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/0408191

What is wrong with von Neumann's theorem on "no hidden variables"

Elemér Elad Rosinger

Published Aug 31, 2004• 7 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

It is shown that, although correct mathematically, the celebrated 1932 theorem of von Neumann which is often interpreted as proving the impossibility of the existence of "hidden variables" in Quantum Mechanics, is in fact based on an assumption which is physically not reasonable. Apart from that, the alleged conclusion of von Neumann proving the impossibility of the existence of "hidden variables" was already set aside in 1952 by the counterexample of the possibility of a physical theory, such as given by what is usually called the "Bohmian Mechanics". Similar arguments apply to other two well known mathematical theorems, namely, of Gleason, and of Kochen and Specker, which have often been seen as equally proving the impossibility of the existence of "hidden variables" in Quantum Mechanics.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0408191

Related papers

A retrospective review of von Neumann’s analysis of hidden variables in quantum mechanics

Robert Golub, S. K. Lamoreaux

This article reviews the history of J. von Neumann’s analysis of hidden variables in quantum mechanics and the subsequent analysis by others. In his book The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, published in 1932, von Neumann performed an analysis of the consequences of introducing hidden parameters (hidden variables) into quantum mechanics. He arrived at two principal conclusions: first, hidden variables cannot be incorporated into the existing theory of quantum mechanics without major modifications, and second, if they did exist, the theory would have already failed in situations where it has been successfully applied. This analysis has been taken as an “incorrect proof” against the existence of hidden variables, possibly due to a mistranslation of the German word prufen. von Neumann’s so-called proof isn’t even wrong as such a proof does not exist, but it is an examination of the limitations imposed by internal consistency of the Hilbert space formulation of the theory. One of the earliest attempts to eliminate uncertainty, by D. Bohm, requires a major modification of quantum mechanics (observables are not represented by Hermitian operators), which supports von Neumann’s first principal conclusion. However, testing the Bohm theory requires constructing a physically impossible initial state. As such, the theory has no experimental consequences, so W. Pauli referred to it as an “uncashable check”. As there are no observable consequences, the Bohm theory is possibly a counterexample to von Neumann’s second conclusion that hidden variables in particular would have already led to a failure of the theory.

Academia quantum.•Aug 26, 2024•4 citations

A Refutation of the Proof by Jauch and Piron that Hidden Variables Can be Excluded in Quantum Mechanics

David Böhm, Jeffrey Bub

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.

Reviews of Modern Physics•Jul 1, 1966•89 citations

A pedestrian approach to von Neumann’s hidden variables proof

Leonardo Andreta de Castro, Carlos Alexandre Brasil

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.

European Journal of Physics•Nov 13, 2025•1 citation

Hidden Variables: Rehabilitation of von Neumann's Analysis, and Pauli's Uncashable Check

Robert Golub, S. K. Lamoreaux

In his book \textit{The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics}, published in 1932, J. von Neumann performed an analysis of the consequences of introducing hidden parameters (hidden variables) into quantum mechanics. He showed that hidden variables cannot be incorporated into the existing theory of quantum mechanics without major modifications, and concluded that if they did exist, the theory would have already failed in situations where it has been successfully applied. von Neumann left open the possibility that the theory is not complete, and his analysis for internal consistency is the best that can be done for a self-referenced logical system (Gödel's theorem). This analysis had been taken as an ``incorrect proof" against the existence of hidden variables. von Neumann's so-called proof isn't even wrong as such a proof does not exist. One of the earliest attempts at a hidden variable theory was by D. Bohm, and because there were no experimental consequences, W. Pauli referred to it as an ``uncashable check." To our knowledge, a successful hidden variable extension to quantum mechanics with testable consequences has not yet been produced, suggesting that von Neumann's analysis is worthy of rehabilitation, which we attempt to provide in a straightforward manner.

arXiv:2401.04002•Jan 8, 2024•0 citations

On the Unconditional Validity of J. von Neumann's Proof of the Impossibility of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics

C. S. Unnikrishnan

The impossibility of theories with hidden variables as an alternative and replacement for quantum mechanics was discussed by J. von Neumann in 1932. His proof was criticized as being logically circular, by Grete Hermann soon after, and as fundamentally flawed, by John Bell in 1964. Bell's severe criticism of Neumann's proof and the explicit (counter) example of a hidden variable model for the measurement of a quantum spin are considered by most researchers, though not all, as the definitive demonstration that Neumann's proof is inadequate. Despite being an argument of mathematical physics, an ambiguity of decision remains to this day. I show that Neumann's assumption of the linear additivity of the expectation values, even for incompatible (noncommuting) observables, is a necessary constraint related to the nature of observable physical variables and to the conservation laws. Therefore, any theory should necessarily obey it to qualify as a physically valid theory. Then, obviously, the hidden variable theories with dispersion-free ensembles that violate this assumption are ruled out. I show that it is Bell's counter-example that is fundamentally flawed, being inconsistent with the factual mechanics. Further, it is shown that the local hidden variable theories, for which the Bell's inequalities were derived, are grossly incompatible with the fundamental conservation laws. I identify the intrinsic uncertainty in the action as the reason for the irreducible dispersion, which implies that there are no dispersion-free ensembles at any scale of mechanics. With the unconditional validity of its central assumption shown, Neumann's proof is fully resurrected.

arXiv:2105.13996•May 27, 2021•0 citations

Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics

I. I. Zinnes

The hidden variable theorem due to von Neumann is deduced in a physically transparent manner. As a result it is clear that the theorem is correct only if one requires that these hidden variables merely enlarge the set of observables employed at present in quantum mechanics. The theorem cannot be interpreted to mean that one cannot introduce such additional variables in order (1) to specify a state with classical completeness and (2) to define the usual observables as statistical parameters.

American Journal of Physics•Jan 1, 1958•5 citations
It is shown that, although correct mathematically, the celebrated 1932 theorem of von Neumann which is often interpreted as proving the impossibility of the existence of "hidden variables" in Quantum Mechanics, is in fact based on an assumption which is physically not reasonable. Apart from that, the alleged conclusion of von Neumann proving the impossibility of the existence of "hidden variables" was already set aside in 1952 by the counterexample of the possibility of a physical theory, such as given by what is usually called the "Bohmian Mechanics". Similar arguments apply to other two well known mathematical theorems, namely, of Gleason, and of Kochen and Specker, which have often been seen as equally proving the impossibility of the existence of "hidden variables" in Quantum Mechanics.
This article reviews the history of J. von Neumann’s analysis of hidden variables in quantum mechanics and the subsequent analysis by others. In his book The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, published in 1932, von Neumann performed an analysis of the consequences of introducing hidden parameters (hidden variables) into quantum mechanics. He arrived at two principal conclusions: first, hidden variables cannot be incorporated into the existing theory of quantum mechanics without major modifications, and second, if they did exist, the theory would have already failed in situations where it has been successfully applied. This analysis has been taken as an “incorrect proof” against the existence of hidden variables, possibly due to a mistranslation of the German word prufen. von Neumann’s so-called proof isn’t even wrong as such a proof does not exist, but it is an examination of the limitations imposed by internal consistency of the Hilbert space formulation of the theory. One of the earliest attempts to eliminate uncertainty, by D. Bohm, requires a major modification of quantum mechanics (observables are not represented by Hermitian operators), which supports von Neumann’s first principal conclusion. However, testing the Bohm theory requires constructing a physically impossible initial state. As such, the theory has no experimental consequences, so W. Pauli referred to it as an “uncashable check”. As there are no observable consequences, the Bohm theory is possibly a counterexample to von Neumann’s second conclusion that hidden variables in particular would have already led to a failure of the theory.
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 his book \textit{The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics}, published in 1932, J. von Neumann performed an analysis of the consequences of introducing hidden parameters (hidden variables) into quantum mechanics. He showed that hidden variables cannot be incorporated into the existing theory of quantum mechanics without major modifications, and concluded that if they did exist, the theory would have already failed in situations where it has been successfully applied. von Neumann left open the possibility that the theory is not complete, and his analysis for internal consistency is the best that can be done for a self-referenced logical system (Gödel's theorem). This analysis had been taken as an ``incorrect proof" against the existence of hidden variables. von Neumann's so-called proof isn't even wrong as such a proof does not exist. One of the earliest attempts at a hidden variable theory was by D. Bohm, and because there were no experimental consequences, W. Pauli referred to it as an ``uncashable check." To our knowledge, a successful hidden variable extension to quantum mechanics with testable consequences has not yet been produced, suggesting that von Neumann's analysis is worthy of rehabilitation, which we attempt to provide in a straightforward manner.
The impossibility of theories with hidden variables as an alternative and replacement for quantum mechanics was discussed by J. von Neumann in 1932. His proof was criticized as being logically circular, by Grete Hermann soon after, and as fundamentally flawed, by John Bell in 1964. Bell's severe criticism of Neumann's proof and the explicit (counter) example of a hidden variable model for the measurement of a quantum spin are considered by most researchers, though not all, as the definitive demonstration that Neumann's proof is inadequate. Despite being an argument of mathematical physics, an ambiguity of decision remains to this day. I show that Neumann's assumption of the linear additivity of the expectation values, even for incompatible (noncommuting) observables, is a necessary constraint related to the nature of observable physical variables and to the conservation laws. Therefore, any theory should necessarily obey it to qualify as a physically valid theory. Then, obviously, the hidden variable theories with dispersion-free ensembles that violate this assumption are ruled out. I show that it is Bell's counter-example that is fundamentally flawed, being inconsistent with the factual mechanics. Further, it is shown that the local hidden variable theories, for which the Bell's inequalities were derived, are grossly incompatible with the fundamental conservation laws. I identify the intrinsic uncertainty in the action as the reason for the irreducible dispersion, which implies that there are no dispersion-free ensembles at any scale of mechanics. With the unconditional validity of its central assumption shown, Neumann's proof is fully resurrected.