Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Ruling out nonlinear modifications of quantum theory with contextuality

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that three well-known nonlinear modifications of quantum mechanics turn a contextual set of pure states into a non-contextual one, and argues that a contextuality measurement can therefore rule out such models…

desk verdict Solid contextuality characterization and two clean nonlinearity tests, but the Schrödinger–Newton claim is a sketch; still worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04298 v1 pith:73OROB4E submitted 2025-06-04 quant-ph gr-qc

Ruben Campos Delgado , Martin Plávala This is my paper
classification quant-phgr-qc MSC 81P1381P16 PACS 03.65.Ta03.65.-w
keywords SpekkenscontextualitynonlinearquantummechanicslinearindependenceofdensitymatricesWeinbergmodelSchrödinger-NewtonequationDeutschcloningmapnon-contextualityinequalitiesweakwavefunctioncollapse
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper finds a way to test proposed nonlinear changes to quantum theory using a single quantum system and no entanglement. Its main theorem says a set of pure states is non-contextual, in the sense of Spekkens, exactly when the density matrices of those states are linearly independent. Using that criterion, the authors analyse three nonlinear models — the Deutsch cloning map, the Weinberg model, and the first-order Schrödinger–Newton iteration — and show each maps an initially contextual set of states into a non-contextual one. Consequently, if an experiment finds the final states still violate a non-contextuality inequality, the corresponding nonlinear modification is ruled out in that regime. The result also frames nonlinear dynamics as capable of a 'weak collapse' that enables a hidden-variable description without a definite outcome.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the linear independence of the density-matrix collection, which Theorem 2 elevates to a necessary and sufficient condition for contextuality of pure states. That reduces contextuality to a linear-algebra check. Each nonlinearity is then shown to send a linearly dependent set of qubit states to a linearly independent set: Deutsch via ϕ(ρ)=ρ⊗ρ, Weinberg via state-dependent rotation frequencies ω(ϑ), and Schrödinger–Newton via the angle-dependent phase difference in the first iteration of Grossardt's recursive solution.

What would settle it

For each model, the decisive experiment is to prepare the initially contextual set, let the candidate nonlinear evolution act, then measure a non-contextuality inequality: a violation would mean the states remained contextual, ruling out that nonlinear modification; for the Schrödinger–Newton case, the decisive calculation is whether the density matrices become linearly independent at the second Grossardt iteration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an exact equivalence for pure states: a set of states admits a Spekkens-style non-contextual hidden-variable model if and only if the density matrices are linearly independent operators. The paper proves this as its Theorem 2. Because the four states at the antipodes of the Bloch sphere have linearly dependent density matrices, they are contextual; the Deutsch cloning map (ρ ↦ ρ⊗ρ), the Weinberg nonlinear evolution, and the first Grossardt iteration of the Schrödinger–Newton equation each turn them into linearly independent, hence non-contextual, states. The paper argues this is a general signature of nonlinearity that can be probed by measuring non-contextuality inequalities before and after the would-be nonlinear evolution.

Load-bearing premise

The Schrödinger–Newton result rests on the first step of an iterative approximation, with the paper assuming that the angle-dependent phase persists at higher orders by analogy with the Weinberg model, without computing the linear independence of the final states explicitly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A non-contextuality inequality that the final states still violate would experimentally rule out the corresponding nonlinear modification of quantum theory.
  • Contextuality of any finite set of pure states can be decided simply by checking linear independence of density matrices.
  • The proposed experiments are prepare-transform-measure tests on single quantum systems, avoiding the entanglement or relativistic signaling assumptions of earlier nonlinearity tests.
  • If nonlinear dynamics really erase contextuality, they enable a hidden-variable description of state sets without full wave-function collapse — a 'weak collapse' route toward addressing the measurement problem.
  • For the Schrödinger–Newton equation, the effect is established at first order of the Grossardt iteration; the paper leaves the full solution and higher-order iterations open.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The linear-independence criterion suggests that in higher dimensions the size of a contextual set is tied to the dimension of the Hermitian-operator space, so the four-qubit example is only the smallest instance of a scalable pattern.
  • The same mechanism might be testable in continuous-variable systems once a suitable generalization of Spekkens contextuality to infinite dimensions is developed, which the paper itself identifies as future work.
  • If the Schrödinger–Newton effect disappears at higher iteration orders, the Deutsch and Weinberg results would still stand while the gravitational-collapse motivation would need a different nonlinear mechanism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies Spekkens contextuality for sets of quantum states and connects it to the linear independence of the corresponding density matrices. It proves (Theorem 2) that, for distinct pure states, non-contextuality of a set is equivalent to linear independence of its density matrices. It then examines three nonlinear modifications of quantum mechanics—Deutsch's cloning map, Weinberg's nonlinear qubit dynamics, and the Schrödinger–Newton equation—and claims that each maps an initially contextual set of states to a non-contextual set. The authors propose that this provides a new experimental route for ruling out such nonlinear modifications: if the final set still violates a non-contextuality inequality, the nonlinear dynamics is falsified in the tested regime.

Significance. If the main theorems and the Deutsch and Weinberg examples are correct, the paper gives a clean and useful criterion for preparation contextuality of finite sets of pure states, and it offers an original experimental strategy for testing certain nonlinear modifications of quantum theory. The Deutsch and Weinberg sections contain explicit, checkable calculations, and the counter-example in the Appendix is a valuable guard against overgeneralizing the effect to all nonlinear maps. The advertised Schrödinger–Newton result, however, is not established by the calculations presented; the paper itself concedes in the Conclusions that the finite-dimensional theorems do not directly apply. The central idea is interesting and the finite-dimensional results are likely salvageable with modest corrections, but the Schrödinger–Newton claim needs either a real proof or an explicit downgrade to a conjecture.

major comments (3)
  1. [Schrödinger–Newton equation, Eqs. (10)–(18)] The Schrödinger–Newton section does not establish the paper's central claim for this model. Theorem 2 applies only to pure states in a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, whereas the state in Eq. (10) is a spin-position entangled state in an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. If the set whose contextuality is discussed is the reduced spin state, that set is generally mixed, so the 'if and only if' direction of Theorem 2 is unavailable; if the set is the full spin-position state, neither theorem applies. The text only notes that the first-order phases in Eqs. (16)–(18) depend on δ and asserts, by analogy with Weinberg's model, that a contextual set is mapped to a non-contextual one. No explicit linear-independence calculation for the reduced spin density matrices is provided. In particular, if the wave packets separate so that the overlap ⟨ψ↓|ψ↑⟩ tends to zero, the reduced spin states become diagonal in the same spin basis and depend only on |α|² and |β|², which can make the final set linearly dependent and hence fail to exhibit the claimed effect. The paper's own concluding paragraph states that the results apply only to finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces and that a continuous-variable generalization is needed; this limitation is directly relevant to the Schrödinger–Newton claim and should be resolved before the claim is presented as proven.
  2. [Theorem 2] Theorem 2 is false as stated because it omits the assumption that the pure states are distinct. If, for example, the set contains two identical states ρ1 = ρ2 = |0⟩⟨0|, then the density matrices are linearly dependent, yet the set is trivially non-contextual: the duplicated preparation is just a repetition of the same state. The proof implicitly uses distinctness when it concludes that equality of two states contradicts linear independence. The statement should be amended to 'a set of distinct pure states is non-contextual if and only if their density matrices are linearly independent,' and the proof should say explicitly where distinctness is used.
  3. [Theorem 1, proof] The proof of Theorem 1 claims that there exists a dual basis {F_j}_{j∈I} ⊆ D(H) with Tr(ρ_i F_j)=δ_ij. This is not always possible: for the three qubit states {|0⟩,|1⟩,|+⟩}, which are linearly independent, any positive operator F with Tr(ρ_0 F)=0 and Tr(ρ_+ F)=0 must be zero because the orthogonal complements of |0⟩ and |+⟩ have trivial intersection. The proof only needs the F_j to be Hermitian operators with Tr(ρ_i F_j)=δ_ij; the condition Tr(ρ_i G_λ)≥0 in Definition 1 is then satisfied for the finite set because the values are 0 or 1. The theorem is repairable in this way, but the proof as written is invalid.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Weinberg's model, Eq. (9)] Equation (9) writes 'sinh' but the preceding manipulation of the complex exponentials in Eq. (8) gives a sine, not a hyperbolic sine. With the correct sine, the conclusion α2=0 requires choosing a time t such that sin[(ω(ϑ2)−ω(ϑ1))t]≠0; the Weinberg claim holds for generic times, but not for all times. Please correct the equation and the accompanying statement.
  2. [Schrödinger–Newton equation, Eq. (14)] In the expression for U↑(0)(t,r), the first term is written as |α|² Ũ(t,∇). The argument '∇' appears to be a typo; it should presumably be r, consistent with the other terms.
  3. [Theorem 2 proof, Appendix] The appeal to monogamy of entanglement in Eq. (23) is heavier than necessary: since both reduced states of Θ(ρi) equal the pure state ρi, the bipartite state itself must equal ρi⊗ρi. A direct statement of this elementary fact would make the proof easier to follow.
  4. [Notation, Eqs. (6) and (8)] The derivation uses both θ and ϑ for the same polar angle. Please unify the notation to avoid confusion in the Weinberg calculation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the core equivalence and the Deutsch/Weinberg analyses are derived from explicit linear-independence computations; the Schrödinger–Newton claim rests on an unproved analogy but is not circular.

full rationale

All load-bearing steps are self-contained. Theorem 2 is proved from Definition 1 in the Appendix using linear algebra and the external monogamy-of-entanglement bound [61]; partial cases [35, 51, 53] are cited as prior special cases, not as the source of the general iff. The Deutsch and Weinberg sections directly compute the linear (in)dependence of the density matrices before and after the maps (Eqs. (2)-(9)), with no fitted parameter or quantity that is defined as the predicted outcome. The Schrödinger–Newton section is the weakest link: the paper states 'we showed that in the first iteration ... the same effect occurs' and concedes 'our results as stated apply only to discrete systems described by finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces' (Conclusions), and the inference 'Hence, the evolution of states resembles the Weinberg's dynamics ... Accordingly, a contextual set of states is mapped to a non-contextual one' is an analogy rather than a calculation. That is an incompleteness or correctness gap, not a circular reduction: the missing linear-independence check is not assumed as an input anywhere. Self-citations [36, 37, 39] appear only as introductory background on contextuality and [55] is an external software reference; none is load-bearing. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its conclusion by construction, and no fitted value is renamed as a prediction. Hence no circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's derivation introduces no free parameters or invented entities. The main unstated input is the sufficiency of the first-order Schrödinger-Newton iteration and the implicit linear algebra step in Theorem 2's proof. These are assumptions about the applicability of the proof, not fitted numbers.

assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The first-order Grossardt iteration is representative of the full Schrödinger-Newton dynamics for the purpose of inducing state-dependent phases.
    The SN section uses only the first iteration of the iterative solution from [48] and does not estimate higher-order corrections. The conclusion about the SN map becoming non-contextual rests on this approximation (Section 'Schrödinger-Newton equation', Eqs. (13)-(18)).
  • standard math In the proof of Theorem 2, after removing the state ρ_k from a linear dependence relation, the remaining states form a linearly independent set.
    The proof states this without loss of generality, but the justification is to pass to a minimal linearly dependent subset. This is a standard linear algebra step that is not explicitly spelled out in the Appendix.
  • domain assumption The set of measurements includes all projection-valued measures (PVMs), so that states are separated by measurements and the dual basis construction works.
    Definition 1 assumes all PVMs are available. This is a standard assumption in Spekkens contextuality and is needed for Theorem 1 to hold for arbitrary PVMs.
  • standard math Monogamy of entanglement: a bipartite state whose marginal on each side is the same pure state ρ_i must equal ρ_i ⊗ ρ_i.
    Invoked in the proof of Theorem 2 (Appendix) via citation [61] to conclude Θ(ρ_i) = ρ_i ⊗ ρ_i.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ruling out nonlinear modifications of quantum theory with contextuality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/73OROB4E

@misc{pith2026250604298,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ruling out nonlinear modifications of quantum theory with contextuality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/73OROB4E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04298}
}
read the original abstract

Nonlinear modifications of quantum theory are considered potential candidates for the theory of quantum gravity, with the intuitive argument that since Einstein field equations are nonlinear, quantum gravity should be nonlinear as well. Contextuality is a property of quantum systems that forbids the explanation of prepare-and-measure experiments in terms of classical hidden variable models with suitable properties. We show that some well-known nonlinear modifications of quantum mechanics, namely the Deutsch's map, the Weinberg's model, and the Schr\"odinger - Newton equation, map a contextual set of states to a non-contextual one. That is, the considered nonlinear modifications of quantum theory allow for the existence of classical hidden variable models for certain experimental setups. This enables us to design experiments that would rule out the considered nonlinear modifications of quantum theory by verifying that the system remains contextual, or, equivalently, our results highlight a mechanism how nonlinear modification of quantum theory may lead to weak wave function collapse and ultimately to the solution of the measurement problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04298 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of an action of a nonlinear map acting on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    de Broglie, Non-Linear Quantum Mechanics: A Causal Interpretation (Elsevier, 1960) translated from French by Arthur J

    L. de Broglie, Non-Linear Quantum Mechanics: A Causal Interpretation (Elsevier, 1960) translated from French by Arthur J. Knodel and Jack C. Miller

    work page 1960

  2. [2]

    Karolyhazy, Gravitation and quantum mechanics of macroscopic objects, Nuovo Cim

    F. Karolyhazy, Gravitation and quantum mechanics of macroscopic objects, Nuovo Cim. A 42, 390 (1966)

    work page 1966

  3. [3]

    Di´ osi, Gravitation and quantum-mechanical localiza- tion of macro-objects, Phys

    L. Di´ osi, Gravitation and quantum-mechanical localiza- tion of macro-objects, Phys. Lett. A 105, 199 (1984)

    work page 1984

  4. [4]

    Di´ osi, A Universal Master Equation for the Gravita- tional Violation of Quantum Mechanics, Phys

    L. Di´ osi, A Universal Master Equation for the Gravita- tional Violation of Quantum Mechanics, Phys. Lett. A 120, 377 (1987)

    work page 1987

  5. [5]

    Penrose, On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction, Gen

    R. Penrose, On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction, Gen. Rel. Grav. 28, 581 (1996)

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    Penrose, Quantum computation, entanglement and state reduction, Philos

    R. Penrose, Quantum computation, entanglement and state reduction, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 356, 1927 (1998)

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    Weinberg, Precision tests of quantum mechanics, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Precision tests of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 485 (1989)

    work page 1989

  8. [8]

    Weinberg, Testing quantum mechanics, Ann

    S. Weinberg, Testing quantum mechanics, Ann. Phys. 194, 336 (1989)

    work page 1989

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Nonlinear quantum mechan- ics implies polynomial-time solution for np-complete and p problems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3992 (1998)

    1998

  2. [10]

    Gisin, Stochastic quantum dynamics and relativity, Helv

    N. Gisin, Stochastic quantum dynamics and relativity, Helv. Phys. Acta 62, 363 (1989)

    1989

  3. [11]

    Gisin, Weinberg’s non-linear quantum mechanics and supraluminal communications, Phys

    N. Gisin, Weinberg’s non-linear quantum mechanics and supraluminal communications, Phys. Lett. A 143, 1 (1990)

    1990

  4. [12]

    Polchinski, Weinberg’s nonlinear quantum mechan- ics and the einstein-podolsky-rosen paradox, Phys

    J. Polchinski, Weinberg’s nonlinear quantum mechan- ics and the einstein-podolsky-rosen paradox, Phys. Revi. Lett. 66, 397 (1991)

    1991

  5. [13]

    L¨ ucke, Nonlocality in nonlinear quantum mechanics, arXiv:quant-ph/9904016 (1999)

    W. L¨ ucke, Nonlocality in nonlinear quantum mechanics, arXiv:quant-ph/9904016 (1999)

    1999 arXiv

  6. [14]

    J. A. Gruca, A. Kumar, R. Ganardi, P. Arumugam, K. Kropielnicka, and T. Paterek, Correlations and sig- naling in the schr¨ odinger–newton model, Class. Quantum Gravity 41, 245014 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Caticha, Consistency and linearity in quantum theory, Physics Letters A 244, 13 (1998)

    A. Caticha, Consistency and linearity in quantum theory, Physics Letters A 244, 13 (1998)

    1998

  8. [16]

    Svetlichny, Nonlinear quantum mechanics at the Planck scale, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 44, 2051 (2005)

    G. Svetlichny, Nonlinear quantum mechanics at the Planck scale, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 44, 2051 (2005)

    2005

  9. [17]

    T. F. Jordan, Why quantum dynamics is linear, in J. Phys. Conf. Ser., Vol. 196 (2009) p. 012010

    2009

  10. [18]

    Bassi and K

    A. Bassi and K. Hejazi, No-faster-than-light-signaling im- plies linear evolution. A re-derivation, European Journal of Physics 36, 055027 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Gisin and M

    N. Gisin and M. Rigo, Relevant and irrelevant nonlinear schrodinger equations, J. Phys. A 28, 7375 (1995)

    1995

  12. [20]

    Ferrero, D

    M. Ferrero, D. Salgado, and J. S´ anchez-G´ omez, Nonlin- ear quantum evolution does not imply supraluminal com- munication, Phys. Rev. A 70, 014101 (2004)

    2004

  13. [21]

    Kent, Nonlinearity without superluminality, Phys

    A. Kent, Nonlinearity without superluminality, Phys. Rev. A 72, 012108 (2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    K. G. Zloshchastiev, Logarithmic nonlinearity in theo- ries of quantum gravity: Origin of time and observa- tional consequences, Gravitation and Cosmology 16, 288 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Rembieli´ nski and P

    J. Rembieli´ nski and P. Caban, Nonlinear evolution and signaling, Physical Review Research 2, 012027 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    D. E. Kaplan and S. Rajendran, Causal framework for nonlinear quantum mechanics, Physical Review D 105, 055002 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Geszti, Nonlinear, non-signaling Schr¨ odinger equa- tion, arXiv:2402.08757 (2024)

    T. Geszti, Nonlinear, non-signaling Schr¨ odinger equa- tion, arXiv:2402.08757 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    M. E. Bieli´ nska, M. Eckstein, and P. Horodecki, Superlu- minal signalling and chaos in nonlinear quantum dynam- ics, New J. Phys. 27, 053002 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    S. K. Sahoo, A. Dash, R. Vathsan, and T. Qureshi, Test- ing gravitational self-interaction via matter-wave inter- ferometry, Phys. Rev. A 106, 012215 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Di´ osi, Causality violation of Schr¨ odinger-Newton equation: direct test on the horizon?, arXiv:2503.07458 (2025)

    L. Di´ osi, Causality violation of Schr¨ odinger-Newton equation: direct test on the horizon?, arXiv:2503.07458 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Donadi, K

    S. Donadi, K. Piscicchia, C. Curceanu, L. Di´ osi, M. Laubenstein, and A. Bassi, Underground test of gravity-related wave function collapse, Nat. Phys. 17, 74 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Polkovnikov, A

    M. Polkovnikov, A. V. Gramolin, D. E. Kaplan, S. Ra- jendran, and A. O. Sushkov, Experimental limit on non- linear state-dependent terms in quantum theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 040202 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    J. Broz, B. You, S. Khan, H. H¨ affner, D. E. Kaplan, and S. Rajendran, Test of causal nonlinear quantum mechan- ics by ramsey interferometry with a trapped ion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 200201 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Kochen and E

    S. Kochen and E. P. Specker, The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics, J. Math. Mech. 17, 59 (1967)

    1967

  25. [33]

    R. W. Spekkens, Contextuality for preparations, trans- formations, and unsharp measurements, Phys. Rev. A 71, 052108 (2005)

    2005

  26. [34]

    Howard, J

    M. Howard, J. Wallman, V. Veitch, and J. Emerson, Con- textuality supplies the ‘magic’for quantum computation, Nature 510, 351 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Schmid and R

    D. Schmid and R. W. Spekkens, Contextual advantage for state discrimination, Phys. Rev. X 8, 011015 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    H ˚ akansson, A

    E. H ˚ akansson, A. Piveteau, A. Seguinard, S. Muhammad, M. Bourennane, O. G¨ uhne, and M. Pl´ avala, Experimen- tal implementation of dimension-dependent contextual- ity inequality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 200202 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Pl´ avala and O

    M. Pl´ avala and O. G¨ uhne, Contextuality as a precondi- tion for quantum entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 100201 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Tavakoli and R

    A. Tavakoli and R. Uola, Measurement incompatibility and steering are necessary and sufficient for operational contextuality, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013011 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Pl´ avala, Incompatibility in restricted operational the- ories: connecting contextuality and steering, J

    M. Pl´ avala, Incompatibility in restricted operational the- ories: connecting contextuality and steering, J. Phys. A 55, 174001 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    V. J. Wright and M. Farkas, Invertible map between bell nonlocal and contextuality scenarios, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 220202 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Frembs, An algebraic characterisation of Kochen- 6 Specker contextuality, arXiv:2408.16764 (2024)

    M. Frembs, An algebraic characterisation of Kochen- 6 Specker contextuality, arXiv:2408.16764 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Frembs, Coming full circle – A unified framework for Kochen-Specker contextuality, arXiv:2501.09750 (2025)

    M. Frembs, Coming full circle – A unified framework for Kochen-Specker contextuality, arXiv:2501.09750 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Deutsch, Quantum mechanics near closed timelike lines, Phys

    D. Deutsch, Quantum mechanics near closed timelike lines, Phys. Rev. D 44, 3197 (1991)

    1991

  36. [44]

    R. W. Spekkens, D. H. Buzacott, A. J. Keehn, B. Toner, and G. J. Pryde, Preparation contextuality powers parity-oblivious multiplexing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 010401 (2009)

    2009

  37. [45]

    Kunjwal and R

    R. Kunjwal and R. W. Spekkens, From statistical proofs of the kochen-specker theorem to noise-robust noncon- textuality inequalities, Phys. Rev. A 97, 052110 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    M. D. Mazurek, M. F. Pusey, R. Kunjwal, K. J. Resch, and R. W. Spekkens, An experimental test of noncontex- tuality without unphysical idealizations, Nat. Commun. 7, 11780 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    M. F. Pusey, Robust preparation noncontextuality in- equalities in the simplest scenario, Phys. Rev. A 98, 022112 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Großardt, Dephasing and inhibition of spin interfer- ence from semi-classical self-gravitation, Class

    A. Großardt, Dephasing and inhibition of spin interfer- ence from semi-classical self-gravitation, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 245009 (2021), [Erratum: Class.Quant.Grav. 41, 209501 (2024)]

    2021

  41. [49]

    Bell, On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics, Rev

    J. Bell, On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447 (1966)

    1966

  42. [50]

    Budroni, A

    C. Budroni, A. Cabello, O. G¨ uhne, M. Kleinmann, and J.-˚A. Larsson, Kochen-Specker contextuality, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 045007 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Beltrametti and S

    E. Beltrametti and S. Bugajski, A classical extension of quantum mechanics, J. Phys. A 28, 3329 (1995)

    1995

  44. [52]

    Marvian, Inaccessible information in probabilis- tic models of quantum systems, non-contextuality inequalities and noise thresholds for contextuality, arXiv:arXiv:2003.05984 (2020)

    I. Marvian, Inaccessible information in probabilis- tic models of quantum systems, non-contextuality inequalities and noise thresholds for contextuality, arXiv:arXiv:2003.05984 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    V. P. Rossi, D. Schmid, J. H. Selby, and A. B. Sainz, Contextuality with vanishing coherence and maximal ro- bustness to dephasing, Phys. Rev. A 108, 032213 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    T. A. Brun, M. M. Wilde, and A. Winter, Quantum state cloning using deutschian closed timelike curves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 190401 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    J. H. Selby, E. Wolfe, D. Schmid, A. B. Sainz, and V. P. Rossi, Linear program for testing nonclassicality and an open-source implementation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 050202 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Haag and U

    R. Haag and U. Bannier, Comments on mielnik’s gen- eralized (non linear) quantum mechanics, Comm. Math. Phys. 60, 1 (1978)

    1978

  49. [57]

    Bugajski, Nonlinear quantum mechanics is a classical theory, Int

    S. Bugajski, Nonlinear quantum mechanics is a classical theory, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 30, 961 (1991)

    1991

  50. [58]

    S. K. Sahoo, R. Vathsan, and T. Qureshi, Emergence of classicality in stern–gerlach experiment via self-gravity, Ann. Phys. 535, 2200627 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Di´ osi, A healthier stochastic semiclassical gravity: world without Schr¨ odinger cats, Gen

    L. Di´ osi, A healthier stochastic semiclassical gravity: world without Schr¨ odinger cats, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.57, 62 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    M. Aspelmeyer, When zeh meets feynman: how to avoid the appearance of a classical world in gravity experi- ments, in From Quantum to Classical: Essays in Honour of H.-Dieter Zeh(Springer, 2022) pp. 85–95

    2022

  53. [61]

    Coffman, J

    V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, Distributed entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 61, 052306 (2000). Proof of Theorem 2 Theorem 2. Let H be a Hilbert space, let D(H) be the space of states inH, let I be a set of indices, and let {ρi}i∈I ⊆ D(H) be a set of pure states. The set{ρ...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.