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

We analyze the interrelation of quantum and classical entanglement. The latter notion is widely used in classical optic simulation of some quantum-like features of light. We criticize the common interpretation that “quantum nonlocality” is the basic factor differing quantum and classical realizations of entanglement. Instead, we point to the breakthrough Grangier et al. experiment on coincidence detection which was done in 1986 and played the crucial role in rejection of classical field models in favor of quantum mechanics. Classical entanglement sources produce light beams with the coefficient of second order coherence \} \ge 1.\) This feature of classical entanglement is obscured by using intensities of signals in different channels, instead of counting clicks of photo-detectors. The interplay between intensity and clicks counting is not just a technicality. We elevate this issue to the high foundational level.

Recently I posted a paper entitled “External observer reflections on QBism”. As any external observer, I was not able to reflect all features of QBism properly. The comments I received from one of QBism’s creators, C. A. Fuchs, were very valuable to me in better understanding the views of QBists. Some of QBism’s features are very delicate and extracting them from articles of QBists is not a simple task. Therefore, I hope that the second portion of my reflections on QBism might be interesting and useful for other experts in quantum foundations and quantum information theory. In the present paper I correct some of my earlier posted critical comments on QBism. At the same time, other critical comments gained new validation through my recent deeper understanding of QBists views on a number of problems.

The paper explores the fundamental physical principles of quantum mechanics (in fact, quantum field theory) that limit the bit rate for long distances and examines the assumption used in this exploration that losses can be ignored. Propagation of photons in optical fibers is modelled using methods of quantum electrodynamics. We define the “photon duration” as the standard deviation of the photon arrival time; we find its asymptotics for long distances and then obtain the main result of the paper: the linear dependence of photon duration on the distance when losses can be ignored. This effect puts the limit to joint increasing of the photon flux and the distance from the source and it has consequences for quantum communication. Once quantum communication develops into a real technology (including essential decrease of losses in optical fibres), it would be appealing to engineers to increase both the photon flux and the distance. And here our “photon flux/distance effect” has to be taken into account. This effect also may set an additional constraint to the performance of a loophole free test of Bell’s type—to close jointly the detection and locality loopholes

This paper is devoted to clarification of the notion of entanglement through decoupling it from the tensor product structure and treating as a constraint posed by probabilistic dependence of quantum observable _A_ and _B_. In our framework, it is meaningless to speak about entanglement without pointing to the fixed observables _A_ and _B_, so this is _AB_-entanglement. Dependence of quantum observables is formalized as non-coincidence of conditional probabilities. Starting with this probabilistic definition, we achieve the Hilbert space characterization of the _AB_-entangled states as amplitude non-factorisable states. In the tensor product case, _AB_-entanglement implies standard entanglement, but not vise verse. _AB_-entanglement for dichotomous observables is equivalent to their correlation, i.e., \(\langle AB\rangle _{\psi} \not = \langle A\rangle _{\psi} \langle B\rangle _{\psi}.\) We describe the class of quantum states that are \(A_{u} B_{u}\) -entangled for a family of unitary operators (_u_). Finally, observables entanglement is compared with dependence of random variables in classical probability theory.

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.