Two entangled particles in threedimensional Hilbert space (per particle) are considered in an EPR-type arrangement. On each side the Kochen-Specker observables $\{J_1^2,J_2^2,J_3^2\}$ and $\{\bar J_1^2, \bar J_2^2,J_3^2\}$ with $[J_1^2,\bar J_1^2]\neq 0$ are measured. The outcomes of measurements of $J_3^2$ (via $J_1^2,J_2^2$) and $J_3^2$ (via $\bar J_1^2,\bar J_2^2$) are compared. Although formally $J_3^2$ is associated with the same projection operator, a strong form of quantum contextuality states that an outcome depends on the complete disposition of the measurement apparatus, in particular whether $J_1^2$ or $\bar J_1^2$ is measured alongside. It is argued that in this case it is impossible to measure contextuality directly, a necessary condition being a non-operational counterfactuality of the argument.
Two entangled particles in threedimensional Hilbert space (per particle) are considered in an EPR-type arrangement. On each side the Kochen-Specker observables {J12,J22,J32} and {Jˉ12,Jˉ22,J32} with [J12,Jˉ12]=0 are measured. The outcomes of measurements of J32 (via J12,J22) and J32 (via Jˉ12,Jˉ22) are compared. Although formally J32 is associated with the same projection operator, a strong form of quantum contextuality states that an outcome depends on the complete disposition of the measurement apparatus, in particular whether J12 or Jˉ12 is measured alongside. It is argued that in this case it is impossible to measure contextuality directly, a necessary condition being a non-operational counterfactuality of the argument.
Two entangled particles in threedimensional Hilbert space (per particle) are considered in an EPR-type arrangement. On each side the Kochen-Specker observables {J 2 1,J 2 2,J 2 3} and { ¯ J 2 1, ¯ J 2 2,J 2 3} with [J 2 1, ¯ J 2 1] ̸= 0 are measured. The outcomes of measurements of J 2 3 (via J 2 1,J 2 2) and J 2 3 (via ¯ J 2 1, ¯ J 2 2) are compared. Although formally J 2 3 is associated with the same projection operator, quantum contextuality requires that the outcome depends on the complete disposition of the measurement apparatus, in particular whether J 2 1 or ¯ J 2 1 is measured alongside. Besides complementarity, contextuality [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] is another, more subtle nonclassical feature of quantum mechanics. That is, one and the same physical observable may appear different, depending on the context of measurement; i.e., depending on the particular way it was inferred. Stated differently, the outcome of a physical measurement may depend also on other physical measurements which are coperformed. In Bell’s own words [1, section 5], “The result of an
In this paper we attempt to analyze the physical and philosophical meaning of quantum contextuality. We will argue that there exists a general confusion within the foundational literature arising from the improper "scrambling" of two different meanings of quantum contextuality. While the first one, introduced by Bohr, is related to an epistemic interpretation of contextuality which stresses the incompatibility (or complementarity) of certain measurement situations described in classical terms; the second meaning of contextuality is related to a purely formal understanding of contextuality as exposed by the Kochen-Specker (KS) theorem which focuses instead on the constraints of the orthodox quantum formalism in order to interpret projection operators as preexistent or actual (definite valued) properties. We will show how these two notions have been scrambled together creating an "omelette of contextuality" which has been fully widespread through a popularized "epistemic explanation" of the KS theorem according to which: The measurement outcome of the observable A when measured together with B or together with C will necessarily differ in case [A, B] = [A, C] = 0, and [B, C] /= 0. We will show why this statement is not only improperly scrambling epistemic and formal perspectives, but is also physically and philosophically meaningless. Finally, we analyze the consequences of such widespread epistemic reading of KS theorem as related to statistical statements of measurement outcomes.
In this paper we attempt to analyze the physical and philosophical meaning of quantum contextuality. We will argue that there exists a general confusion within the foundational literature arising from the improper of two different meanings of quantum contextuality. While the first one, introduced by Bohr, is related to an interpretation of which stresses the incompatibility (or complementarity) of certain measurement situations described in classical terms; the second meaning of is related to a purely formal understanding of as exposed by the Kochen-Specker (KS) theorem which focuses instead on the constraints of the orthodox quantum formalism in order to interpret projection operators as preexistent or actual (definite valued) properties. We will show how these two notions have been scrambled together creating an omelette of contextuality which has been fully widespread through a popularized epistemic explanation of the KS theorem according to which: The measurement outcome of the observable A when measured together with B or together with C will necessarily differ in case [A, B] = [A, C] = 0, and [B, C] /= 0. We will show why this statement is not only improperly scrambling and formal perspectives, but is also physically and philosophically meaningless. Finally, we analyze the consequences of such widespread reading of KS theorem as related to statistical statements of measurement outcomes.
The circumstances of measurement have more direct significance in quantum than in classical physics, where they can be neglected for well-performed measurements. In quantum mechanics, the dispositions of the measuring apparatus-plus-environment of the system measured for a property are a non-trivial part of its formalization as the quantum observable. A straightforward formalization of context, via equivalence classes of measurements corresponding to sets of sharp target observables, was recently given for sharp quantum observables. Here, we show that quantum contextuality, the dependence of measurement outcomes on circumstances external to the measured quantum system, can be manifested not only as the strict exclusivity of different measurements of sharp observables or valuations but via quantitative differences in the property statistics across simultaneous measurements of generalized quantum observables, by formalizing quantum context via coexistent generalized observables rather than only its subset of compatible sharp observables. Here, the question of whether such quantum contextuality follows from basic quantum principles is then addressed, and it is shown that the Principle of Indeterminacy is sufficient for at least one form of non-trivial contextuality. Contextuality is thus seen to be a natural feature of quantum mechanics rather than something arising only from the consideration of impossible measurements, abstract philosophical issues, hidden-variables theories, or other alternative, classical models of quantum behavior.
The question of a hidden variable interpretation of quantum contextuality in the Mermin-Peres square is considered. The Kochen-Specker theorem implies that quantum mechanics may be interpreted as a contextual hidden-variable theory. It is shown that such a hidden-variable description can be viewed as either contextual in the random variables mapping hidden states to observable outcomes or in the probability measure on the hidden state space. The latter view suggests that this apparent contextuality may be interpreted as a simple consequence of measurement disturbance, wherein the initial hidden state is altered through interaction with the measuring device, thereby giving rise to a possibly different final hidden-variable state from which the measurement outcome is obtained. In light of this observation, a less restrictive and, arguably, more reasonable definition of noncontextuality is suggested. To prove that such a description is possible, an explicit and, in this sense, noncontextual hidden-variable model is constructed, which reproduces all quantum theoretic predictions for the Mermin-Peres square. A critical analysis of some recent and proposed experimental tests of contextuality is also provided. Although the discussion is restricted to a four-dimensional Hilbert space, the approach and conclusions are expected to generalize to any Hilbert space.
Quantum contextuality is a concept used to describe the property of hidden-variable theory that measurement outcomes predetermined by the hidden variables depend on the measurement context. The term measurement context can have different meanings, giving rise to different flavours of quantum contextuality. The first discovered flavour is Kochen-Specker (KS) contextuality where measurement outcomes will depend on what compatible measurements are jointly performed with the selected measurement. Another flavour, here to be compared with KS contextuality, is that referred to in Bohmian mechanics where outcomes of some specific measurements are not completely specified by the model state, but depend also on specifics of the measurement device used. It has been claimed that this type of Bohmian contextuality is necessary to enable KS contextuality in a hidden variable model. In this paper we show that this is not the case. The recently proposed Contextual Ontological Model (COM) [Hindlycke and Larsson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2022] produces KS contextual predictions but does not have the Bohmian contextuality; the outcome of every measurement allowed by COM can be predicted from the model state itself. This distinguishes Bohmian contextuality from KS contextuality, and enables individual study of the two concepts.