
The usual interpretation of the quantum theory is self-consistent, but it involves an assumption that cannot be tested experimentally, viz., that the most complete possible specification of an individual system is in terms of a wave function that determines only probable results of actual measurement processes. The only way of investigating the truth of this assumption is by trying to find some other interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of at present "hidden" variables, which in principle determine the precise behavior of an individual system, but which are in practice averaged over in measurements of the types that can now be carried out. In this paper and in a subsequent paper, an interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of just such "hidden" variables is suggested. It is shown that as long as the mathematical theory retains its present general form, this suggested interpretation leads to precisely the same results for all physical processes as does the usual interpretation. Nevertheless, the suggested interpretation provides a broader conceptual framework than the usual interpretation, because it makes possible a precise and continuous description of all processes, even at the quantum level. This broader conceptual framework allows more general mathematical formulations of the theory than those allowed by the usual interpretation. Now, the usual mathematical formulation seems to lead to insoluble difficulties when it is extrapolated into the domain of distances of the order of ${10}^{\ensuremath{-}13}$ cm or less. It is therefore entirely possible that the interpretation suggested here may be needed for the resolution of these difficulties. In any case, the mere possibility of such an interpretation proves that it is not necessary for us to give up a precise, rational, and objective description of individual systems at a quantum level of accuracy.