Andrei Khrennikov

The interpretation of quantum mechanics remains one of the most challenging problems in the philosophy of science, particularly regarding the relationship between scientific theories and reality. In this section we compare two significant conceptual frameworks that address these challenges: RWR interpretation and the Bild conception of scientific theory structuring. Both approaches offer sophisticated alternatives to traditional realist interpretations while maintaining scientific rigor and explanatory power.

This article takes as its point of departure the view that the discovery of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics (QM) was not merely a discovery of a new mathematical way of dealing with physical, and specifically quantum, processes in nature. It was also a discovery of a general mathematical formalism (in part discovered in mathematics itself earlier), which, supplemented by certain additional rules, consistently described the processing of incomplete information about certain events and contexts in which these events occur. This article proposes a quantum-like (QL) model of the functioning of the brain based on the (Hilbert-space) formalism of quantum mechanics, but now used as part of a QL mathematical model of neural processes in the brain, rather than for describing quantum physical processes. This model is, thus, fundamentally different from the (reductionist) quantum model of the brain and consciousness, according to which cognition arises by virtue of physical quantum processes in the brain. In the present view, the brain is an advanced biological system that developed the ability to create a QL representation of contexts, which, thus, allows one to describe a significant part of its functioning by the QM mathematical formalism. The possibility of such a description has nothing to do with the constitution and workings of the brain as a quantum system (composed of photons, electrons, protons, and so forth). The QL model offered here is based instead on conventional neurophysiological model of the functioning of the brain, even though the brain, the article suggests, does use the QL rule (given by von Neumann trace formula, used in QM) for the calculation of approximate averages for mental functions. The QL model developed in this article has a temporal basis, based on a (hypothetical) argument that cognitive processes are based on at least two time scales: a (very fine) subcognitive one and a (much coarser) cognitive one.

The Ozawa’s intersubjectivity theorem (OIT) proved within quantum measurement theory supports the new postulate of relational quantum mechanics (RQM), the postulate on internally consistent descriptions. But from OIT viewpoint postulate’s formulation should be completed by the assumption of probability reproducibility. We remark that this postulate was proposed only recently to resolve the problem of intersubjectivity of information in RQM. In contrast to RQM for which OIT is a supporting theoretical statement, QBism is challenged by OIT.

Quantum-like structure is present practically everywhere. Quantum-like models, i.e. models based on the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics and its generalizations can be successfully applied to cognitive science, psychology, genetics, economics, finances, and game theory. This book is not about quantum mechanics as a physical theory. The short review of quantum postulates is therefore mainly of historical value: quantum mechanics is just the first example of the successful application of non-Kolmogorov probabilities, the first step towards a contextual probabilistic description of natural, biological, psychological, social, economical or financial phenomena. A general contextual probabilistic model is presented. It can be used for describing probabilities in both quantum and classical mechanics as well as in the above mentioned phenomena. This model can be represented in a quantum-like way, namely, in complex and more general Hilbert spaces. In this way quantum probability is totally demystified: Born's representation of quantum probabilities by complex probability amplitudes, wave functions, is simply a special representation of this type.

As previous Växjö conferences on quantum foundations, QTRF-5 was notable not only for the contributions of the papers presented there but also for its exciting debates. These debates offered a great diversity of opinions on foundations of quantum mechanics (QM) and its future developments: from those defined by the view of those who adhere to the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation (which rejected realism and causality), at one end of the spectrum, to those who subscribed to realist views of the type advocated by Einstein, at the other end, with a number of views in between

We show that the so-called quantum probabilistic rule, usually introduced in the physical literature as an argument of the essential distinction between the probability relations under quantum and classical measurements, is not, as it is commonly accepted, in contrast to the rule for the addition of probabilities of mutually exclusive events. The latter is valid under all experimental situations upon classical and quantum systems. We discuss also the quantum measurement situation that is similar to the classical one, described by the Bayes formula. We show the compatibility of the description of this quantum measurement situation in the frame of purely classical and experimentally justified straightforward frequency arguments and in the frame of the quantum stochastic approach to the description of generalized quantum measurements. In view of derived results, we argue that even under experiments upon classical systems the classical Bayes formula describes particular experimental situations that are specific for context-independent measurements. The similarity of the forms of the relation between the transformation of probabilities, which we derive in the frame of the quantum stochastic approach and in the frame of the approach, based on straightforward frequency arguments, underlines once more that the projective (von Neumann) measurements represent only a special type of measurement situations in quantum physics

Recently quantum probability theory started to be actively used in studies of human decision-making, in particular for the resolution of paradoxes (such as the Allais, Ellsberg, and Machina paradoxes). Previous studies were based on a cognitive metaphor of the quantum double-slit experiment—the basic quantum interference experiment. In this paper, we report on an economics experiment based on a triple-slit experiment design, where the slits are menus of alternatives from which one can choose. The test of nonclassicality is based on the Sorkin equality (which was only recently tested in quantum physics). Each alternative is a voucher to buy products in one or more stores. The alternatives are obtained from all disjunctions including one, two or three stores. The participants have to reveal the amount for which they are willing to sell the chosen voucher. Interference terms are computed by comparing the willingness to sell a voucher built as a disjunction of stores and the willingness to sell the vouchers corresponding to the singleton stores. These willingness to sell amounts are used to estimate probabilities and to test both the law of total probabilities and the Born Rule. Results reject neither classical nor quantum probability. We discuss this initial experiment and our results and provide guidelines for future studies.

In this paper I demonstrate that the quantum correlations of polarization observables used in Bell’s argument against local realism have to be interpreted as conditional quantum correlations. By taking into account additional sources of randomness in Bell’s type experiments, i.e., supplementary to source randomness, I calculate the complete quantum correlations. The main message of the quantum theory of measurement is that complete correlations can be essentially smaller than the conditional ones. Additional sources of randomness diminish correlations. One can say another way around: transition from unconditional correlations to conditional can increase them essentially. This is true for both classical and quantum probability. The final remark is that classical conditional correlations do not satisfy Bell’s inequality. Thus we met the following conditional probability dilemma: either to use the conditional quantum probabilities, as was done by Bell and others, or complete quantum correlations. However, in the first case the corresponding classical conditional correlations need not satisfy Bell’s inequality and in the second case the complete quantum correlations satisfy Bell’s inequality. Thus in neither case we have a problem of mismatching of classical and quantum correlations. The whole structure of Bell’s argument was based on identification of conditional quantum correlations with unconditional classical correlations

First, this article considers the nature of quantum reality and the concept of realism in quantum theory, in conjunction with the roles of locality, causality, and probability and statistics there. Second, it offers two interpretations of quantum mechanics, developed by the authors of this article, the second of which is also a different theory of quantum phenomena. Both of these interpretations are statistical. The first interpretation, by A. Plotnitsky, “the statistical Copenhagen interpretation,” is nonrealist, insofar as the description or even conception of the nature of quantum objects and processes is precluded. The second, by A. Khrennikov, is ultimately realist, because it assumes that the quantum-mechanical level of reality is underlain by a deeper level of reality, described, in a realist fashion, by a model, based in the pre-quantum classical statistical field theory, the predictions of which reproduce those of quantum mechanics. Moreover, because the continuous fields considered in this model are transformed into discrete clicks of detectors, experimental outcomes in this model depend on the context of measurement in accordance with N. Bohr’s interpretation and the statistical Copenhagen interpretation, which coincides with N. Bohr’s interpretation in this regard

In experiments of games, players frequently make choices which are regarded as irrational in game theory. In papers of Khrennikov (Information Dynamics in Cognitive, Psychological and Anomalous Phenomena. Fundamental Theories of Physics, Kluwer Academic, Norwell, 2004; Fuzzy Sets Syst. 155:4–17, 2005; Biosystems 84:225–241, 2006; Found. Phys. 35(10):1655–1693, 2005; in QP-PQ Quantum Probability and White Noise Analysis, vol. XXIV, pp. 105–117, 2009), it was pointed out that statistics collected in such the experiments have “quantum-like” properties, which can not be explained in classical probability theory. In this paper, we design a simple quantum-like model describing a decision-making process in a two-players game and try to explain a mechanism of the irrational behavior of players. Finally we discuss a mathematical frame of non-Kolmogorovian system in terms of liftings (Accardi and Ohya, in Appl. Math. Optim. 39:33–59, 1999)

In this short review I present my personal reflections on Zeilinger–Brukner information interpretation of quantum mechanics.In general, this interpretation is very attractive for me. However, its rigid coupling to the notion of irreducible quantum randomness is a very complicated issue which I plan to address in more detail. This note may be useful for general public interested in quantum foundations, especially because I try to analyze essentials of the information interpretation critically. This review is written in non-physicist friendly manner. Experts actively exploring this interpretation may be interested in the paper as well, as in the comments of “an external observer” who have been monitoring the development of this approach to QM during the last 18 years. The last part of this review is devoted to the general methodology of science with references to views of de Finetti, Wigner, and Peres.

Recently a new attempt to go beyond quantum mechanics (QM) was presented in the form of so called prequantum classical statistical field theory (PCSFT). Its main experimental prediction is violation of Born’s rule which provides only an approximative description of real probabilities. We expect that it will be possible to design numerous experiments demonstrating violation of Born’s rule. Moreover, recently the first experimental evidence of violation was found in the triple slit interference experiment, see Sinha, et al. (Foundations of Probability and Physics-5. American Institute of Physics, Ser. Conference Proceedings, vol. 1101, pp. 200–207, 2009). Although this experimental test was motivated by another prequantum model, it can be definitely considered as at least preliminary confirmation of the main prediction of PCSFT. In our approach quantum particles are just symbolic representations of “prequantum random fields,” e.g., “electron-field” or “neutron-field”; photon is associated with classical random electromagnetic field. Such prequantum fields fluctuate on time and space scales which are essentially finer than scales of QM, cf. ’t Hooft’s attempt to go beyond QM (see ’t Hooft arXiv:hep-th/0105105, 2001; arXiv:quant-ph/0212095, 2002; arXiv:quant-ph/0701097, 2007). In this paper we elaborate a detection model in the PCSFT-framework. In this model classical random fields (corresponding to “quantum particles”) interact with detectors inducing probabilities which match with Born’s rule only approximately. Thus QM arises from PCSFT as an approximative theory. New tests of violation of Born’s rule are proposed

In this paper we study the problem of a possibility to use quantum observables to describe a possible combination of the order effect with sequential reproducibility for quantum measurements. By the order effect we mean a dependence of probability distributions on the order of measurements. We consider two types of the sequential reproducibility: adjacent reproducibility ) and separated reproducibility). The first one is reproducibility with probability 1 of a result of measurement of some observable A measured twice, one A measurement after the other. The second one, \, is reproducibility with probability 1 of a result of A measurement when another quantum observable B is measured between two A’s. Heuristically, it is clear that the second type of reproducibility is complementary to the order effect. We show that, surprisingly, this may not be the case. The order effect can coexist with a separated reproducibility as well as adjacent reproducibility for both observables A and B. However, the additional constraint in the form of separated reproducibility of the \ type makes this coexistence impossible. The problem under consideration was motivated by attempts to apply the quantum formalism outside of physics, especially, in cognitive psychology and psychophysics. However, it is also important for foundations of quantum physics as a part of the problem about the structure of sequential quantum measurements.

We discuss the problems of quantum theory complicating its merging with general relativity. QT is treated as a general theory of micro-phenomena—a bunch of models. Quantum mechanics and quantum field theory are the most widely known. The basic problems of QM and QFT are considered in interrelation. For QM, we stress its nonrelativistic character and the presence of spooky action at a distance. For QFT, we highlight the old problem of infinities. And this is the main point of the paper: it is meaningless to try to unify QFT so heavily suffering of infinities with GR. We also highlight difficulties of the QFT-treatment of entanglement. We compare the QFT and QM based measurement theories by presenting both theoretical and experimental viewpoints. Then we discuss two basic mathematical constraints of both QM and QFT, namely, the use of real numbers and the Hilbert state space. We briefly present non-archimedean and non-hilbertian approaches to QT and their consequences. Finally, we claim that, in spite of the Bell theorem, it is still possible to treat quantum phenomena on the basis of a classical-like causal theory. We present a random field model generating the QM and QFT formalisms. This emergence viewpoint can serve as the basis for unification of novel QT and GR.

The idea that quantum randomness can be reduced to randomness of classical fields (fluctuating at time and space scales which are essentially finer than scales approachable in modern quantum experiments) is rather old. Various models have been proposed, e.g., stochastic electrodynamics or the semiclassical model. Recently a new model, so called prequantum classical statistical field theory (PCSFT), was developed. By this model a “quantum system” is just a label for (so to say “prequantum”) classical random field. Quantum averages can be represented as classical field averages. Correlations between observables on subsystems of a composite system can be as well represented as classical correlations. In particular, it can be done for entangled systems. Creation of such classical field representation demystifies quantum entanglement. In this paper we show that quantum dynamics (given by Schrödinger’s equation) of entangled systems can be represented as the stochastic dynamics of classical random fields. The “effect of entanglement” is produced by classical correlations which were present at the initial moment of time, cf. views of Albert Einstein

In the framework of p-adic analysis (the simplest version of analysis on trees in which hierarchic structures are presented through ultrametric distance) applied to formalize psychic phenomena, we would like to propose some possible first hypotheses about the origins of human consciousness centered on the basic notion of time symmetry breaking as meant according to quantum field theory of infinite systems. Starting with Freud's psychophysical (hydraulic) model of unconscious and conscious flows of psychic energy based on the three-orders mental representation, the emotional order, the thing representation order, and the word representation order, we use the p-adic (treelike) mental spaces to model transition from unconsciousness to preconsciousness and then to consciousness. Here we explore theory of hysteresis dynamics: conscious states are generated as the result of integrating of unconscious memories. One of the main mathematical consequences of our model is that trees representing unconscious and conscious mental states have to have dierent structures of branching and distinct procedures of clustering. The psychophysical model of Freud in combination with the p-adic mathematical representation gives us a possibility to apply (for a moment just formally) the theory of spontaneous symmetry breaking of infinite dimensional field theory, to mental processes and, in particular, to make the first step towards modeling of interrelation between the physical time (at the level of the emotional order) and psychic time at the levels of the thing and word representations. Finally, we also discuss some related topological aspects of the human unconscious, following Jacques Lacan's psychoanalytic ideas.

We start with an extended review of classical field approaches to quantum mechanics (QM). In particular, we present Einstein’s dream to exclude particles totally from quantum physics. We also describe the evolution of Einstein’s views: from the invention of the light quantum to a purely classical field picture of quantum reality. Then we present briefly a new field-type model, prequantum classical statistical field theory (PCSFT), which was recently developed in a series of the author’s papers. PCSFT reproduces basic predictions of QM, including correlations for entangled systems. Finally, we present a mathematical model which justifies the usage of Gaussian random fields in PCSFT. Such fields provide an approximative description of extremely dense trains of wave pulses. Possible physical sources of such pulses are discussed