REVIKAVS OF MOT)F. RN PHYSI(". s .

"8, NUMBER 1966

ron. VOt. UM f.', 3 JUT, V

"
On 1 ~'e. . '.
em o1: . . .ic.c.en Varia o.es in, Quantum
iV. ;ec. ~anics*
JOHN S. BELL)
Stanford linear Accelerator Center, Stanford Unioersity, Stanford, California

The demonstrations of von Neumann and others, that quantum mechanics does not permit a hidden variable inter-
pretation, are reconsidered. It is shown that their essential axioms are unreasonable. It is urged that in further examination
of this problem an interesting axiom would be that mutually distant systems are independent of one another.

I. INTRODUCTION result consequent on the work of Gleason. ' It will be

urged that these analyses leave the real question un-
To know the quantum mechanical state of a system touched. In fact it will be seen that these demonstra-
implies, in general, only statistical restrictions on the tions require from the hypothetical dispersion free
results of measurements. It seems interesting to ask states, not only that appropriate ensembles thereof
if this statistical element be thought of as arising, as should have all measurable properties of quantum
in classical statistical mechanics, because the states in mechanical states, but certain other properties as well.
question are averages over better de6ned states for These additional demands appear reasonable when re-
which individually the results would be quite deter- sults of measurement are loosely identified with prop-
rnined. These hypothetical "dispersion free" states erties of isolated systems. They are seen to be quite
would be specified not only by the quantum mechanical unreasonable when one remembers with Bohrs "the
state vector but also by additional "hidden variables"— impossibility of any sharp distinction between the
"hidden" because if states with prescribed values of behavior of atomic objects and the interaction with
these variables could actually be prepared, quantum the measuring instruments which serve to de6ne the
mechanics would be observably inadequate. conditions under which the phenomena appear. "
Whether this question is indeed interesting has been The realization that von Neumann's proof is of
the subject of debate. ' ' The present paper does not limited relevance has been gaining ground since the
contribute to that debate. It is addressed to those who 1952 work of Bohm. ' However, it is far from universal.
do find the question interesting, and more particularly Moreover, the writer has not found in the literature
to those among them who believe that' "the question any adequate analysis of what went wrong. ~ Like all
concerning the existence of such hidden variables re- authors of noncommissioned reviews, he thinks that
ceived an early and rather decisive answer in the form he can restate the position with such clarity and sirn. -
of von Neumann's proof on the mathematical impos-
sibility of such variables in quantum theory. An at- " plicity that all previous discussions will be eclipsed.

tempt will be made to clarify what von Neumann and II. ASSUMPTIONS, AND A SIMPLE EXAMPLE
his successors actually demonstrated. This will cover, as
well as von Neumann's treatment, the recent version
The authors of the demonstrations to be reviewed
of the argument by Jauch and Piron, ' and the stronger
were concerned to assume as little as possible about
quantum mechanics. This is valuable for some purposes,
but not for ours. We are interested only in the possi-
* Work supported by U. S. Atomic Energy Commission.
address: CERN, Geneva.
bility of hidden variables in ordinary quantum me-
/Permanent
'The following works contain discussions of and references
on the hidden variable problem: L. de Broglie, Physicien et 4 A. M.
Gleason, J. Math. Bz Mech. 6, 885 (1957). I am much
Pensemr (Albin Michel, Paris, 1953); W. Heisenberg, in Xiels indebted to Professor Jauch for drawing my attention to this
Bohr and the Development of Physics, W. Pauli, Ed. (McGraw-Hill work.
Book Co. , Inc. , New York, and Pergamon Press, Ltd. , London, 'N. Bohr, in Ref. 2.
1955); Observation and Interpretation, S. Korner, Ed. (Academic '
D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. SS, 166, 180 (1952).
Press Inc. , New York, and Butterworths Scientific Publ. , Ltd. , 7 In particular the analysis of Bohme seems to lack clarity,
London, 1957); N. R. Hansen, The Concept of the Positron (Cam- or else accuracy. He fully emphasizes the role of the experimental
bridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1963). See also arrangement. However, it seems to be implied (Ref. 6, p. 187)
the various works by D. Bohm cited later, and Bell and Nauen- that the circumvention of the theorem reqlires the association
berg. For the view that the possibility of hidden variables has of hidden variables with the apparatus as well as with the system
little interest, see especially the contributions of Rosenfeld to the observed. The scheme of Sec. II is a counter example to this.
first and third of these references, of Pauli to the first, the article Moreover, it will be seen in Sec. III that if the essential additivity
of Heisenberg, and many passages in Hansen. assumption of von Neumann were granted, hidden variables
A. Einstein, Philosopher Scientist, P. A. Schilp, Ed. (Library wherever located would not avail. Bohm's further remarks in
of Living Philosophers, Evanston, Ill. , 1949). Einstein's "Auto- Ref. 16 (p. 95) and Ref. 17 (p. 358) are also unconvincing.
biographical Notes" and "Reply to Critics" suggest that--the Other critiques of the theorem are cited, and some of them
hidden variable problem has some interest. rebutted, by Albertson PJ. Albertson, Am. J. Phys. 29, 478
' J. M. Jauch and C. Piron, Helv. Phys. Acta 36, 827 (1963). (1961 ) ].
44 7
448 REVIEWERS OF MODERN PHYSICS ~
JULY 1966

chanics and will use freely all the usual notions. Thereby Let P„P„, P„be the components of g in the new co-
the demonstrations will be substantially shortened. ordinate system. Then measurement of or+a d on the
A quantum mechanical "system" is supposed to state specified by iP and X results with certainty in the
have "observables" represented by Hermitian opera- eigenvalue
tors in a complex linear vector space. Every "measure-
ment" of an observable yields one of the eigenvalues ~+I 0 »gn
I ( I 0 I+-: I & l)»g»
of the corresponding operator. Observables with com- where
muting operators can be measured simultaneously. A
quantum mechanical "state" is represented by a vector if P, WO
in the linear state space. For a state vector iP the statis-
tical expectation value of an observable with operator if P, =O, P, WO
0 is the normalized inner product Q, Of) /(P, P) .
The question at issue is whether the quantum me- if P, =O, and P, =O
chanical states can be regarded as ensembles of states
further specified by additional variables, such that sign X=+1 if X&0
given values of these variables together with the state
vector determine precisely the results of individual if X&0.
measurements. These hypothetical well-specified states
are said to be "dispersion free. " The quantum mechanical state specified by P is ob-
In the following discussion it will be useful to keep tained by uniform averaging over X. This gives the
in mind as a simple example a system with a two- expectation value
dimensional state space. Consider for dehniteness a
spin — —, particle without translational motion. A (n+y d)
quantum mechanical state is represented by a two-
component sta, te vector, or spinor, f.
The observables
d~l ~+ y »gn (~ y I+ l P. I)»g»I = ~+l3.
are represented by 2 &( 2 Hermitian matrices I l I I

n+Ii d, as required.
It should be stressed that no physical significance is
where n is a real number, g a real vector, and d has for attributed here to the parameter X and that no pretence
components the Pauli matrices; 0. is understood to mul- is made of giving a complete reinterpretation of quan-
tiply the unit matrix. Measurement of such an observ- tum mechanics. The sole aim is to show that at the level
able yields one of the eigenvalues. considered by von Neumann such a reinterpretation
is not excluded. A complete theory would require for
example an account of the behavior of the hidden vari-
ables during the measurement process itself. With or
with relative probabilities that can be inferred from without hidden variables the analysis of the measure-
the expectation value ment process presents peculiar difliculties, and we
enter upon it no more than is strictly necessary for our
(~+Ii &)=('0, L~+g &34) very limited purpose.
For this system a hidden variable scheme can be sup-
plied as follows: The dispersion free states are specified III. VON NEUMANN
by a real number X, in the interval —~&X&-'„as well Consider now the proof of von Neumanng that dis-
as the spinor P. To describe how X determines which
persion free states, and so hidden variables, are im-
eigenvalue the measurement gives, we note that by a
possible. His essential assumption" is: Hey real linear
rotation of coordinates lt can be brought to the form
combination og any troo Hermitian operators represents
an observable, and the sante linear combination og esoPecta

9
J.
von Neumann, 3fathematische Grlndlagen der Quanten-
roeolzorss7s(Julius Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1952) (English transl. :
SRecent papers on the measurement process in quantum Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1955j. All page
mechanics, with further references, are: E. P. Wigner, Am. J. numbers quoted are those of the English edition. The problem
Phys. 31, 6 (1963);A. Shimony, ibid. 31, 755 (1963);J. M. Jauch, is posed in the preface, and on p. 209. The formal proof occupies
Helv. Phys. Acta 37', 293 (1964}; B. d'Espagnat, ConcePtions essentially pp. 305— 324 and, is followed by several pages of com-
de la physique contemporaine (Hermann R Cie. , Paris, 1965); mentary. A self-contained exposition of the proof has been pre-
J. S. Bell and M. Nauenberg, in Prelldes in Theoretica/ Physics, sented by J. Albertson (see Ref. 7).
Il Honor of V. Weisskopf (North-Holland Publishing Company, "This is contained in von Neumann's 3' (p. 311},1 (p. 313),
Amsterdam, 1966) . and ll (p. 314).
 JoHN S. BzLL Hidden Variables iI Qaantura Mechanics 449

tion values is the escpectation value og the combination either of which might be made on a given occasion but
This is true for quantum mechanical states; it is re- only one of which can in fact be made.
quired by von Neumann of the hypothetical dispersion
free states also. In the two-dimensional example of IV. JAUCH AND PIRON
Sec. II, the expectation value must then be a linear A new version of the argument has been given by
function of a and g. But for a dispersion free state Jauch and Piron. ' Like von Neumann they are in-
(which has no statistical character) the expectation terested in generalized forms of quantum mechanics
value of an observable must equal one of its eigenvalues. and do not assume the usual connection of quantum
The eigenvalues (2) are certainly not linear in g. There- mechanical expectation values with state vectors and
fore, dispersion free states are impossible. If the state operators. We assume the latter and shorten the argu-
space has more dimensions, we can always consider a ment, for we are concerned here only with possible
two-dimensional subspace; therefore, the demonstration interpretations of ordinary quantum mechanics.
is quite general. Consider only observables represented by projection
The essential assumption can be criticized as follows. operators. The eigenvalues of projection operators are
At first sight the required additivity of expectation 0 and 1. Their expectation values are equal to the prob-
values seems very reasonable, and it is rather the non- abilities that 1 rather than 0 is the result of measure-
additivity of allowed values (eigenvalues) which re- ment. For any two projection operators, a and b, a third
quires explanation. Of course the explanation is well (aAb) is defined as the projection on to the intersection
known: A measurement of a sum of noncommuting of the corresponding subspaces. The essential axioms
observables cannot be made by combining trivially the
results of separate observations on the two terms it — of Jauch and Piron are the following:
(A) Expectation values of commuting projection
requires a quite distinct experiment. For example the operators are additive.
measurement of 0-, for a magnetic particle might be (B) If, for some state and two projections a and b,
made with a suitably oriented Stern Gerlach magnet.
The measurement of o.„would require a diferent orien-
tation, and of (a,+a„) a third and different orientation. then for that state
But this explanation of the nonadditivity of allowed
values also establishes the nontriviality of the additivity
of expectation values. The latter is a quite peculiar Jauch and Piron are led to this last axiom (4' in
their numbering) by an analogy with the calculus of
property of quantum mechanical states, not to be ex-
pected a priori. There is no reason to demand it in- propositions in ordinary logic. The projections are to
dividually of the hypothetical dispersion free states, some extent analogous to logical propositions, with the
allowed value 1 corresponding to "truth" and 0 to
whose function it is to reproduce the measurable peculi-
arities of quantum mechanics +hem averaged over.
"
"falsehood, and the construction (anb) to (a "and" b)
In the trivial example of Sec. II the dispersion free In logic we have, of course, if a is true and b is true then
states (specified X) have additive expectation values (a and b) is true. The axiom has this same structure.
Now we can quickly rule out dispersion free states
only for commuting operators. Nevertheless, they give
logically consistent and. precise predictions for the re- by considering a 2-dimensional subspace. In that the
sults of all possible measurements, which when averaged projection operators are the zero, the unit operator,
over X are fully equivalent to the quantum mechanical and those of the form
predictions. In fact, for this trivial example, the hidden
1+1n, d
variable question as posed informally by von Neumann" where n is a unit vector. In a dispersion free state the
in his book is answered in the afhrmative. expectation value of an operator must be one of its
Thus the'-formal proof of von Neumann does not eigenvalues, 0 or 1 for projections. Since from A
justify his informal conclusion": "It is therefore not,
as is often assumed, a question of reinterpretation of
quantum mechanics —
the present system of quantum
mechanics would have to be objectively false in order we have that for a dispersion free state either
that another description of the elementary process than (i —-,'n d)=1.
"
the statistical one be possible. It was not the objective
'+-,'n il)=1
(-, or
measurable predictions of quantum mechanics which Let n and unit vectors and
g be any noncollinear
ruled out hidden variables. It was the arbitrary as-
sumption of a particular (and impossible) relation a=-'&-'e
2 2 6,
between the results of incompatible measurements
with the signs chosen so that (a)=(b)=1. Then B
"Reference 9, p. 209. requires
"Reference 9, p. 325. (aflb) = 1.
450 REVIEWS ol' MODERN PIIYSICS ' JULY 1966

But with u and P noncollinear, one readily sees that If QI and ps are another orthogonal basis for the
subspace spanned by some vectors C» and C», then
anb= 0, from (4)
so that
&~nf &=0. &P(A) &+&P(A) &=1— Z &P(4") &
So there can be no dispersion free states. ol
The objection to this is the same as before. We are not
&P(~I) )+&P(~.) ) = &P(4.) )+(P(4.) ).
dealing in 8 with logical propositions, but with measure-
ments involving, for example, diBerently oriented mag- Since PI may be any combination of 4» and 4», we have:
nets. The axiom holds for quantum mechanical states. " (B) If for a given state
But it is a quite peculiar property of them, in no way
a necessity of thought. Only the quantum mechanical &P(4'I) &= &P(4'S) &= o
averages over the dispersion free states need reproduce
for some pair of orthogonal vectors, then
this property, as in the example of Sec. II.
&P(nCI+PCs) ) =0
V. GLEASON for all a
and p.
The remarkable mathematical work of Gleason4 was (A) and (B) will now be used repeatedly to establish
not explicitly addressed to the hidden variable problem. the following. Let 4 and P be some vectors such that
It was directed to reducing the axiomatic basis of for a given state
quantum mechanics. However, as it apparently enables &P(4) )=1, (~)
von Neumann's result to be obtained without objection- &P(4') ) =O. (6)
able assumptions about noncomrnuting operators, we
must clearly consider it. The relevant corollary of Then 4' and P cannot be arbitrarily close; in fact
Gleason's work is that, if the dimensionality of the
state space is greater than two, the additivity require-
ment for expectation values of commuting operators To see this let us normalize P and write 4 in the form
cannot be met by dispersion free states. This will now
be proved, and then its significance discussed. It should ~'=0+~4'~
be stressed that Gleason obtained more than this, by where P' is orthogonal to P and normalized and s is a
a lengthier argument, but this is all that is essential real number. Let P" be a normalized vector orthogonal
here. to both andf f'
(it is here that we need three dimen-
It suflIces to consider projection operators. Let P(4) sions at least) and so to 4. By (A) and (5),
be the projector on to the Hilbert space vector C, i.e.,
acting on any vector P &P(0 ) )=0 &P(4' ) )=0.

P(4)a= (4, 4)-'(4, ~) 4 Then by (B) and (6),

If a set Ci are complete and orthogonal,

Z P(4') =1 where p is any real number, and also by (B),

Since the P(4;) commute, by hypothesis then &P( 4'+ 4 ))=0.
The vector arguments in the last two formulas are
Z &P(4') &=1 orthogonal; so we may add them, again using (B):
Since the expectation value of a projector is nonnega- &P(P+s(y+y ')f") )=0.
tive (each measurement yields one of the allowed values
0 or 1), and since any two orthogonal vectors can be Now if e is less than ~, there are real y such that
regarded as members of a complete set, we have:
e(y+y-') = a1.
(A) If with some vector 4, (P(4) )= 1 for a given
state, then for that state &P(f) ) =0 for any P orthog-
onal on C. &P(4+4") )= &PQ —4") )=o.

'3 In the two-dimensional case (a) = (b) =1 (for some quantum

The vectors f&P" are orthogonal; adding them and
mechanical state) is possible only if the two projectors are identical again using (B),
(n=P). Then uAb=a=b and (aAb)= (II) = (b) =1. &P(4) )=o.
 JoHN S. BELL Hidden Variables iN Qgarsllm Mechalies 451

This contradicts the assumption (5), Therefore, choice of the others. Of course it would be silly to let
the result be affected by a mere permutation of the
other I"
s, so we specify that the same order is taken
as announced in (7). (however defined) when the P's are in fact the same
Consider now the possibility of dispersion free states. set. ReAection will deepen the initial impression of
For such states each projector has expectation value artificiality here. However, the example suffices to
either 0 or 1. It is clear from (4) that both values must show that the implicit assumption of the impossibility
occur, and since there are no other values possible, proof was essential to its conclusion. A more serious
there must be arbitrarily close pairs P, C with different hidden variable decomposition will be taken up in
expectation values 0 and 1, respectively. But we saw Sec. VI. "
above such pairs could rIof, be arbitrarily close. There-
fore, there are no dispersion free states. VI. LOCALITY AND SEPARABILITY
That so much follows from such apparently innocent
assumptions leads us to question their innocence. Are Up till now we have been resisting arbitrary demands
the requirements imposed, which are satisfied by upon the hypothetical dispersion free states. However,
quantum mechanical states, reasonable requirements
as well as reproducing quantum mechanics on averag-
on the dispersion free states) Indeed they are not. ing, there are features which can reasonably be desired
in a hidden variable scheme. The hidden variables
Consider the statement (3) . The operator P(nC i+PC2)
commutes with P(Ci) and P(C2) only if either a or P should surely have some spacial significance and should
is zero. Thus in general measurement of P(eeCi+PC2) evolve in time according to prescribed laws. These are
requires a quite distinct experimental arrangement. prejudices, but it is just this possibility of interpolating
some (preferably causal) space-time picture, between
We can therefore reject (B) on the grounds already
used: it relates in a nontrivial way the results of ex- preparation of and measurements on states, that makes
periments which cannot be performed simultaneously;
the quest for hidden variables interesting to the un-
the dispersion free states need not have this property, sophisticated. The ideas of space, time, and causality
it will suffice if the quantum mechanical averages over are not prominent in the kind of discussion we have
them do. How did it come about that (B) was a con- been considering above. To the writer's knowledge the
most successful attempt in that direction is the 1952
sequence of assumptions in which only commuting
scheme of Bohm for elementary wave mechanics. By
operators were explicitly mentioned? The danger in
fact was not in the explicit but in the implicit assump- way of conclusion, this will be sketched briefiy, and
tions. It was tacitly assumed that measurement of an a curious feature of it stressed.
Consider for example a system of two spin —~ par-
observable must yield the same value independently
ticles. The quantum mechanical state is represented by
of what other measurements may be made simultane-
a wave function,
ously. Thus as well as P(C») say, one might measure
either P(C2) or PQ2), where C2 and fe are orthogonal
to C3 but not to one another. These different possibilities
require different experimental arrangements; there is
where j
i and are spin indices which will be suppressed.
This is governed by the Schrodinger equation,
no u priori reason to believe that the results for P(Cs)
should be the same. The result of an observation may Btlr/col = —i ( —(8'/Bri2) —(8'/Brs2) + V (r, —r, )
reasonably depend not only on the state of the system
(including hidden variables) but also on the complete
+ d H(r)+bd H(r))p, (8)
disposition of the apparatus; see again the quotation where U is the interparticle potential. For simplicity
from Bohr at the end of Sec. I. we have taken neutral particles with magnetic mo-
To illustrate these remarks, we construct a very ments, and an external magnetic 6eld H has been al-
artificial but simple hidden variable decomposition. lowed to represent spin analyzing magnets. The hidden
If we regard all observables as functions of commuting variables are then two vectors X~ and X2, which give
projectors, it will sufFice to consider measurements directly the results of position measurements. Other
of the latter. Let I'&, I'2, ~ ~ be the set of projectors
~
measurements are reduced ultimately to position meas-
measured by a given apparatus, and for a given quan- urements. "
For example, measurement of a spin com-
tum mechanical state let their expectation values be ponent means observing whether the particle emerges
—
X~, )2 )~, A.3 — P2, ~ ~ ~ . As hidden variable we take a with an upward or downward deflection from a Stern—
real number 0()«1; we specify that measurement
on a state with given ) yields the value 1 for I'„ if
'4 The simplest example for illustrating the discussion of Sec. V
would then be a particle of spin 1, postulating a sufhcient variety
&(P«A.„, and zero otherwise. The quantum me- of spin —external-6eld interactions to permit arbitrary complete
chanical state is obtained by uniform averaging over sets of spin states to be spacially separated.
'~There are clearly enough measurements to be interesting
X. There is no contradiction with Gleason's corollary,
that can be made in this way. We will not consider whether there
because the result for a given P„depends also on the are others.
452 REVIEWS OZ MODERN PHYSICS ' JULY 1966

Gerlach magnet. The variables X~ and X2 are supposed —

analyzing 6elds acting on 2 however remote these
to be distributed
in configuration space with the prob- may be from particle 1. So in this theory an explicit
ability density, causal mechanism exists whereby the disposition of
one piece of apparatus aGects the results obtained
p(X, X ) = g ~
f,, (X, X ) ~', with a distant piece. In fact the Einstein — Podolsky-
Rosen paradox is resolved in the way which Einstein
appropriate to the quantum mechanical state. Con- would have liked least (Ref. 2, p. 85) .
sistently, v ith this X& and X2 are supposed to vary with More generally, the hidden variable account of a
time according to given system becomes entirely diferent when we re-
dXI/d1 P(X11 X2) Im g 4ij
22
(XI& X2)(ci/IlXI)pij(Xlq X2)1
rnember that it has undoubtedly interacted with nu-
merous other systems in the past and that the total
' Im wave function will certainly not be factorable. The
dX2/dh= p(XI, X2) Q p;, (XI, X2) (cl/clX2)p;1 (X„X2).
same effect complicates the hidden variable account
of the theory of measurement, when it is desired to
(9) include part of the "apparatus" in the system.
The curious feature is that the trajectory equations Bohm of course was well aware' ""
of these features
(9) for the hidden variables have in general a grossly of his scheme, and has given them much attention.
nonlocal character. If the wave function is factorable However, it must be stressed that, to the present
before the analyzing fields become effective (the par- writer's knowledge, there is no proof that 1121y hidden
ticles being far apart), variable account of quantum mechanics @sist have this
= C, (XI) y, (X2), extraordinary character. "
It would therefore be in-
IP,1 (XI, X2)
teresting, perhaps, ' to pursue some further "impossi-
this factorability will be preserved. Equations (8) then
"
bility proofs, replacing the arbitrary axioms objected
reduce to to above by some condition of locality, or of separability
of distant systems.
dX, /d1= Pg C,*(X,) C, (X,) ]-I
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
x Im Q 4,*(XI) (cl/clXI) C, (XI),
The first ideas of this paper were conceived in 1952.
dX2/dt= [Q g, *(X2)g, (X2) ]—' I warmly thank Dr. F. Mandl for intensive discussion
at that time. I am indebted to many others since then,
X Im Q g,'(X2) (a/»2) g(X2). and latterly, and very especially, to Professor J. M.
Jauch.
The Schrodinger equation (8) also separates, and the
trajectories of X& and X2 are determined separately by "D. Bohm, Causality and Chance in 3/Iodern Physics (D. Van
Nostrand Co. , Inc. , Princeton, N. J., 1957).
cqlla'tlolls lllvolvlllg H(XI) and H(X2), lcspcc'tlvcly. '~ D. Bohrn, in Quantum, Tfzeory, D. R. Bates, Ed. (Academic
However, in general, the wave function is not factorable. Press I:nc., New York, 1962).
"D. Bohm and Y. Aharonov, Phys. Rev. 108, 1070 (1957).
The trajectory of 1 then depends in a complicated way " Since the completion of this paper such a proof has been found
on the trajectory and wave function of 2, and so on the PJ. S. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1965lj.