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

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #51734 #68467 Hong-Ou-Mandel interference of ... #68417 Generalized Shift Vector as the... #68413 Emergent Operational Entangleme...

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.