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 quantum probability

Luigi Accardi

Published Jan 1, 1982• 21 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

The main thesis advocated in the present paper is that some well-established laws of classical probability theory (typically the theorem of composite probabilities) are model dependent assertions, like some theorems of Euclidean geometry. In Sections (1) and (2) we briefly describe how this thesis is framed in the wider context of quantum probability and how it can throw some light on the open debate concerning the interpretation of quantum theory, as well as on the necessity of using a non-Kolmogorovian model in quantum theory. In Sections (3), (4) and (5) we show that the general ideas formulated in Sections (1) and (2), when given a precise mathematical form, allow one to account for all the nonstandard features of the quantum probability model (C -numbers, Hilbert spaces,... ) as well as to exhibit statistical models which are neither Kolmogorovian nor quantum.

Related papers

3. Uncertainty, statistics, probability

Arnold Neumaier

In this chapter, we consider the way quantum theory represents deterministic, statistical, and probabilistic aspects of Nature. After a discussion in Section 3.1 of uncertainty in general, we discuss in Sections 3.2-3.4 several formal notions of classical probability, their relation to the probability concept used in applied statistics, and their dependence on the description used. Section 3.5 briefly discusses various examples, where probabilistic features emerge from fully deterministic situations-a theme to be taken up in much more detail in Chapter 11. Section 3.6 then shows how the statistical aspects of the quantum formalism naturally follow from the weak law of large numbers. The notions of c-probability in the classical case and of q-probability in the quantum case are formally defined in Section 3.7. Historically, the concept of classical probability (including its use in stochastic processes) was given an undisputed formal mathematical foundation in 1933 in terms of the measure-theoretic setting of Kolmogorov [164]. Apart from this traditional axiomatic foundation of classical probability theory, there is a less well-known equivalent axiomatic treatment by Whittle [302] in terms of expectations. Here probabilities appear as the expectations of statements, {0, 1}-valued random variables. von Plato [240] discusses the history of the concept of probability. Krüger et al. [169] discuss the history of probability in the various fields of application. Sklar [275] discusses the philosophical problems of the probability concept, with an emphasis on statistical mechanics.

De Gruyter eBooks•Oct 24, 2019•0 citations

Unification of classical and quantum probabilistic formalisms

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

We demonstrate that the contextual approach to Kolmogorov probability model gives the possibility to unify this conventional model of probability with the quantum (Hilbert space) probability model. In fact, the Kolmogorov model can exhibit all distinguishing features of the quantum probability model. In particular, by using the contextual (interference) formula of total probability one can construct complex amplitudes of Kolmogorov probabilities. There exists a natural Hilbert space structure on the space of those complex amplitudes. Classical (Kolmogorovian) random variables are represented by in general noncommutative operators in the Hilbert space of complex amplitudes. The existence of such a contextual representation of the Kolmogorovian model looks very surprising in the view of the orthodox quantum tradition. Supported by EU-network “Quantum Probability and Applications”.

•Feb 27, 2003•1 citation

Bell Could Become the Copernicus of Probability

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

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:1412.6987•Open Systems & Information Dynamics•Jun 1, 2016•13 citations

Introduction to Quantum Theory

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

This chapter contains a brief introduction to mathematical formalism and QM axiomatics. It is oriented to non-physicists. Since QM is a statistical theory it is natural to start with the classical probability model (Kolmogorov [ 191 ], 1933). Then we present the basics of the theory of Hilbert spaces and Hermitian operators and the representation of pure and mixed states by normalized vectors and density operators. This introduction is sufficient to formulate the axiomatics of QM in the form of five postulates. The projection postulate (the most questionable postulate of QM) is presented in a separate section. We sharply distinguish between the cases of quantum observables represented by Hermitian operators with nondegenerate and degenerate spectra, von Neumann’s and Ltiders’s forms of the projection postulate. The axiomatics is completed by a short section on the main interpretations of QM. The projection postulate (LUders’s form) plays a crucial role in the definition of quantum conditional (transition) probability. By operating with the latter we consider interference of probabilities for two incompatible observables as a modification of the formula of total probability by adding the interference term. This viewpoint to interference of probabilities was elaborated in a series of works by Khrennikov. Since classical probability theory is based on the 142 Boolean algebra of events, a violation of the law of total probability can be treated as the probabilistic sign of a violation of the laws of the Boolean logics. From this viewpoint, quantum theory can be considered as representing a new kind of logic, so-called quantum logic. The latter is also briefly presented in a separate section. We continue this review with a new portion of quantum mathematics, namely the notion of the tensor product of Hilbert spaces and the tensor product of operators. After the section on Dirac’s notation with ket and bra vector, we discuss briefly the notion of qubit and entanglement of a few qubits. This chapter concludes with a presentation of the detailed analysis of the probabilistic structure of the two-slit experiment in a bunch of different experimental contexts. This contextual structure leads to a violation of the law of total probability and non-Kolmogorovean probabilistic structure of this experiment.

•Jul 30, 2020•0 citations

Conditioning in classical probability: some conceptual aspects

Luigi Accardi, Andreas Boukas

After briefly recalling some of the main theses of quantum probability concerning the foundational aspects of quantum mechanics and of probability theory, we describe the various categories of axioms in classical probability theory and focus our attention on the classical conditioning axioms. Four classical conditioning axioms are proposed, their probabilistic and model-independent meaning is discussed and it is proven that: (i) the only mathematical realization of these axioms is the classical Bayes rule (or equivalently the classical theorem of composite probabilities) and (ii) von Neumann's projection postulate, which can be considered one of the first examples of quantum conditioning axioms, violates two of these axioms. Finally, we construct an example showing that, even in classical probability, an uncritical application of Bayes' rule can lead to non-optimal predictions. This article is part of the theme issue 'Quantum theory and topology in models of decision making (Part 2)'.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Dec 11, 2025•0 citations

The Concept of Probability in Statistical Physics

Y. M. Guttmann

Foundational issues in statistical mechanics and the more general question of how probability is to be understood in the context of physical theories are both areas that have been neglected by philosophers of physics. This book fills an important gap in the literature by providing a most systematic study of how to interpret probabilistic assertions in the context of statistical mechanics. The book explores both subjectivist and objectivist accounts of probability, and takes full measure of work in the foundations of probability theory, in statistical mechanics, and in mathematical theory. It will be of particular interest to philosophers of science, physicists and mathematicians interested in foundational issues, and also to historians of science.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jul 13, 1999•67 citations
The main thesis advocated in the present paper is that some well-established laws of classical probability theory (typically the theorem of composite probabilities) are model dependent assertions, like some theorems of Euclidean geometry. In Sections (1) and (2) we briefly describe how this thesis is framed in the wider context of quantum probability and how it can throw some light on the open debate concerning the interpretation of quantum theory, as well as on the necessity of using a non-Kolmogorovian model in quantum theory. In Sections (3), (4) and (5) we show that the general ideas formulated in Sections (1) and (2), when given a precise mathematical form, allow one to account for all the nonstandard features of the quantum probability model (C -numbers, Hilbert spaces,... ) as well as to exhibit statistical models which are neither Kolmogorovian nor quantum.
In this chapter, we consider the way quantum theory represents deterministic, statistical, and probabilistic aspects of Nature. After a discussion in Section 3.1 of uncertainty in general, we discuss in Sections 3.2-3.4 several formal notions of classical probability, their relation to the probability concept used in applied statistics, and their dependence on the description used. Section 3.5 briefly discusses various examples, where probabilistic features emerge from fully deterministic situations-a theme to be taken up in much more detail in Chapter 11. Section 3.6 then shows how the statistical aspects of the quantum formalism naturally follow from the weak law of large numbers. The notions of c-probability in the classical case and of q-probability in the quantum case are formally defined in Section 3.7. Historically, the concept of classical probability (including its use in stochastic processes) was given an undisputed formal mathematical foundation in 1933 in terms of the measure-theoretic setting of Kolmogorov [164]. Apart from this traditional axiomatic foundation of classical probability theory, there is a less well-known equivalent axiomatic treatment by Whittle [302] in terms of expectations. Here probabilities appear as the expectations of statements, {0, 1}-valued random variables. von Plato [240] discusses the history of the concept of probability. Krüger et al. [169] discuss the history of probability in the various fields of application. Sklar [275] discusses the philosophical problems of the probability concept, with an emphasis on statistical mechanics.
We demonstrate that the contextual approach to Kolmogorov probability model gives the possibility to unify this conventional model of probability with the quantum (Hilbert space) probability model. In fact, the Kolmogorov model can exhibit all distinguishing features of the quantum probability model. In particular, by using the contextual (interference) formula of total probability one can construct complex amplitudes of Kolmogorov probabilities. There exists a natural Hilbert space structure on the space of those complex amplitudes. Classical (Kolmogorovian) random variables are represented by in general noncommutative operators in the Hilbert space of complex amplitudes. The existence of such a contextual representation of the Kolmogorovian model looks very surprising in the view of the orthodox quantum tradition. Supported by EU-network “Quantum Probability and Applications”.
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.
This chapter contains a brief introduction to mathematical formalism and QM axiomatics. It is oriented to non-physicists. Since QM is a statistical theory it is natural to start with the classical probability model (Kolmogorov [ 191 ], 1933). Then we present the basics of the theory of Hilbert spaces and Hermitian operators and the representation of pure and mixed states by normalized vectors and density operators. This introduction is sufficient to formulate the axiomatics of QM in the form of five postulates. The projection postulate (the most questionable postulate of QM) is presented in a separate section. We sharply distinguish between the cases of quantum observables represented by Hermitian operators with nondegenerate and degenerate spectra, von Neumann’s and Ltiders’s forms of the projection postulate. The axiomatics is completed by a short section on the main interpretations of QM. The projection postulate (LUders’s form) plays a crucial role in the definition of quantum conditional (transition) probability. By operating with the latter we consider interference of probabilities for two incompatible observables as a modification of the formula of total probability by adding the interference term. This viewpoint to interference of probabilities was elaborated in a series of works by Khrennikov. Since classical probability theory is based on the 142 Boolean algebra of events, a violation of the law of total probability can be treated as the probabilistic sign of a violation of the laws of the Boolean logics. From this viewpoint, quantum theory can be considered as representing a new kind of logic, so-called quantum logic. The latter is also briefly presented in a separate section. We continue this review with a new portion of quantum mathematics, namely the notion of the tensor product of Hilbert spaces and the tensor product of operators. After the section on Dirac’s notation with ket and bra vector, we discuss briefly the notion of qubit and entanglement of a few qubits. This chapter concludes with a presentation of the detailed analysis of the probabilistic structure of the two-slit experiment in a bunch of different experimental contexts. This contextual structure leads to a violation of the law of total probability and non-Kolmogorovean probabilistic structure of this experiment.
After briefly recalling some of the main theses of quantum probability concerning the foundational aspects of quantum mechanics and of probability theory, we describe the various categories of axioms in classical probability theory and focus our attention on the classical conditioning axioms. Four classical conditioning axioms are proposed, their probabilistic and model-independent meaning is discussed and it is proven that: (i) the only mathematical realization of these axioms is the classical Bayes rule (or equivalently the classical theorem of composite probabilities) and (ii) von Neumann's projection postulate, which can be considered one of the first examples of quantum conditioning axioms, violates two of these axioms. Finally, we construct an example showing that, even in classical probability, an uncritical application of Bayes' rule can lead to non-optimal predictions. This article is part of the theme issue 'Quantum theory and topology in models of decision making (Part 2)'.
Foundational issues in statistical mechanics and the more general question of how probability is to be understood in the context of physical theories are both areas that have been neglected by philosophers of physics. This book fills an important gap in the literature by providing a most systematic study of how to interpret probabilistic assertions in the context of statistical mechanics. The book explores both subjectivist and objectivist accounts of probability, and takes full measure of work in the foundations of probability theory, in statistical mechanics, and in mathematical theory. It will be of particular interest to philosophers of science, physicists and mathematicians interested in foundational issues, and also to historians of science.