Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I still don't really understand what contextuality means in reference to quantum mechanics. If someone could give a clear definition that would be great. It sounds like it means you can't always relate the state of a system to its wavefunction or something? That confuses me since it seems to violate quantum mechanics. So a clear explanation would be great.

The question is then, does any interpretation of quantum mechanics require us to accept contextuality? This paper seems to claim yes, but I don't know enough to evaluate it, so would appreciate a professional's eye:

(This is a follow up on a previous question: What combinations of realism, non-locality, and contextuality are ruled out in quantum theory? )

share|cite|improve this question
John, It's not my Answer, but this morning on arXiv I see the fairly interesting and quite closely topical Somehow this question doesn't juice me much, where your question… did a little. – Peter Morgan Mar 22 '11 at 13:18

To understand contextuality in QM see this helpful example

share|cite|improve this answer
+1 cool stuff! That's really 10 minutes! :-) – iii Mar 27 '11 at 8:56
Can you please add the yes or no answer to this? A simple link isn't a very good answer. – B T Jan 24 '15 at 21:05

I think this should clear it up that quantum mechanics in it's all models or interpretations is indeed contextual.

share|cite|improve this answer
+1, Hard to write something better here than the paper you cite. It seems a better starting point for discussion than, which at a glance seems slightly idiosyncratic. The definition of operational equivalence in section II seems problematic, however, because of its reliance on the phrase "every possible measurement procedure", insofar as advances in Physics precisely depend on previously unconceived measurement procedures. Particularly if we devote all our effort to discriminating one preparation apparatus from another. Absolutely identical? – Peter Morgan Mar 22 '11 at 13:51
Peter, I think Spekkens mentions this worry in the conclusions, although he leaves it for future work: "The question of whether an experimental test of contextuality is even possible has been the subject of some controversy, due to the finite precision of real experimental procedures. The that finite precision might imply that in practice no two experimental procedures are found to be operationally equivalent.... A possible resolution of this finite precision loophole is to further generalize the definition..." – Jess Riedel Apr 2 '14 at 17:54

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.