Abstract
In recent years, much research has been devoted to exploring contextuality in systems that are not strictly quantum, like classical light, and many theory-independent frameworks for contextuality analysis have been developed. It has raised the debate on the meaning of contextuality outside the quantum realm, and also on whether—and, if so, when—it can be regarded as a signature of non-classicality. In this paper, we try to contribute to this debate by showing a very simple “thought experiment” or “toy mechanism” where a classical object (i.e., an object obeying the laws of classical physics) is used to generate experimental data violating the KCBS inequality. As with most thought experiments, the idea is to simplify the discussion and to shed light on issues that in real experiments, or from a purely theoretical perspective, may be cumbersome. We give special attention to the distinction between classical realism and classicality, and to the contrast between contextuality within and beyond quantum theory.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
References
Abramsky, S., & Brandenburger, A. (2011). The sheaf-theoretic structure of non-locality and contextuality. New Journal of Physics, 13(11), 113036. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/13/11/113036
Amaral, B., Cabello, A., Cunha, M. T., & Aolita, L. (2018). Noncontextual wirings. Physical Review Letters, 120, 130403. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.130403
Amaral, B., & Cunha, M. T. (2018). On graph approaches to contextuality and their role in quantum theory. SpringerBriefs in mathematics. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93827-1
Araújo, M., Quintino, M. T., Budroni, C., Cunha, M. T., & Cabello, A. (2013). All noncontextuality inequalities for the \(n\)-cycle scenario. Physical Review A, 88, 022118. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.88.022118
Armstrong, D. M. (1993). A world of states of affairs. Philosophical Perspectives, 7, 429–440.
Atmanspacher, H., & Filk, T. (2019). Contextuality revisited: Signaling may differ from communicating (pp. 117–127). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21908-6_10
Barbosa, R. S., Karvonen, M., & Mansfield, S. (2021). Closing bell: Boxing black box simulations in the resource theory of contextuality. arXiv:2104.11241.
Brunner, N., Cavalcanti, D., Pironio, S., Scarani, V., & Wehner, S. (2014). Bell nonlocality. Reviews of Modern Physics, 86, 419–478. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.86.419
Budroni, C., Cabello A., Gühne, O., Kleinmann, M., & Larsson, J. A. (2021). Quantum contextuality. arXiv:2102.13036.
Cabello, A. (2019). Quantum correlations from simple assumptions. Physical Review A, 100, 032120. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.032120
Cabello, A. (2021). Converting contextuality into nonlocality. Physical Review Letters, 127, 070401. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.070401
Cabello, A., Severini, S., & Winter, A. (2014). Graph-theoretic approach to quantum correlations. Physical Review Letters, 112, 040401. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.040401
Cervantes, V. H., & Dzhafarov, E. N. (2018). Snow queen is evil and beautiful: Experimental evidence for probabilistic contextuality in human choices. Decision, 5(3), 193.
de Ronde, C. (2020). Unscrambling the omelette of quantum contextuality (part I): Preexistent properties or measurement outcomes? Foundations of Science, 25, 03. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-019-09578-8
Döring, A. (2005). Kochen–Specker theorem for von Neumann algebras. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 44(2), 139–160.
Döring, A., & Isham, C. (2011). “What is a thing?": Topos theory in the foundations of physics (pp. 753–937). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12821-9_13
Dzhafarov, E., & Kujala, J. (2017). Contextuality-by-default 2.0: Systems with binary random variables. In J. A. de Barros, B. Coecke, & E. Pothos (Eds.), Quantum interaction (pp. 16–32). Cham: Springer.
Gupta, S., Saha, D., Xu, Z.-P., Cabello, A., & Majumdar, A. S. (2022). Quantum contextuality provides communication complexity advantage. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2205.03308.
Halvorson, H. (2019). To be a realist about quantum theory. In Quantum worlds: Perspectives on the ontology of quantum mechanics. Cambridge University Press.
Held, C. (2018). The Kochen–Specker theorem. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2018). Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Hofer-Szabó, G. (2021). Causal contextuality and contextuality-by-default are different concepts. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 104, 102590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2021.102590
Howard, M., Wallman, J., Veitch, V., & Emerson, J. (2014). Contextuality supplies the ‘magic’ for quantum computation. Nature, 510(7505), 351–355.
Jones, M. (2019). Relating causal and probabilistic approaches to contextuality. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 377(2157), 20190133. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0133
Klyachko, A. A., Can, M. A., Binicioğlu, S., & Shumovsky, A. S. (2008). Simple test for hidden variables in spin-1 systems. Physical Review Letters, 101, 020403. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.020403
Kochen, S., & Specker, E. P. (1967). The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17(1), 59–87. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24902153.
Kupczynski, M. (2021). Contextuality-by-default description of bell tests: Contextuality as the rule and not as an exception. Entropy. https://doi.org/10.3390/e23091104
Leifer, M. (2014). Is the quantum state real? an extended review of \(\psi\)-ontology theorems. Quanta, 3(1), 67–155. https://doi.org/10.12743/quanta.v3i1.22
Li, T., Zeng, Q., Song, X., & Zhang, X. (2017). Experimental contextuality in classical light. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44467
Li, T., Zeng, Q., Zhang, X., Chen, T., & Zhang, X. (2019). State-independent contextuality in classical light. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51250-5
Mazurek, M. D., Pusey, M. F., Kunjwal, R., Resch, K. J., & Spekkens, R. W. (2016). An experimental test of noncontextuality without unphysical idealizations. Nature communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11780
Popescu, S. (2014). Nonlocality beyond quantum mechanics. Nature Physics, 10, 040403. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2916
Santos, L., & Amaral, B. (2021). Conditions for logical contextuality and nonlocality. Physical Review A, 104, 022201. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.104.022201
Spekkens, R. W. (2005). Contextuality for preparations, transformations, and unsharp measurements. Physical Review A, 71, 052108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.71.052108
Spekkens, R. W. (2007). Evidence for the epistemic view of quantum states: A toy theory. Physical Review A. https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.75.032110
Svozil, K. (2020). What is so special about quantum clicks? Entropy. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22060602
Textor, M. (2021). States of affairs. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2021). Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Tezzin, A. (2023). Step-by-step derivation of the algebraic structure of quantum mechanics (or from nondisturbing to quantum correlations by connecting incompatible observables). arXiv:2303.04847.
Wang, D., Sadrzadeh, M., Abramsky, S., Víctor, H., & Cervantes, V. H. (2021). Analysing ambiguous nouns and verbs with quantum contextuality tools. Journal of Cognitive Science, 22(3), 391–420.
Zhang, A., Xu, H., Xie, J., Zhang, H., Smith, B. J., Kim, M. S., & Zhang, L. (2019). Experimental test of contextuality in quantum and classical systems. Physical Review Letters, 122, 080401. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.080401
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank B’arbara Amaral, Rafael Wagner, Giulio Halisson, and Leonardo Santos for insightful discussions and helpful comments. I also would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their comments and criticisms, which significantly improved this paper.
Funding
This work was funded by National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
In this appendix we provide a brief overview of the compatibility-hypergraph approach to contextuality. Our main reference is Amaral and Cunha (2018).
Definition 3
(Scenario) A scenario is a triple \(\mathcal {S} \equiv (\mathcal {A},\mathcal {C},O)\) where \(\mathcal {A}\), O are finite sets, whose elements represent measurements and outcomes respectively, and \(\mathcal {C}\) is a collection of subsets of \(\mathcal {A}\) (each one representing a maximal set of compatible measurements) satisfying the following conditions.
-
(a)
\(\mathcal {A} = \cup \mathcal {C}\)
-
(b)
For \(C,C' \in \mathcal {C}\), \(C' \subset C\) implies \(C' = C\)
The approach is named "hypergraph-approach" because a scenario \((\mathcal {A},\mathcal {C},O)\) can be associated with a hypergraph whose vertices are the elements of \(\mathcal {A}\) and whose hyperedges are the elements of \(\mathcal {C}\) (Amaral & Cunha, 2018).
The result of a joint measurement over a context C can be represented as a function \(C \rightarrow O\). Therefore, the set \(O^{C}\) of all functions \(C \rightarrow O\) can be understood as the set of all possible outcomes of a joint measurement on C. Behaviors enable us to encode experimental data obtained from joint measurements on a measurement scenario (Amaral & Cunha, 2018).
Definition 4
(behavior) Let \(\mathcal {S}\) be a scenario. A behavior on \(\mathcal {S}\) is a function p which associates to each context C a probability distribution \(p(\cdot | C)\) on \(O^{C}\), that is to say, for each context C, \(p(\cdot | C)\) is a function \(O^{C} \rightarrow [0,1]\) satisfying \(\sum _{s \in O^{C}} p(u | C) = 1\).
A behavior whose components coincide when restricted to intersections of contexts is said to be non-disturbing (Amaral & Cunha, 2018):
Definition 5
(Non-disturbance) A behavior p in a scenario \(\mathcal {S}\) is said to be non-disturbing if, for any pair of intersecting contexts C, D, equality
holds true, where, for any \(E \in \mathcal {C}\) and \(E' \subset E\), \(p(\cdot | E',E)\) denotes the marginal of \(p(\cdot | E)\) on \(O^{E'}\), namely
Classical and quantum behaviors arise when ideal measurements are performed upon classical and quantum systems respectively. They are defined as follows (Amaral & Cunha, 2018).
Definition 6
(Classical realization) Let p be a behavior in a scenario \(\mathcal {S} \equiv (\mathcal {A},\mathcal {C},O)\). A probability space \(\varvec{\Lambda } \equiv (\Lambda ,\Sigma ,\mu )\) is said to be a classical realization for p if we can associate each measurement A of \(\mathcal {S}\) to a random variable \(f_{A}: \Lambda \rightarrow O\) in \(\varvec{\Lambda }\) is such a way that, for any context C, \(p(\cdot |C)\) is the joint distribution of the set \(\{f_{A}: A \in C\}\),which means that, for any \(s \in O^{C}\),
where \(s_{A} \equiv s(A)\).
The definition of quantum realization goes as follows (Amaral & Cunha, 2018).
Definition 7
(Quantum realization) Let p be a behavior in a scenario \(\mathcal {S} \equiv (\mathcal {A},\mathcal {C},O)\). A pair \((H,\rho )\), where H is a finite-dimensional Hilbert space and \(\rho\) is a density operator on H, endowed with a mapping , is said to be a quantum realization for p if the following conditions are satisfied.
-
(a)
O is, up to isomorphism, the set of eigenvalues of \(\Theta (\mathcal {A})\), that is to say,
$$\begin{aligned} O \cong \bigcup _{A \in \mathcal {A}} \sigma (T_{A}). \end{aligned}$$(10) -
(b)
Each context is embedded by \(\Theta\) into a commutative algebra, i.e., if \(A,B \in C\) for some context C, then \(T_{A}\) and \(T_{B}\) commute.
-
(c)
For each context C, \(p(\cdot | C)\) is reproduced by the Born rule, i.e., for any \(s \in O^{C}\),
$$\begin{aligned} p(s|C) = \text {Tr}\left( \rho \prod _{A \in C} P^{(A)}_{s_{A}}\right) , \end{aligned}$$(11)where \(P^{(A)}_{s_{A}}\) denotes the projection \(\chi _{\{s_{A}\}}(A)\) (if \(s_{A} \in \sigma (T_{A})\), this is the projection associated with the subspace of H spanned by the eigenvalue \(s_{A}\) of A; if \(s_{A} \notin \sigma (T_{A})\), \(P^{(A)}_{s_{A}} = 0\)).
The definition of noncontextuality in the CH approach goes as follows (Amaral & Cunha, 2018).
Definition 8
(Noncontextuality) A behavior p in a scenario \(\mathcal {S}\) is said to be non-contextual if there is a probability distribution \(\overline{p}:O^{\mathcal {A}} \rightarrow [0,1]\) satisfying, for any context C,
where \(\overline{p}_{C}\) denotes the marginal of \(\overline{p}\) in \(O^{C}\), i.e., for any \(s \in O^{C}\),
One can easily prove that non-contextuality and classicality (i.e., having a classical realization) are equivalent concepts in the compatibility-hypergraph approach (Amaral & Cunha, 2018), by which we mean that a behavior p is noncontextual (Definition 8) if and only if it has a classical realization (Definition 6).
It is easy to show that any classical behavior (i.e., any behavior satisfying Definition 6) has a quantum realization, and it is also easy to show that any quantum behavior is non-disturbing (Amaral & Cunha, 2018). Therefore, if we denote by \(\mathscr {N}\mathscr {C}(\mathcal {S})\), \(\mathscr {Q}(\mathcal {S})\) and \(\mathscr {N}\mathscr {D}(\mathcal {S})\) the sets of noncontextual (or, equivalently, “classical”), quantum and non-disturbing behaviors, respectively, on a scenario \(\mathcal {S}\), we obtain the well-known chain of inclusions
The behavior we are interested in (Definition 1) is nondisturbing but lies outside the quantum set (Amaral & Cunha, 2018).
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Tezzin, A. Violating the KCBS Inequality with a Toy Mechanism. Found Sci (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-023-09928-7
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-023-09928-7