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

American Journal of Physics

Getting contextual and nonlocal elements-of-reality the easy way

Rob Clifton

Published May 1, 1993• 120 citations
Publisher

Abstract

What if Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were right that quantum mechanics is incomplete, and there do exist ‘‘elements-of-reality’’ corresponding to all observables whether or not they are compatible? The implications are surprising. Not only must the values of these elements-of-reality depend upon what measurements are actually performed on the system, but also upon measurements performed at spacelike separation from it! The former dependence has been dubbed ‘‘contextualism,’’ and the latter ‘‘nonlocality.’’ It is important for students to understand the necessity of these two features, if only to reinforce the point that a straightforward classical recasting of quantum theory in terms of pre-existing measurement independent elements-of-reality is not feasible. Unfortunately the argument for contextualism, in particular, is daunting due to its reliance on an elaborate geometrical argument. I aim here to minimize the geometry needed to argue for contextualism by using some ideas inspired by the original arguments of Bell and of Kochen and Specker. Using similar methods, I simplify the closely related geometrical argument for nonlocality due to Heywood and Redhead and to Stairs.

DOI
10.1119/1.17239

Related papers

Recent advances in contextuality tests

Jayne E. Thompson, Paweł Kurzyński, Su‐Yong Lee +2 more

Our everyday experiences support the hypothesis that physical systems exist independently of the act of observation. Concordant theories are characterized by the objective realism assumption whereby the act of measurement simply reveals preexisting well defined elements of reality. In stark contrast quantum mechanics portrays a world in which reality loses its objectivity and is in fact created by observation. Quantum contextuality as first discovered by Bell [Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447 (1966)] and Kochen-Specker [J. Math. Mech. 17, 59 (1967)] captures aspects of this philosophical clash between classical and quantum descriptions of the world. Here we briefly summarize some of the more recent advances in the field of quantum contextuality. We approach quantum contextuality through its close relation to Bell type nonlocal scenarios and highlight some of the rapidly developing tests and experimental implementations.

arXiv:1304.1292•Apr 4, 2013•3 citations

Recent Advances in Contextuality Tests

Jayne E. Thompson, Paweł Kurzyński, Su‐Yong Lee +2 more

Our everyday experiences support the hypothesis that physical systems exist independently of the act of observation. Concordant theories are characterized by the objective realism assumption whereby the act of measurement simply reveals preexisting well-defined elements of reality. In stark contrast quantum mechanics portrays a world in which reality loses its objectivity and is in fact created by observation. Quantum contextuality as first discovered by Bell [1] and Kochen-Specker [2] captures aspects of this philosophical clash between classical and quantum descriptions of the world. Here we briefly summarize some of the more recent advances in the field of quantum contextuality. We approach quantum contextuality through its close relation to Bell type nonlocal scenarios and highlight some of the rapidly developing tests and experimental implementations.

Open Systems & Information Dynamics•Jun 1, 2016•11 citations

A Modest View of Bell's Theorem

S. P. Boughn

In the 80 years since the seminal Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paper, physicists and philosophers have mused about the `spooky action at a distance' aspect of quantum mechanics that so bothered Einstein. In his formal analysis of EPR-type entangled quantum states, Bell (1964) concluded that any hidden variable theory designed to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics must necessarily be nonlocal and allow superluminal interactions. This doesn't immediately imply that nonlocality is a characteristic feature of quantum mechanics let alone a fundamental property of nature; however, many physicists and philosophers of science do harbor this belief. Experts in the field often use the term `nonlocality' to designate particular non-classical aspects of quantum entanglement and do not confuse the term with superluminal interactions. However, many physicists seem to take the term more literally. I endeavor to disabuse the latter of this notion by emphasizing that the correlations of Bell-type entanglement are a result of ordinary quantum superposition with no need to introduce nonlocality. The conclusion of the EPR paper wasn't that quantum mechanics is nonlocal but rather that it is an incomplete description of reality. For different reasons, many physicists, including me, agree with Einstein that quantum mechanics is necessarily an incomplete description of reality.

arXiv:1604.08529•Apr 28, 2016•3 citations

Kochen-Specker contextuality

Costantino Budroni, Adán Cabello, Otfried Gühne +2 more

A realization that came gradually in physics is that the ``elements of reality'' of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen are provably nonexistent. Specker initiated a line of thinking in 1960, observing that the outcomes of quantum measurements cannot reveal preexisting properties that are independent of which other measurements are performed. This review discusses the diverse current thinking on the problem of contextuality. The possibilities and problems with experimental verifications are discussed, and the violation of Bell inequalities can be viewed as a special case of contextuality.

arXiv:2102.13036•Reviews of Modern Physics•Dec 19, 2022•192 citations

A bolt from the blue: the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox

N. David Mermin

Over fifty years ago Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen published a striking argument that quantum theory provides only an incomplete description of physical reality – that is, that some elements of physical reality fail to have a counterpart in quantum-theoretical description. What made this a challenge to the quantum-theoretical Weltanschauung was the very mild character of the sufficient condition for the reality of a physical quantity on which their argument hinged: “If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.” The argument consists in pointing out that it is possible to construct a quantum-mechanical state ψ with the following properties: The state ψ describes two noninteracting systems (I and II). In almost all discussions the two systems are taken to be two particles, and the absence of relevant interaction is built in by taking ψ to assign negligible probability to finding the particles closer together than some macroscopically large distance. By measuring an observable A of system I, one can predict with certainty the result of a subsequent measurement of a corresponding observable P of system II. If, instead, one chooses to measure a different observable B of system I, one can predict with certainty the result of a subsequent measurement of a corresponding observable Q of system II. The observables P and Q are represented in quantum theory by noncommuting operators, which means that they cannot both have definite values.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Mar 15, 1990•0 citations

Quantum mechanics and elements of reality inferred from joint measurements

Adán Cabello, Guillermo García-alcaine

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument on quantum mechanics incompleteness is formulated in terms of elements of reality inferred from joint (as opposed to alternative) measurements, in two examples involving entangled states of three spin-1/2 particles. The same states allow us to obtain proofs of the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and elements of reality.

•Jan 1, 1997•1 citation
What if Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were right that quantum mechanics is incomplete, and there do exist ‘‘elements-of-reality’’ corresponding to all observables whether or not they are compatible? The implications are surprising. Not only must the values of these elements-of-reality depend upon what measurements are actually performed on the system, but also upon measurements performed at spacelike separation from it! The former dependence has been dubbed ‘‘contextualism,’’ and the latter ‘‘nonlocality.’’ It is important for students to understand the necessity of these two features, if only to reinforce the point that a straightforward classical recasting of quantum theory in terms of pre-existing measurement independent elements-of-reality is not feasible. Unfortunately the argument for contextualism, in particular, is daunting due to its reliance on an elaborate geometrical argument. I aim here to minimize the geometry needed to argue for contextualism by using some ideas inspired by the original arguments of Bell and of Kochen and Specker. Using similar methods, I simplify the closely related geometrical argument for nonlocality due to Heywood and Redhead and to Stairs.
Our everyday experiences support the hypothesis that physical systems exist independently of the act of observation. Concordant theories are characterized by the objective realism assumption whereby the act of measurement simply reveals preexisting well defined elements of reality. In stark contrast quantum mechanics portrays a world in which reality loses its objectivity and is in fact created by observation. Quantum contextuality as first discovered by Bell [Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447 (1966)] and Kochen-Specker [J. Math. Mech. 17, 59 (1967)] captures aspects of this philosophical clash between classical and quantum descriptions of the world. Here we briefly summarize some of the more recent advances in the field of quantum contextuality. We approach quantum contextuality through its close relation to Bell type nonlocal scenarios and highlight some of the rapidly developing tests and experimental implementations.
Our everyday experiences support the hypothesis that physical systems exist independently of the act of observation. Concordant theories are characterized by the objective realism assumption whereby the act of measurement simply reveals preexisting well-defined elements of reality. In stark contrast quantum mechanics portrays a world in which reality loses its objectivity and is in fact created by observation. Quantum contextuality as first discovered by Bell [1] and Kochen-Specker [2] captures aspects of this philosophical clash between classical and quantum descriptions of the world. Here we briefly summarize some of the more recent advances in the field of quantum contextuality. We approach quantum contextuality through its close relation to Bell type nonlocal scenarios and highlight some of the rapidly developing tests and experimental implementations.
In the 80 years since the seminal Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paper, physicists and philosophers have mused about the `spooky action at a distance' aspect of quantum mechanics that so bothered Einstein. In his formal analysis of EPR-type entangled quantum states, Bell (1964) concluded that any hidden variable theory designed to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics must necessarily be nonlocal and allow superluminal interactions. This doesn't immediately imply that nonlocality is a characteristic feature of quantum mechanics let alone a fundamental property of nature; however, many physicists and philosophers of science do harbor this belief. Experts in the field often use the term `nonlocality' to designate particular non-classical aspects of quantum entanglement and do not confuse the term with superluminal interactions. However, many physicists seem to take the term more literally. I endeavor to disabuse the latter of this notion by emphasizing that the correlations of Bell-type entanglement are a result of ordinary quantum superposition with no need to introduce nonlocality. The conclusion of the EPR paper wasn't that quantum mechanics is nonlocal but rather that it is an incomplete description of reality. For different reasons, many physicists, including me, agree with Einstein that quantum mechanics is necessarily an incomplete description of reality.
A realization that came gradually in physics is that the ``elements of reality'' of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen are provably nonexistent. Specker initiated a line of thinking in 1960, observing that the outcomes of quantum measurements cannot reveal preexisting properties that are independent of which other measurements are performed. This review discusses the diverse current thinking on the problem of contextuality. The possibilities and problems with experimental verifications are discussed, and the violation of Bell inequalities can be viewed as a special case of contextuality.
Over fifty years ago Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen published a striking argument that quantum theory provides only an incomplete description of physical reality – that is, that some elements of physical reality fail to have a counterpart in quantum-theoretical description. What made this a challenge to the quantum-theoretical Weltanschauung was the very mild character of the sufficient condition for the reality of a physical quantity on which their argument hinged: “If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.” The argument consists in pointing out that it is possible to construct a quantum-mechanical state ψ with the following properties: The state ψ describes two noninteracting systems (I and II). In almost all discussions the two systems are taken to be two particles, and the absence of relevant interaction is built in by taking ψ to assign negligible probability to finding the particles closer together than some macroscopically large distance. By measuring an observable A of system I, one can predict with certainty the result of a subsequent measurement of a corresponding observable P of system II. If, instead, one chooses to measure a different observable B of system I, one can predict with certainty the result of a subsequent measurement of a corresponding observable Q of system II. The observables P and Q are represented in quantum theory by noncommuting operators, which means that they cannot both have definite values.