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

On the Bell-Kochen-Specker Paradox

Koji Nagata, Tadao Nakamura

Published Sep 1, 2015• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

We use the validity of Addition and Multiplication for a hidden variables theory. First, we provide an example that the two operations Addition and Multiplication do not commute with each other as revealed by the analyses that are performed in a finite set of numbers. Our discussion leads to an initial conclusion that Sum rule and Product rule do not commute with each other in a hidden variables theory. If we accept this conclusion, we do not get the Bell- Kochen-Specker paradox. In more detail, quantum mechanics may accept the hidden variables theory. Next, we discuss the validity of operators under an assumption that Sum rule and Product rule commute with each other. In this case, we indeed get the Bell- Kochen-Specker paradox. We got the non-classicality of macroscopic experimental data observed in the Stern-Gerlach experiment and the double-slit experiment. If we detect | ↑> and then we detect | ↓>, the experiments cannot accept the hidden variables theory. We considered whether we can assign the predetermined “hidden ” result to numbers 1 and-1 as in results of measurements with the number of measurements finite (e.g., twice) in the experiments. It turned out that we cannot assign the predetermined hidden result to such results of measurements. The next conclusion indicates interestingly that the Stern-Gerlach experiment cannot accept classical mechanics. The double-slit experiment had led to the same situation, and they were indeed quantum mechanical phenomena.

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

The Kochen-Specker Theorem with Two Trials of Measurements

Koji Nagata

We review non-classicality of quantum datum.We consider whether we can assign the predetermined "hidden" result to numbers 1 and -1 as in results of measurements in a thought experiment.We assume the number of measurements is two.If we detect 1 / 2 as 1 and detect | ↓ as -1, then we can derive the Kochen-Specker theorem.The same situation occurs when we use a new measurement theory that the results of measurements are either 1 / 2 or -1 / 2

MOJ Ecology & Environmental Sciences•Mar 13, 2017•0 citations

The Kochen-Specker Theorem with Two Results of Finite-Precision Measurements

Koji Nagata, Takuji Nakamura, Ahmed Farouk

We review non-classicality of quantum datum. We consider whether we can assign the predetermined ^^ ^^ hidden'' result to numbers 1 and $-1$ as in results of measurements in a thought experiment. We assume the number of measurements is two. If we detect $|\uparrow\rangle$ as 1 and detect $|\downarrow\rangle$ as $-1$, then we can derive the Kochen-Speker theorem. The same situation occurs when we use a finite-precision measurement theory that the results of measurements are either $1-\epsilon$ or $-1+\epsilon$.

Studies in Applied Mathematics•Mar 1, 2017•0 citations

The Sum Rule is Well-Confirmed

Clark Glymour

Simon Kochen and Ernst Specker's well-known argument ([6]) against hidden variable theories for quantum mechanics is also an argument against the possibility of quantum systems having, simultaneously, precise values for all of the dynamical quantities associated with such systems. Devices for defeating the argument were in the literature even before its publication, but recently Arthur Fine has raised a new difficulty ([4]). Fine points out that Kochen and Specker's argument requires the following principles: Sum Rule: At all times, in all states, the value of the quantity with operator A + B is the sum of the values of the quantity with operator A and the quantity with operator B, provided A, B commute. Product Rule: At all times, in all states, the value of the quantity with operator AB is the product of the values of the quantities with operators A and B, provided A, B commute.

Philosophy of Science•Mar 1, 1977•6 citations

Hidden-Variable Theories

Reinhold A. Bertlmann, Nicolai Friis

Abstract In chapter 12 we give an overview of the historical development of hidden-variable theories aiming to attribute ‘hidden’ definite outcomes to any potential measurement on a quantum system. We start with a discussion of von Neumann’s assumption on hidden-variable models, which was later realized not to hold by Hermann, Kochen, Specker, and Bell, going into detail on Bell’s refutation of von Neumann’s arguments. We then turn to the notion of contextuality, which severely restricts hidden-variable models: we discuss Gleason’s theorem before stating and proving the famous Kochen-Specker theorem, as well as the simpler versions of Peres’ nonet and Mermin’s pentagram. These results show that quantum mechanics is not compatible with the assignment of definite measurement outcomes to all possible measurements, and such assignments can hence only be made once a restricted set of observables, a context, is selected

•Sep 7, 2023•0 citations

Il ruolo del teorema di Kochen-Specker nelle formulazioni con variabili nascoste della meccanica quantistica. On the role of Kochen-Specker theorem in hidden variable formulations of quantum mechanics

Elia De Sabbata

In this work we begin with a critical review of the concept of observable in a generical physical theory; relying on C*-algebras formalism and on Gelfand-Naimark theorem we justify the link between observables and operators in an Hilbert space. We discuss particularly observables of quantum mechanics, introducing some mathematical results that characterizes them. We introduce the problem of hidden variables and the hypothesis of non-contextuality, than we give a proof of the Kochen-Specker theorem in dimension greater or equal to 3 using partial algebras formalism; we also show a constructive example of an hidden variable theory in dimension 2. Finally we discuss Meyer’s and Kent’s objections relying on finite precision of physical measurements and we present colorations of S² ∩ Q³ and of dense subsets of the projectors of C^n and l²(C) that respect Kochen-Specker rules.

•Sep 1, 2018•0 citations
We use the validity of Addition and Multiplication for a hidden variables theory. First, we provide an example that the two operations Addition and Multiplication do not commute with each other as revealed by the analyses that are performed in a finite set of numbers. Our discussion leads to an initial conclusion that Sum rule and Product rule do not commute with each other in a hidden variables theory. If we accept this conclusion, we do not get the Bell- Kochen-Specker paradox. In more detail, quantum mechanics may accept the hidden variables theory. Next, we discuss the validity of operators under an assumption that Sum rule and Product rule commute with each other. In this case, we indeed get the Bell- Kochen-Specker paradox. We got the non-classicality of macroscopic experimental data observed in the Stern-Gerlach experiment and the double-slit experiment. If we detect | ↑> and then we detect | ↓>, the experiments cannot accept the hidden variables theory. We considered whether we can assign the predetermined “hidden ” result to numbers 1 and-1 as in results of measurements with the number of measurements finite (e.g., twice) in the experiments. It turned out that we cannot assign the predetermined hidden result to such results of measurements. The next conclusion indicates interestingly that the Stern-Gerlach experiment cannot accept classical mechanics. The double-slit experiment had led to the same situation, and they were indeed quantum mechanical phenomena.
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:
We review non-classicality of quantum datum. We consider whether we can assign the predetermined ^^ ^^ hidden'' result to numbers 1 and −1-1−1 as in results of measurements in a thought experiment. We assume the number of measurements is two. If we detect ∣↑⟩|\uparrow\rangle∣↑⟩ as 1 and detect ∣↓⟩|\downarrow\rangle∣↓⟩ as −1-1−1, then we can derive the Kochen-Speker theorem. The same situation occurs when we use a finite-precision measurement theory that the results of measurements are either 1−ϵ1-\epsilon1−ϵ or −1+ϵ-1+\epsilon−1+ϵ.
Simon Kochen and Ernst Specker's well-known argument ([6]) against hidden variable theories for quantum mechanics is also an argument against the possibility of quantum systems having, simultaneously, precise values for all of the dynamical quantities associated with such systems. Devices for defeating the argument were in the literature even before its publication, but recently Arthur Fine has raised a new difficulty ([4]). Fine points out that Kochen and Specker's argument requires the following principles: Sum Rule: At all times, in all states, the value of the quantity with operator A + B is the sum of the values of the quantity with operator A and the quantity with operator B, provided A, B commute. Product Rule: At all times, in all states, the value of the quantity with operator AB is the product of the values of the quantities with operators A and B, provided A, B commute.
Abstract In chapter 12 we give an overview of the historical development of hidden-variable theories aiming to attribute ‘hidden’ definite outcomes to any potential measurement on a quantum system. We start with a discussion of von Neumann’s assumption on hidden-variable models, which was later realized not to hold by Hermann, Kochen, Specker, and Bell, going into detail on Bell’s refutation of von Neumann’s arguments. We then turn to the notion of contextuality, which severely restricts hidden-variable models: we discuss Gleason’s theorem before stating and proving the famous Kochen-Specker theorem, as well as the simpler versions of Peres’ nonet and Mermin’s pentagram. These results show that quantum mechanics is not compatible with the assignment of definite measurement outcomes to all possible measurements, and such assignments can hence only be made once a restricted set of observables, a context, is selected
In this work we begin with a critical review of the concept of observable in a generical physical theory; relying on C*-algebras formalism and on Gelfand-Naimark theorem we justify the link between observables and operators in an Hilbert space. We discuss particularly observables of quantum mechanics, introducing some mathematical results that characterizes them. We introduce the problem of hidden variables and the hypothesis of non-contextuality, than we give a proof of the Kochen-Specker theorem in dimension greater or equal to 3 using partial algebras formalism; we also show a constructive example of an hidden variable theory in dimension 2. Finally we discuss Meyer’s and Kent’s objections relying on finite precision of physical measurements and we present colorations of S² ∩ Q³ and of dense subsets of the projectors of C^n and l²(C) that respect Kochen-Specker rules.