Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Foundations
Kochen-Specker theorem revisited
arXiv
Authors: Del Rajan, Matt Visser
Year
2017
Paper ID
44193
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
105
Citations
N/A
Abstract
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.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2017 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- 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...
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
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
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.