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

Physical Review A

Reply to “Comment on ‘All quantum observables in a hidden-variable model must commute simultaneously’” [Phys. Rev. A73, 066101 (2006)]

James D. Malley, Arthur I. Fine

Published Jun 14, 2006• 2 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Nagata [Phys. Rev. A 73, 066101 (2006)] questions whether a general no-go theorem of Malley [Phys. Rev. A 69, 022118 (2004)] applies to local hidden variables and outlines a ``counterexample.'' In fact this is not a counterexample at all, but in seeing why it fails we clarify the significance of Malley's result and its relation to other no-go theorems.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.73.066102

Related papers

Comment on “All quantum observables in a hidden-variable model must commute simultaneously”

Koji Nagata

Malley discussed [Phys. Rev. A 69, 022118 (2004)] that all quantum observables in a hidden-variable model for quantum events must commute simultaneously. In this comment, we discuss that Malley's theorem is indeed valid for the hidden-variable theoretical assumptions, which were introduced by Kochen and Specker. However, we give an example that the local hidden-variable (LHV) model for quantum events preserves noncommutativity of quantum observables. It turns out that Malley's theorem is not related to the LHV model for quantum events, in general.

arXiv:quant-ph/0408039•Physical Review A•Jun 14, 2006•4 citations

Defining the local part of a hidden variable model: a comment

Roger Colbeck, Renato Renner

In [Physical Review Letters 101, 050403 (2008)], we showed that quantum theory cannot be explained by a hidden variable model with a non-trivial local part. The purpose of this comment is to clarify our notion of local part, which seems to have caused some confusion in the recent literature. This notion is based on Bell's and demands that local hidden variables are physical, the idea being that, if discovered, they would not contradict basic physical principles. We explain why the recent supposed "counterexamples" that have appeared are not counterexamples to our theorem--in fact they are based on a definition of local hidden variables which would allow signalling and is therefore not physical.

arXiv:0907.4967•Jul 28, 2009•2 citations

All quantum observables in a hidden-variable model must commute simultaneously

James D. Malley

Under a standard set of assumptions for a hidden-variable model for quantum events we show that all observables must commute simultaneously. This seems to be an ultimate statement about the inapplicability of the usual hidden-variable model for quantum events. And, despite Bell's complaint that a key condition of von Neumann's was quite unrealistic, we show that these conditions, under which von Neumann produced the first no-go proof, are entirely equivalent to those introduced by Bell and Kochen and Specker. As these conditions are also equivalent to those under which the Bell-Clauster-Horne inequalities are derived, we see that the experimental violations of the inequalities demonstrate only that quantum observables do not commute.

arXiv:quant-ph/0402126•Physical Review A•Feb 27, 2004•42 citations

Reply to ``Comments on `There is No Axiomatic System for the Quantum Theory'''

Koji Nagata, Tadao Nakamura

Jose Acacio de Barros discusses as follows [{Jose Acacio de Barros, Int. J. Theor. Phys. {\bf 50}, 1828 (2011)}]. Nagata claims to derive inconsistencies from quantum mechanics [{K. Nagata, Int. J. Theor. Phys. {\bf 48}, 3532 (2009)}]. Jose Acacio de Barros considers that the inconsistencies do not come from quantum mechanics, but from extra assumptions about the reality of observables. Here we discuss the fact that there is a contradiction within the quantum theory. We discuss the fact that only one expected value in a spin-1/2 pure state $\langle\sigma_x\rangle$ rules out the reality of the observable. We do not accept extra assumptions about the reality of observables. We use the actually measured results of quantum measurements (raw data). We use a single Pauli observable. We stress that we can use the quantum theory even if we give up the axiomatic system for the quantum theory.

•Sep 1, 2013•0 citations

Reply to Comment on: "Fluctuation Theorem for Many-Body Pure Quantum States"

Eiki Iyoda, Kazuya Kaneko, Takahiro Sagawa

We reply to Comment by J. Gemmer, L. Knipschild, R. Steinigeweg (arXiv:1712.02128) on our paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 100601 (2017).

arXiv:1712.05172•Dec 14, 2017•1 citation

On local-hidden-variable no-go theorems

André Allan Méthot

The strongest attack against quantum mechanics came in 1935 in the form of a paper by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. It was argued that the theory of quantum mechanics could not be called a complete theory of Nature, for every element of reality is not represented in the formalism as such. The authors then put forth a proposition: we must search for a theory where, upon knowing everything about the system, including possible hidden variables, one could make precise predictions concerning elements of reality. This project was ultimatly doomed in 1964 with the work of Bell Bell, who showed that the most general local hidden variable theory could not reproduce correlations that arise in quantum mechanics. There exist mainly three forms of no-go theorems for local hidden variable theories. Although almost every physicist knows the consequences of these no-go theorems, not every physicist is aware of the distinctions between the three or even their exact definitions. Thus we will discuss here the three principal forms of no-go theorems for local hidden variable theories of Nature. We will define Bell theorems, Bell theorems without inequalities and pseudo-telepathy. A discussion of the similarities and differences will follow. 1

•Jul 15, 2005•11 citations
Nagata [Phys. Rev. A 73, 066101 (2006)] questions whether a general no-go theorem of Malley [Phys. Rev. A 69, 022118 (2004)] applies to local hidden variables and outlines a ``counterexample.'' In fact this is not a counterexample at all, but in seeing why it fails we clarify the significance of Malley's result and its relation to other no-go theorems.
Malley discussed [Phys. Rev. A 69, 022118 (2004)] that all quantum observables in a hidden-variable model for quantum events must commute simultaneously. In this comment, we discuss that Malley's theorem is indeed valid for the hidden-variable theoretical assumptions, which were introduced by Kochen and Specker. However, we give an example that the local hidden-variable (LHV) model for quantum events preserves noncommutativity of quantum observables. It turns out that Malley's theorem is not related to the LHV model for quantum events, in general.
In [Physical Review Letters 101, 050403 (2008)], we showed that quantum theory cannot be explained by a hidden variable model with a non-trivial local part. The purpose of this comment is to clarify our notion of local part, which seems to have caused some confusion in the recent literature. This notion is based on Bell's and demands that local hidden variables are physical, the idea being that, if discovered, they would not contradict basic physical principles. We explain why the recent supposed "counterexamples" that have appeared are not counterexamples to our theorem--in fact they are based on a definition of local hidden variables which would allow signalling and is therefore not physical.
Under a standard set of assumptions for a hidden-variable model for quantum events we show that all observables must commute simultaneously. This seems to be an ultimate statement about the inapplicability of the usual hidden-variable model for quantum events. And, despite Bell's complaint that a key condition of von Neumann's was quite unrealistic, we show that these conditions, under which von Neumann produced the first no-go proof, are entirely equivalent to those introduced by Bell and Kochen and Specker. As these conditions are also equivalent to those under which the Bell-Clauster-Horne inequalities are derived, we see that the experimental violations of the inequalities demonstrate only that quantum observables do not commute.
Jose Acacio de Barros discusses as follows [{Jose Acacio de Barros, Int. J. Theor. Phys. {\bf 50}, 1828 (2011)}]. Nagata claims to derive inconsistencies from quantum mechanics [{K. Nagata, Int. J. Theor. Phys. {\bf 48}, 3532 (2009)}]. Jose Acacio de Barros considers that the inconsistencies do not come from quantum mechanics, but from extra assumptions about the reality of observables. Here we discuss the fact that there is a contradiction within the quantum theory. We discuss the fact that only one expected value in a spin-1/2 pure state ⟨σx⟩\langle\sigma_x\rangle⟨σx​⟩ rules out the reality of the observable. We do not accept extra assumptions about the reality of observables. We use the actually measured results of quantum measurements (raw data). We use a single Pauli observable. We stress that we can use the quantum theory even if we give up the axiomatic system for the quantum theory.
The strongest attack against quantum mechanics came in 1935 in the form of a paper by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. It was argued that the theory of quantum mechanics could not be called a complete theory of Nature, for every element of reality is not represented in the formalism as such. The authors then put forth a proposition: we must search for a theory where, upon knowing everything about the system, including possible hidden variables, one could make precise predictions concerning elements of reality. This project was ultimatly doomed in 1964 with the work of Bell Bell, who showed that the most general local hidden variable theory could not reproduce correlations that arise in quantum mechanics. There exist mainly three forms of no-go theorems for local hidden variable theories. Although almost every physicist knows the consequences of these no-go theorems, not every physicist is aware of the distinctions between the three or even their exact definitions. Thus we will discuss here the three principal forms of no-go theorems for local hidden variable theories of Nature. We will define Bell theorems, Bell theorems without inequalities and pseudo-telepathy. A discussion of the similarities and differences will follow. 1