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

arXiv:quant-ph/0003017 · Journal of Mathematical Physics

Non-Kolmogorov probability models and modified Bell’s inequality

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Published Apr 1, 2000• 50 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We analyze the proof of Bell’s inequality and demonstrate that this inequality is related to one particular model of probability theory, namely Kolmogorov measure-theoretical axiomatics from 1933. We found a (numerical) statistical correction to Bell’s inequality. Such an additional term εφ on the right-hand side of Bell’s inequality can be considered as a probability invariant of a quantum state φ. This is a measure of nonreproducibility of hidden variables in different runs of experiments. Experiments to verify Bell’s inequality can be considered as just experiments to estimate the constant εφ. It seems that Bell’s inequality could not be used as a crucial reason to deny local realism. We consider deterministic as well as stochastic hidden variables models.

DOI
10.1063/1.533210

Related papers

Non-local Hidden Variable Theories and Bell's Inequality

Jeffrey Bub, Vandana Shiva

The conceptually puzzling features of quantum mechanics as a statistical theory all have their source in the impossibility of relating the probability assignments defined by the quantum state to distributions over determinate values of the physical magnitudes. While some interpretations of quantum mechanics, as well as “hidden variable” modifications of the theory, have proposed several constructions for assigning values to magnitudes (beyond the value assignments defined by the quantum state alone), a variety of theorems exist which impose severe restrictions on such theoretical constructions. This note will deal with Bell's proof (in [2]), that any hidden variable theory satisfying a physically reasonable locality condition is characterized by an inequality which is inconsistent with the quantum statistics. Bell's result has initiated a series of experiments designed to refute the entire class of local hidden variable theories. We show that Bell's inequality actually characterizes a feature of hidden variable theories which is much weaker than locality in the sense considered physically motivated.

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association•Jan 1, 1978•4 citations

A Probability Model for the Bell Experiment

Kees van Hee, Kees van Berkel, J. de Graaf

The Bell inequality constrains the outcomes of measurements on pairs of distant entangled particles. The Bell contradiction states that the Bell inequality is inconsistent with the calculated outcomes of these quantum experiments. This contradiction led many to question the underlying assumptions, viz. so-called realism and locality. The probability model underlying the Bell inequality is generally left implicit. We propose an explicit probability model for the CHSH version of the Bell experiment. This model has only two simultaneously observable detector settings per measurement, and therefore does not assume realism. The quantum expectation now becomes a conditional expectation, given the two detector settings. This probability model is in full agreement with both quantum mechanics and experiments. As a result, the model satisfies the Bell inequality; there are no so-called violations. We extend this model to include a hidden variable. This extended model is not Bell-separable. This non-separability implies that the model is non-deterministic or non-local (or both).

arXiv:2302.05174•Quantum Reports•Feb 14, 2026•0 citations

Demystification of Bell inequality

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

The main aim of this review is to show that the common conclusion that Bell's argument implies that any attempt to proceed beyond quantum mechanics induces a nonlocal model was not totally justified. Our analysis of Bell's argument demonstrates that violation of Bell's inequality implies neither "death of realism" nor nonlocality. This violation is just a sign of non-Kolmogorovness of statistical data - impossibility to put statistical data collected in a few different experiments (corresponding to incompatible settings of polarization beam splitters) in one probability space. This inequality was well known in theoretical probability since 19th century (from works of Boole). We couple non-Kolmogorovness of data with design of modern detectors of photons.

Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Aug 20, 2009•2 citations

Using Measured Values in Bell’s Inequalities Entails at Least One Hypothesis in Addition to Local Realism

Alejandro Andrés Hnilo

The recent loophole-free experiments have confirmed the violation of Bell’s inequalities in nature. Yet, in order to insert measured values in Bell’s inequalities, it is unavoidable to make a hypothesis similar to “ergodicity at the hidden variables level”. This possibility opens a promising way out from the old controversy between quantum mechanics and local realism. Here, I review the reason why such a hypothesis (actually, it is one of a set of related hypotheses) in addition to local realism is necessary, and present a simple example, related to Bell’s inequalities, where the hypothesis is violated. This example shows that the violation of the additional hypothesis is necessary, but not sufficient, to violate Bell’s inequalities without violating local realism. The example also provides some clues that may reveal the violation of the additional hypothesis in an experiment.

Entropy•Apr 22, 2017•5 citations

Expectation Value in Bell's Theorem

Zheng-Chuan Wang

We will demonstrate in this paper that Bell's theorem (Bell's inequality) does not really conflict with quantum mechanics, the controversy between them originates from the different definitions for the expectation value using the probability distribution in Bell's inequality and the expectation value in quantum mechanics. We can not use quantum mechanical expectation value measured in experiments to show the violation of Bell's inequality and then further deny the local hidden-variables theory. Considering the difference of their expectation values, a generalized Bell's inequality is presented, which is coincided with the prediction of quantum mechanics.

arXiv:quant-ph/0604194•Apr 26, 2006•0 citations

Bell-Boole Inequality: Nonlocality or Probabilistic Incompatibility of Random Variables?

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

The main aim of this report is to inform the quantum information community about investigations on the problem of probabilistic compatibility of a family of random variables: a possibility to realize such a family on the basis of a single probability measure (to construct a single Kolmogorov probability space). These investigations were started hundred of years ago by J. Boole (who invented Boolean algebras). The complete solution of the problem was obtained by Soviet mathematician Vorobjev in 60th. Surprisingly probabilists and statisticians obtained inequalities for probabilities and correlations among which one can find the famous Bell’s inequality and its generalizations. Such inequalities appeared simply as constraints for probabilistic compatibility. In this framework one can not see a priori any link to such problems as nonlocality and “death of reality” which are typically linked to Bell’s type inequalities in physical literature. We analyze the difference between positions of mathematicians and quantum physicists. In particular, we found that one of the most reasonable explanations of probabilistic incompatibility is mixing in Bell’s type inequalities statistical data from a number of experiments performed under different experimental contexts.

Entropy•Mar 19, 2008•80 citations
We analyze the proof of Bell’s inequality and demonstrate that this inequality is related to one particular model of probability theory, namely Kolmogorov measure-theoretical axiomatics from 1933. We found a (numerical) statistical correction to Bell’s inequality. Such an additional term εφ on the right-hand side of Bell’s inequality can be considered as a probability invariant of a quantum state φ. This is a measure of nonreproducibility of hidden variables in different runs of experiments. Experiments to verify Bell’s inequality can be considered as just experiments to estimate the constant εφ. It seems that Bell’s inequality could not be used as a crucial reason to deny local realism. We consider deterministic as well as stochastic hidden variables models.
The conceptually puzzling features of quantum mechanics as a statistical theory all have their source in the impossibility of relating the probability assignments defined by the quantum state to distributions over determinate values of the physical magnitudes. While some interpretations of quantum mechanics, as well as “hidden variable” modifications of the theory, have proposed several constructions for assigning values to magnitudes (beyond the value assignments defined by the quantum state alone), a variety of theorems exist which impose severe restrictions on such theoretical constructions. This note will deal with Bell's proof (in [2]), that any hidden variable theory satisfying a physically reasonable locality condition is characterized by an inequality which is inconsistent with the quantum statistics. Bell's result has initiated a series of experiments designed to refute the entire class of local hidden variable theories. We show that Bell's inequality actually characterizes a feature of hidden variable theories which is much weaker than locality in the sense considered physically motivated.
The Bell inequality constrains the outcomes of measurements on pairs of distant entangled particles. The Bell contradiction states that the Bell inequality is inconsistent with the calculated outcomes of these quantum experiments. This contradiction led many to question the underlying assumptions, viz. so-called realism and locality. The probability model underlying the Bell inequality is generally left implicit. We propose an explicit probability model for the CHSH version of the Bell experiment. This model has only two simultaneously observable detector settings per measurement, and therefore does not assume realism. The quantum expectation now becomes a conditional expectation, given the two detector settings. This probability model is in full agreement with both quantum mechanics and experiments. As a result, the model satisfies the Bell inequality; there are no so-called violations. We extend this model to include a hidden variable. This extended model is not Bell-separable. This non-separability implies that the model is non-deterministic or non-local (or both).
The main aim of this review is to show that the common conclusion that Bell's argument implies that any attempt to proceed beyond quantum mechanics induces a nonlocal model was not totally justified. Our analysis of Bell's argument demonstrates that violation of Bell's inequality implies neither "death of realism" nor nonlocality. This violation is just a sign of non-Kolmogorovness of statistical data - impossibility to put statistical data collected in a few different experiments (corresponding to incompatible settings of polarization beam splitters) in one probability space. This inequality was well known in theoretical probability since 19th century (from works of Boole). We couple non-Kolmogorovness of data with design of modern detectors of photons.
The recent loophole-free experiments have confirmed the violation of Bell’s inequalities in nature. Yet, in order to insert measured values in Bell’s inequalities, it is unavoidable to make a hypothesis similar to “ergodicity at the hidden variables level”. This possibility opens a promising way out from the old controversy between quantum mechanics and local realism. Here, I review the reason why such a hypothesis (actually, it is one of a set of related hypotheses) in addition to local realism is necessary, and present a simple example, related to Bell’s inequalities, where the hypothesis is violated. This example shows that the violation of the additional hypothesis is necessary, but not sufficient, to violate Bell’s inequalities without violating local realism. The example also provides some clues that may reveal the violation of the additional hypothesis in an experiment.
We will demonstrate in this paper that Bell's theorem (Bell's inequality) does not really conflict with quantum mechanics, the controversy between them originates from the different definitions for the expectation value using the probability distribution in Bell's inequality and the expectation value in quantum mechanics. We can not use quantum mechanical expectation value measured in experiments to show the violation of Bell's inequality and then further deny the local hidden-variables theory. Considering the difference of their expectation values, a generalized Bell's inequality is presented, which is coincided with the prediction of quantum mechanics.
The main aim of this report is to inform the quantum information community about investigations on the problem of probabilistic compatibility of a family of random variables: a possibility to realize such a family on the basis of a single probability measure (to construct a single Kolmogorov probability space). These investigations were started hundred of years ago by J. Boole (who invented Boolean algebras). The complete solution of the problem was obtained by Soviet mathematician Vorobjev in 60th. Surprisingly probabilists and statisticians obtained inequalities for probabilities and correlations among which one can find the famous Bell’s inequality and its generalizations. Such inequalities appeared simply as constraints for probabilistic compatibility. In this framework one can not see a priori any link to such problems as nonlocality and “death of reality” which are typically linked to Bell’s type inequalities in physical literature. We analyze the difference between positions of mathematicians and quantum physicists. In particular, we found that one of the most reasonable explanations of probabilistic incompatibility is mixing in Bell’s type inequalities statistical data from a number of experiments performed under different experimental contexts.