Our aim is to compare the fundamental notions of quantum physics - contextuality vs. incompatibility. One has to distinguish two different notions of contextuality, {\it Bohr-contextuality} and {\it Bell-contextuality}. The latter is defined operationally via violation of noncontextuality (Bell type) inequalities. This sort of contextuality will be compared with incompatibility. It is easy to show that, for quantum observables, there is {\it no contextuality without incompatibility.} The natural question arises: What is contextuality without incompatibility? (What is "dry-residue"?) Generally this is the very complex question. We concentrated on contextuality for four quantum observables. We shown that in the CHSH-scenarios (for "natural quantum observables") {\it contextuality is reduced to incompatibility.} However, generally contextuality without incompatibility may have some physical content. We found a mathematical constraint extracting the contextuality component from incompatibility. However, the physical meaning of this constraint is not clear. In appendix 1, we briefly discuss another sort of contextuality based on the Bohr's complementarity principle which is treated as the {\it contextuality-incompatibility principle}. Bohr-contextuality plays the crucial role in quantum foundations. Incompatibility is, in fact, a consequence of Bohr-contextuality. Finally, we remark that outside of physics, e.g., in cognitive psychology and decision making Bell-contextuality cleaned of incompatibility can play the important role.
Our aim is to compare the fundamental notions of quantum physics - contextuality vs. incompatibility. One has to distinguish two different notions of contextuality, {\it Bohr-contextuality} and {\it Bell-contextuality}. The latter is defined operationally via violation of noncontextuality (Bell type) inequalities. This sort of contextuality will be compared with incompatibility. It is easy to show that, for quantum observables, there is {\it no contextuality without incompatibility.} The natural question arises: What is contextuality without incompatibility? (What is "dry-residue"?) Generally this is the very complex question. We concentrated on contextuality for four quantum observables. We shown that in the CHSH-scenarios (for "natural quantum observables") {\it contextuality is reduced to incompatibility.} However, generally contextuality without incompatibility may have some physical content. We found a mathematical constraint extracting the contextuality component from incompatibility. However, the physical meaning of this constraint is not clear. In appendix 1, we briefly discuss another sort of contextuality based on the Bohr's complementarity principle which is treated as the {\it contextuality-incompatibility principle}. Bohr-contextuality plays the crucial role in quantum foundations. Incompatibility is, in fact, a consequence of Bohr-contextuality. Finally, we remark that outside of physics, e.g., in cognitive psychology and decision making Bell-contextuality cleaned of incompatibility can play the important role.
Abstract Our aim is to compare the fundamental notions of quantum physics - contextuality vs. incompatibility. One has to distinguish two different notions of contextuality,Bohr-contextualityandBell-contextuality. The latter is defined operationally via violation of noncontextuality (Bell type) inequalities. This sort of contextuality will be compared with incompatibility. It is easy to show that, for quantum observables, there isno contextuality without incompatibility.The natural question arises: What is contextuality without incompatibility? (What is “dry-residue”?) Generally this is the very complex question. We concentrated on contextuality for four quantum observables. We shown that, for “natural quantum observables” ,contextuality is reduced to incompatibility.But, generally contextuality without incompatibility may have some physical content. We found a mathematical constraint extracting the contextuality component from incompatibility. However, the physical meaning of this constraint is not clear. In Appendix 1, we briefly discuss another sort of contextuality based on Bohr’s contextuality-incompatibility principle. Bohr-contextuality plays the crucial role in quantum foundations. Incompatibility is, in fact, a consequence of Bohr-contextuality. Finally, we remark that outside of physics, e.g., in cognitive psychology and decision making Bell-contextuality distilled of incompatibility can play the important role.
This chapter is devoted to the Bohr complementarity principle.This is one of the basic quantum principles. We dissolve it into separate subprincipleson contextuality, incompatibility, complementary-completeness,and individuality. We emphasize the role of the contexuatlity component. It is not highlighted in the foundational discussions. ByBohr, the outputs of measurements are resulted from the complexinteraction between a system and measurement context, the values ofquantum observables cannot be treated as objective properties of systems.Such Bohr contextuality is more general than joint measurement contextuality(JMC) considered in the discussions on the Bellinequality. JMC is a very special form of the Bohr contextuality. The incompatibility component is always emphasized and often referred as the wave-particle duality. The principle ofinformation complementary-completeness represents Bohr’s claim on completenessof quantum theory. The individuality principle is basic for thenotion of phenomenon used by Bohr to emphasize the individuality and discreteness of outputs of measurements. Individuality plays the crucial role in distinguishing quantum and classical optics entanglements.
This is a review devoted to the complementarity–contextuality interplay with connection to the Bell inequalities. Starting the discussion with complementarity, I point to contextuality as its seed. Bohr contextuality is the dependence of an observable’s outcome on the experimental context; on the system–apparatus interaction. Probabilistically, complementarity means that the joint probability distribution (JPD) does not exist. Instead of the JPD, one has to operate with contextual probabilities. The Bell inequalities are interpreted as the statistical tests of contextuality, and hence, incompatibility. For context-dependent probabilities, these inequalities may be violated. I stress that contextuality tested by the Bell inequalities is the so-called joint measurement contextuality (JMC), the special case of Bohr’s contextuality. Then, I examine the role of signaling (marginal inconsistency). In QM, signaling can be considered as an experimental artifact. However, often, experimental data have signaling patterns. I discuss possible sources of signaling—for example, dependence of the state preparation on measurement settings. In principle, one can extract the measure of “pure contextuality” from data shadowed by signaling. This theory is known as contextuality by default (CbD). It leads to inequalities with an additional term quantifying signaling: Bell–Dzhafarov–Kujala inequalities.
In this paper we attempt to analyze the physical and philosophical meaning of quantum contextuality. We will argue that there exists a general confusion within the foundational literature arising from the improper "scrambling" of two different meanings of quantum contextuality. While the first one, introduced by Bohr, is related to an epistemic interpretation of contextuality which stresses the incompatibility (or complementarity) of certain measurement situations described in classical terms; the second meaning of contextuality is related to a purely formal understanding of contextuality as exposed by the Kochen-Specker (KS) theorem which focuses instead on the constraints of the orthodox quantum formalism in order to interpret projection operators as preexistent or actual (definite valued) properties. We will show how these two notions have been scrambled together creating an "omelette of contextuality" which has been fully widespread through a popularized "epistemic explanation" of the KS theorem according to which: The measurement outcome of the observable A when measured together with B or together with C will necessarily differ in case [A, B] = [A, C] = 0, and [B, C] /= 0. We will show why this statement is not only improperly scrambling epistemic and formal perspectives, but is also physically and philosophically meaningless. Finally, we analyze the consequences of such widespread epistemic reading of KS theorem as related to statistical statements of measurement outcomes.
Quantum complementarity is a fundamental feature of quantum systems and has captivated the physics research community for nearly a century, with significant advancements emerging in recent decades. This review traces the historical evolution of the concept of complementarity, beginning with Bohr's original formulation. It then explores its modern quantification through complementarity relations and its profound connection to the foundational postulates of quantum theory. Furthermore, it delves into key related developments, such as the operational definition of complementarity in the context of incompatible observables, its potential links with quantum uncertainty relations and contextuality, its various applications, and other pertinent topics. This review aims to serve physicists interested in quantum resources, quantum correlations, and the foundational principles of quantum mechanics.
Contextuality and nonlocality are nonclassical properties exhibited by quantum statistics whose implications profoundly impact both the foundations and applications of quantum theory. In this paper we provide some insights into logical contextuality and inequality-free proofs. The former can be understood as the possibility version of contextuality, while the latter refers to proofs of quantum contextuality and nonlocality that are not based on violations of some noncontextuality (or Bell) inequality. By ``possibilistic'' we mean a description in terms of possibilities for the outcomes, which are Boolean variables assuming value one when the corresponding probability is strictly larger than zero and zero otherwise. The present work aims to build a bridge between these two concepts from what we call possibilistic paradoxes, which are sets of possibilistic conditions whose occurrence implies contextuality and nonlocality. As the main result, we demonstrate the existence of possibilistic paradoxes whose occurrence is a necessary and sufficient condition for logical contextuality in a very important class of scenarios. Finally, we discuss some interesting consequences arising from the completeness of these possibilistic paradoxes.