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

AIP conference proceedings

The Kochen-Specker Paradox and Great-Circle Descents

Jan-Åke Larsson, Luigi Accardi, Guillaume Adenier, Christopher A. Fuchs, Gregg S. Jaeger, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov, Jan-Åke Larsson, Stig Stenholm

Published Jan 1, 2009• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The Kochen‐Specker paradox has recently been subject to experimental interest, and in this situation the number of steps in the proof in question is important. The fewer number of steps there are in the proof, the more imperfections can be tolerated in the experimental setup. In the spin‐1 version of the Kochen‐Specker paradox, when the settings used are directions in three‐dimensional space, the proofs can be easily visualized and the steps can easily be counted. In particular, the original Kochen‐Specker paradox makes use of so‐called great‐circle descents. Here, we will examine such descents in detail and also some other versions of the proof for spin‐1 systems. We will see that, perhaps contrary to intuition, the proofs that use a small number of steps do not in general use only great‐circle descents, and examine the reasons for this and possible extensions. At least one new proof will also be presented for the spin‐1 case.

DOI
10.1063/1.3109950

Related papers

Kochen-Specker theorem revisited

Del Rajan, Matt Visser

The Kochen-Specker theorem is a basic and fundamental 50 year old non-existence result affecting the foundations of quantum mechanix, strongly implying the lack of any meaningful notion of "quantum realism", and typically leading to discussions of "contextuality" in quantum physics. Original proofs of the Kochen-Specker theorem proceeded via brute force counter-examples; often quite complicated and subtle (albeit mathematically "elementary") counter-examples. Only more recently have somewhat more "geometrical" proofs been developed. We present herein yet another simplified geometrical proof of the Kochen-Specker theorem, one that is valid for any number of dimensions, that minimizes the technical machinery involved, and makes the seriousness of the issues raised manifest.

arXiv:1708.01380•Aug 4, 2017•5 citations

Proofs of the Kochen–Specker theorem based on a system of three qubits

Mordecai Waegell, P. K. Aravind

A number of new proofs of the Kochen–Specker theorem are given based on the observables of the three-qubit Pauli group. Each proof is presented in the form of a diagram from which it is obvious by inspection. Each of our observable-based proofs leads to a system of projectors and bases that generally yields a large number of ‘parity proofs’ of the Kochen–Specker theorem. Some examples of such proofs are given and some of their applications are discussed.

arXiv:1205.5015•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Sep 18, 2012•44 citations

Two simple proofs of the Kochen-Specker theorem

Asher Peres

A new proof of the Kochen-Specker theorem uses 33 rays, instead of 117 in the original proof. If the number of dimensions is increased from 3 to 4, only 24 rays are needed.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Feb 21, 1991•422 citations

Generalized Kochen-Specker theorem

P. K. Aravind

A proof of the generalized Kochen-Specker theorem in two dimensions due to Cabello and Nakamura [A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 190401 (2003)] is extended to all higher dimensions. A set of 18 states in four dimensions is used to give closely related proofs of the generalized Kochen-Specker, Kochen-Specker, and Bell theorems that shed some light on the relationship between these three theorems.

arXiv:quant-ph/0301074•Physical Review A•Nov 17, 2003•16 citations

On the connection between the theorems of Gleason and of Kochen and Specker

Karl-Peter Marzlin, Taylor Landry

We present an elementary proof of a reduced version of Gleason’s theorem and the Kochen–Specker theorem to provide a novel perspective on the relation between both theorems. The proof is based on a set of linear equations for the values of a function, m, on the unit sphere. In the case of Gleason’s theorem, the entire unit sphere needs to be considered, while a finite set of points suffices to prove the Kochen–Specker theorem.

arXiv:1411.4583•Canadian Journal of Physics•Jul 14, 2015•4 citations

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 paradox has recently been subject to experimental interest, and in this situation the number of steps in the proof in question is important. The fewer number of steps there are in the proof, the more imperfections can be tolerated in the experimental setup. In the spin‐1 version of the Kochen‐Specker paradox, when the settings used are directions in three‐dimensional space, the proofs can be easily visualized and the steps can easily be counted. In particular, the original Kochen‐Specker paradox makes use of so‐called great‐circle descents. Here, we will examine such descents in detail and also some other versions of the proof for spin‐1 systems. We will see that, perhaps contrary to intuition, the proofs that use a small number of steps do not in general use only great‐circle descents, and examine the reasons for this and possible extensions. At least one new proof will also be presented for the spin‐1 case.
The Kochen-Specker theorem is a basic and fundamental 50 year old non-existence result affecting the foundations of quantum mechanix, strongly implying the lack of any meaningful notion of "quantum realism", and typically leading to discussions of "contextuality" in quantum physics. Original proofs of the Kochen-Specker theorem proceeded via brute force counter-examples; often quite complicated and subtle (albeit mathematically "elementary") counter-examples. Only more recently have somewhat more "geometrical" proofs been developed. We present herein yet another simplified geometrical proof of the Kochen-Specker theorem, one that is valid for any number of dimensions, that minimizes the technical machinery involved, and makes the seriousness of the issues raised manifest.
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: