Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Foundations

Modular Theory and the Bell-CHSH inequality in relativistic scalar Quantum Field Theory

arXiv
Authors: J. G. A. Caribé, M. S. Guimaraes, I. Roditi, S. P. Sorella

Year

2026

Paper ID

39116

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

96

Citations

N/A

Abstract

The Tomita-Takesaki modular theory is employed to discuss the Bell-CHSH inequality in wedge regions. By using the Bisognano-Wichmann results, the construction of a set of wedge localized vectors in the one-particle Hilbert space of a relativistic massive scalar field in 1+1 dimensions is devised to establish whether violations of the Bell-CHSH inequality might occur for different choices of Bell's operators. In particular, the construction of the wedge localized vectors employed in the seminal work by Summers-Werner is scrutinized and applied to Weyl and other operators. We also outline a possible path towards the saturation of Tsirelson's bound.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • The Tomita-Takesaki modular theory is employed to discuss the Bell-CHSH inequality in wedge regions.

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 #39116 #78817 Modelling Josephson Junctions w... #78814 Construction of isoscattering n... #78811 Autonomous Code Migration for Q... #78808 Experimental generation of asym...

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.