Our aim is to emphasize the role of mathematical models in physics, especially models of geometry and probability. We briefly compare developments of geometry and probability by pointing to similarities and differences: from Euclid to Lobachevsky and from Kolmogorov to Bell. In probability, Bell could play the same role as Lobachevsky in geometry. In fact, violation of Bell’s inequality can be treated as implying the impossibility to apply the classical probability model of Kolmogorov (1933) to quantum phenomena. Thus the quantum probabilistic model (based on Born’s rule) can be considered as the concrete example of the non-Kolmogorovian model of probability, similarly to the Lobachevskian model — the first example of the non-Euclidean model of geometry. This is the “probability model” interpretation of the violation of Bell’s inequality. We also criticize the standard interpretation—an attempt to add to rigorous mathematical probability models additional elements such as (non)locality and (un)realism. Finally, we compare embeddings of non-Euclidean geometries into the Euclidean space with embeddings of the non-Kolmogorovian probabilities (in particular, quantum probability) into the Kolmogorov probability space. As an example, we consider the CHSH-test.Our aim is to emphasize the role of mathematical models in physics, especially models of geometry and probability. We briefly compare developments of geometry and probability by pointing to similarities and differences: from Euclid to Lobachevsky and from Kolmogorov to Bell. In probability, Bell could play the same role as Lobachevsky in geometry. In fact, violation of Bell’s inequality can be treated as implying the impossibility to apply the classical probability model of Kolmogorov (1933) to quantum phenomena. Thus the quantum probabilistic model (based on Born’s rule) can be considered as the concrete example of the non-Kolmogorovian model of probability, similarly to the Lobachevskian model — the first example of the non-Euclidean model of geometry. This is the “probability model” interpretation of the violation of Bell’s inequality. We also criticize the standard interpretation—an attempt to add to rigorous mathematical probability models additional elements such as (non)locality and (un)realism. Finally, we compare embeddings of non-Euclidean geometries into the Euclidean space with embeddings of the non-Kolmogorovian probabilities (in particular, quantum probability) into the Kolmogorov probability space. As an example, we consider the CHSH-test.

arXiv:1412.6987Open Systems & Information DynamicsJun 1, 201613 citations

Classical and Quantum Probability

Stephen Bruce Sontz

Springer eBooksJan 1, 20200 citations

A formula of total probability with interference term and the Hilbert space representation of the contextual Kolmogorovian model

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

We compare the classical Kolmogorov and quantum probability models. We show that the gap between these model is not so huge as it was commonly believed. The main structures of quantum theory (interference of probabilities, Born's rule, complex probabilistic amplitudes, Hilbert state space, representation of observables by operators) are present in a latent form in the Kolmogorov model. In particular, we obtain ``interference of probabilities'' without to appeal to the Hilbert space formalism. We interpret ``interference of probabilities'' as a perturbation (by a $\cos$ -term) of the conventional formula of total probability. Our classical derivation of quantum probabilistic formalism can stimulate applications of quantum methods outside of microworld : in psychology, biology, economy,...We compare the classical Kolmogorov and quantum probability models. We show that the gap between these model is not so huge as it was commonly believed. The main structures of quantum theory (interference of probabilities, Born's rule, complex probabilistic amplitudes, Hilbert state space, representation of observables by operators) are present in a latent form in the Kolmogorov model. In particular, we obtain ``interference of probabilities'' without to appeal to the Hilbert space formalism. We interpret ``interference of probabilities'' as a perturbation (by a $\cos$-term) of the conventional formula of total probability. Our classical derivation of quantum probabilistic formalism can stimulate applications of quantum methods outside of microworld : in psychology, biology, economy,...

arXiv:math/0609197Sep 7, 20060 citations

Classical and Quantum Probability

Heinrich Saller

Springer eBooksJan 1, 20170 citations

\cos

-term) of the conventional formula of total probability. Our classical derivation of quantum probabilistic formalism can stimulate applications of quantum methods outside of microworld : in psychology, biology, economy,...