Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Foundations
An approach using geometric diagrams to generic Bell inequalities with multiple observables
arXiv
Authors: Junghee Ryu, Jinhyoung Lee, Hoon Ryu
Year
2025
Paper ID
51734
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
102
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We extend the generic Bell inequalities suggested by Son, Lee, and Kim [Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 060406 (2006)] to incorporate multiple observables for tripartite systems and introduce a geometric methodology for calculating classical upper bounds of the inequalities. Our method transforms the problem of finding the classical upper bounds into identifying constraints in linear congruence relations. Using this approach, we derive the upper bounds for scenarios with three and four observables per party. In order to demonstrate quantum violations, we employ Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger entangled states that can achieve values exceeding the classical upper bounds, with the violation becoming more pronounced as the number of observables increases.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2025 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We extend the generic Bell inequalities suggested by Son, Lee, and Kim [Phys.
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.