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/0701047 · Theoretical and Mathematical Physics

The possibility of reconciling quantum mechanics with classical probability theory

D. A. Slavnov

Published Dec 1, 2006• 15 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1007/s11232-006-0151-0

Related papers

A Search for A Stochastic Archetype of Quantum Probability

Tim C Jenkins

Abstract Superposed wavefunctions in quantum mechanics lead to a squared amplitude that introduces interference into a probability density, which has long been a puzzle because interference between probability densities exists nowhere else in probability theory. In recent years, Man’ko and coauthors have successfully reconciled quantum and classic probability using a symplectic tomographic model. Nevertheless, there remains an unexplained coincidence in quantum mechanics, namely, that mathematically, the interference term in the squared amplitude of superposed wavefunctions gives the squared amplitude the form of a variance of a sum of correlated random variables, and we examine whether there could be an archetypical variable behind quantum probability that provides a mathematical foundation that observes both quantum and classic probability directly. The properties that would need to be satisfied for this to be the case are identified, and a generic hidden variable that satisfies them is found that would be present everywhere, transforming into a process-specific variable wherever a quantum process is active. Uncovering this variable confirms the possibility that it is the stochastic archetype of quantum probability.

Advances in Theoretical & Computational Physics•Jan 14, 2022•1 citation

Quantum mechanics and classical probability theory

Joseph D. Sneed

Synthese•Mar 1, 1970•36 citations

On reconciling quantum mechanics and local realism

Donald A. Graft

Accepting nonlocal quantum correlations requires us to reject special relativity and/or probability theory. We can retain both by revising our interpretation of quantum mechanics regarding the handling of separated systems, as quantum mechanics conflicts with local realism only in its treatment of separated systems. We cannot use the joint probability formula for cases of separated measurements. We use the marginals (partial traces) together with whatever priors we have from an understanding of the system. This program can reconcile quantum mechanics with local realism. An apparent obstacle to this program is the experimental evidence, but we argue that the experiments have been misinterpreted, and that when correctly interpreted they confirm local realism. We describe a local realistic account of one important Einstein-Poldosky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiment (Weihs et al6) that claims to demonstrate nonlocal entanglement. We present a local realistic system (experiment) that can be calibrated into both quantum and classical correlation domains via adjustment of parameters (‘hidden variables’) of the apparatus. Weihs incorrectly dismisses these parameters as uncritical. Nonlocal entanglement is seen to be an error. The rest of quantum mechanics remains intact, and remains highly valued as a powerful probability calculus for observables. Freed from the incoherent idea of nonlocal entanglement, we can leverage powerful classical ideas, such as semiclassical radiation theory, stochastic dynamics, classical noncommutativity/contextuality, measurement effects on state, etc., to augment or complement quantum mechanics. When properly interpreted and applied, quantum mechanics lives in peaceful harmony with the local realist conception, and both perspectives offer useful paradigms for describing systems.

arXiv:1309.1153•Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Oct 1, 2013•5 citations

Quantum Mechanics and Classical Probability Theory

Vladimir I. Man’ko

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1997•14 citations

The Misapplication of Probability Theory in Quantum Mechanics

Ronald L. Racicot

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Mar 7, 2014•0 citations

Computational Complexity and the Nature of Quantum Mechanics

Alessio Benavoli, Alessandro Facchini, Marco Zaffalon A

Quantum theory (QT) has been confirmed by numerous experiments, yet we still cannot fully grasp the meaning of the theory. As a consequence, the quantum world appears to us paradoxical. Here we shed new light on QT by being based on two main postulates: 1. the theory should be logically consistent; 2. inferences in the theory should be computable in polynomial time. The first postulate is what we require to each well-founded mathematical theory. The computation postulate defines the physical component of the theory. We show that the computation postulate is the only true divide between QT, seen as a generalised theory of probability, and classical probability. All quantum paradoxes, and entanglement in particular, arise from the clash of trying to reconcile a computationally intractable, somewhat idealised, theory (classical physics) with a computationally tractable theory (QT) or, in other words, from regarding physics as fundamental rather than computation.

arXiv:1902.04569•Feb 12, 2019•3 citations
Abstract Superposed wavefunctions in quantum mechanics lead to a squared amplitude that introduces interference into a probability density, which has long been a puzzle because interference between probability densities exists nowhere else in probability theory. In recent years, Man’ko and coauthors have successfully reconciled quantum and classic probability using a symplectic tomographic model. Nevertheless, there remains an unexplained coincidence in quantum mechanics, namely, that mathematically, the interference term in the squared amplitude of superposed wavefunctions gives the squared amplitude the form of a variance of a sum of correlated random variables, and we examine whether there could be an archetypical variable behind quantum probability that provides a mathematical foundation that observes both quantum and classic probability directly. The properties that would need to be satisfied for this to be the case are identified, and a generic hidden variable that satisfies them is found that would be present everywhere, transforming into a process-specific variable wherever a quantum process is active. Uncovering this variable confirms the possibility that it is the stochastic archetype of quantum probability.
Accepting nonlocal quantum correlations requires us to reject special relativity and/or probability theory. We can retain both by revising our interpretation of quantum mechanics regarding the handling of separated systems, as quantum mechanics conflicts with local realism only in its treatment of separated systems. We cannot use the joint probability formula for cases of separated measurements. We use the marginals (partial traces) together with whatever priors we have from an understanding of the system. This program can reconcile quantum mechanics with local realism. An apparent obstacle to this program is the experimental evidence, but we argue that the experiments have been misinterpreted, and that when correctly interpreted they confirm local realism. We describe a local realistic account of one important Einstein-Poldosky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiment (Weihs et al6) that claims to demonstrate nonlocal entanglement. We present a local realistic system (experiment) that can be calibrated into both quantum and classical correlation domains via adjustment of parameters (‘hidden variables’) of the apparatus. Weihs incorrectly dismisses these parameters as uncritical. Nonlocal entanglement is seen to be an error. The rest of quantum mechanics remains intact, and remains highly valued as a powerful probability calculus for observables. Freed from the incoherent idea of nonlocal entanglement, we can leverage powerful classical ideas, such as semiclassical radiation theory, stochastic dynamics, classical noncommutativity/contextuality, measurement effects on state, etc., to augment or complement quantum mechanics. When properly interpreted and applied, quantum mechanics lives in peaceful harmony with the local realist conception, and both perspectives offer useful paradigms for describing systems.
Quantum theory (QT) has been confirmed by numerous experiments, yet we still cannot fully grasp the meaning of the theory. As a consequence, the quantum world appears to us paradoxical. Here we shed new light on QT by being based on two main postulates: 1. the theory should be logically consistent; 2. inferences in the theory should be computable in polynomial time. The first postulate is what we require to each well-founded mathematical theory. The computation postulate defines the physical component of the theory. We show that the computation postulate is the only true divide between QT, seen as a generalised theory of probability, and classical probability. All quantum paradoxes, and entanglement in particular, arise from the clash of trying to reconcile a computationally intractable, somewhat idealised, theory (classical physics) with a computationally tractable theory (QT) or, in other words, from regarding physics as fundamental rather than computation.