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

InTech eBooks

The Quantum Completeness Problem

Carsten Held

Published Feb 22, 2012• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Quantum mechanics (QM) is complete in a precise sense. It cannot be supplemented by more informative descriptions of physical systems given certain reasonable assumptions; this is what the no-hidden-variables proofs show. Theorems of Kochen-Specker-type (KS theorems) crucially employ an assumption of context-independence of the observables

DOI
10.5772/33279

Related papers

Kochen-Specker Theorem and Games

Laura Mančinska

One of the statements one would hear pretty early in any quantum mechanics course is that for quantum particles there are properties which do not have definite values. For example, if we measure |+〉 in standard basis, the best we can do to describe the outcome is to say, that with probability 1/2 we will get 0 and with probability 1/2 we will get 1. Yet one could wonder, is this really the way things are or is it just because our description of this quantum particle is incomplete, but in fact there are some hidden variables inside every quantum system that contain enough information to tell the outcome of measurement (see Fig. 1). However, many people disdain the idea of hidden variables, so there has been rather long history of theorems that forbid theories involving hidden variables. Usually if one wants to prove some no hidden variables theorem he has to assume something about the hidden variables theories he is going to forbid. One of such assumptions is non-contextuality, which means that the outcome we get after measuring with an observable is the same regardless of what other observables we choose to measure at the same time. The first theorem forbidding hidden variables theories is due to von Neumann in 1932. Then for a third of a century everyone cited von Neumann’s work carelessly, till Bell in 1966 indicated that there was an unreasonable assumption in von Neumann’s proof and urged for further examination of the problem (see [6] and [1] for more historical details). Bell also constructed a hidden variables model for one qubit that could assign the outcome of any observable in a way consistent with quantum mechanics. He also proved two theorems that forbid non-contextual hidden variables theories using counterexamples with larger quantum systems. Yet surprisingly he himself thought that hidden variables do exists and considered these theorems only as characterizations of the hidden variables theory we should look for. In this essay we will discuss several versions of one of the two Bell’s theorems. The theorem we will consider was also independently proven by Kochen and Specker in 1967 (see [5]), hence it is called Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem. For shortness and in order not to mix this theorem with another Bell’s theorem from now on we will refer to it as Kochen-Specker theorem. We will be interested in proving several versions of this theorem and the following lemma will turn out to be of great use:

•Jan 1, 2007•0 citations

A simple proof of the Kochen-Specker theorem

Adán Cabello

The author presents a simple proof of a theorem which places constraints on hidden-variables theories alternative to quantum mechanics.

European Journal of Physics•Jul 1, 1994•23 citations

Is Quantum Mechanics Complete?

Jochen Pade

Undergraduate lecture notes in physics•Nov 7, 2013•0 citations

Is Quantum Mechanics Complete?

Jochen Pade

Undergraduate lecture notes in physics•Jan 1, 2018•0 citations

Kochen-Specker Sets with a Mixture of 16 Rank-1 and 14 Rank-2 Projectors for a Three-Qubit System

S. P. Toh

Kochen—Specker (KS) theorem denies the possibility for the noncontextual hidden variable theories to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics. A set of projection operators (projectors) and bases used to show the impossibility of noncontextual definite values assignment is named as the KS set. Since one KS set with a mixture of 16 rank-1 projectors and 14 rank-2 projectors was proposed in 1995 [Kernaghan M and Peres A Phys. Lett. A 198 (1995) 1 ] for a three-qubit system, there have been plenty of the same type KS sets and we propose a systematic way to produce them. We also propose a probabilistic state-dependent proof of the KS theorem that mainly focuses on the values assignment for all the rank-2 projectors.

arXiv:1310.0179•Chinese Physics Letters•Oct 1, 2013•5 citations

Is Quantum Mechanics a Complete Theory?

D. I. Blokhint︠s︡ev

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1968•0 citations
Quantum mechanics (QM) is complete in a precise sense. It cannot be supplemented by more informative descriptions of physical systems given certain reasonable assumptions; this is what the no-hidden-variables proofs show. Theorems of Kochen-Specker-type (KS theorems) crucially employ an assumption of context-independence of the observables
One of the statements one would hear pretty early in any quantum mechanics course is that for quantum particles there are properties which do not have definite values. For example, if we measure |+〉 in standard basis, the best we can do to describe the outcome is to say, that with probability 1/2 we will get 0 and with probability 1/2 we will get 1. Yet one could wonder, is this really the way things are or is it just because our description of this quantum particle is incomplete, but in fact there are some hidden variables inside every quantum system that contain enough information to tell the outcome of measurement (see Fig. 1). However, many people disdain the idea of hidden variables, so there has been rather long history of theorems that forbid theories involving hidden variables. Usually if one wants to prove some no hidden variables theorem he has to assume something about the hidden variables theories he is going to forbid. One of such assumptions is non-contextuality, which means that the outcome we get after measuring with an observable is the same regardless of what other observables we choose to measure at the same time. The first theorem forbidding hidden variables theories is due to von Neumann in 1932. Then for a third of a century everyone cited von Neumann’s work carelessly, till Bell in 1966 indicated that there was an unreasonable assumption in von Neumann’s proof and urged for further examination of the problem (see [6] and [1] for more historical details). Bell also constructed a hidden variables model for one qubit that could assign the outcome of any observable in a way consistent with quantum mechanics. He also proved two theorems that forbid non-contextual hidden variables theories using counterexamples with larger quantum systems. Yet surprisingly he himself thought that hidden variables do exists and considered these theorems only as characterizations of the hidden variables theory we should look for. In this essay we will discuss several versions of one of the two Bell’s theorems. The theorem we will consider was also independently proven by Kochen and Specker in 1967 (see [5]), hence it is called Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem. For shortness and in order not to mix this theorem with another Bell’s theorem from now on we will refer to it as Kochen-Specker theorem. We will be interested in proving several versions of this theorem and the following lemma will turn out to be of great use:
Kochen—Specker (KS) theorem denies the possibility for the noncontextual hidden variable theories to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics. A set of projection operators (projectors) and bases used to show the impossibility of noncontextual definite values assignment is named as the KS set. Since one KS set with a mixture of 16 rank-1 projectors and 14 rank-2 projectors was proposed in 1995 [Kernaghan M and Peres A Phys. Lett. A 198 (1995) 1 ] for a three-qubit system, there have been plenty of the same type KS sets and we propose a systematic way to produce them. We also propose a probabilistic state-dependent proof of the KS theorem that mainly focuses on the values assignment for all the rank-2 projectors.