Quick Navigation

Topics

Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations Quantum Foundations

Further evidence for near-Tsirelson Bell–CHSH violations in quantum field theory via Haar wavelets

Crossref
Authors: David Dudal, Ken Vandermeersch

Year

2026

Paper ID

45288

Status

Peer-reviewed

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

128

Citations

0

Abstract

Abstract This paper investigates a recent construction using bumpified Haar wavelets to demonstrate explicit violations of the Bell–Clauser–Horne–Shimony–Holt inequality within the vacuum state in Quantum Field Theory. The construction was tested for massless spinor fields in $(1+1)$ ( 1 + 1 ) -dimensional Minkowski spacetime and is claimed to achieve violations arbitrarily close to an upper bound known as Tsirelson’s bound. We show that this claim may be reduced to a mathematical conjecture involving the maximal eigenvalue of a sequence of symmetric matrices composed of integrals of Haar wavelet products. More precisely, the asymptotic eigenvalue of this sequence should approach $pi$ π . We present a formal argument using a subclass of wavelets, allowing to reach 3.11052. Although a complete proof remains elusive, we present further compelling numerical evidence to support it.

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 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 #45288 #67317 An operational distinction betw... #67361 The Channel Capacity of a Relat... #67350 Simultaneous quantum identity a... #67349 Spectral radii for subsets of H...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal • updated 2026-06-04 02:04:17

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.