Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Foundations Open Quantum Systems Decoherence Quantum Simulation Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations

Conspiracy in ontological models with measurement contextuality

arXiv
Authors: Yiruo Lin

Year

2020

Paper ID

19781

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

75

Citations

N/A

Abstract

The conspiracy of ontic states responding to measurements contextually to comply with noncontextual quantum mechanical probabilities is analyzed for general ontological models. A general physical picture of ontological space structure and how ontic states are disturbed by measurement contexts is presented. A common assumption in ontological models called lambda-sufficiency is analyzed and argued to be inconsistent with measurement contextuality for ontological models with certain symmetry in ontic space with respect to quantum states and measurements.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Simulation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2020 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • The conspiracy of ontic states responding to measurements contextually to comply with noncontextual quantum mechanical probabilities is analyzed for general ontological models.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #19781 #69027 Computational Superiority of No... #68993 Tomography of quantum states wi... #68981 Affine Filtering Measurements a... #69040 Collective Emission in LH2 Asse...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.