Can someone explain to me what is wrong with the following argument? There are two parts. First of all, K-S, despite passing reference to hidden variables, doesn't really seem to depend on any interesting properties of HV, but instead appears to be an indictment of QM itself by asserting that QM cannot consistently predict the results of measurements. I'm not going to elaborate on this part, because the more important part is this: the proofs of K-S all depend on some form of the following assertion. That the eigenvectors of projection operators must always be associated with the same value (zero or one) independent of the operator (i.e. observable) that they are associated with. This results in the so-called coloring rule that a given eigenvector must always have the same color. But I'm pretty sure this is simply not true. The value of an observable is not arbitrary or connected only with an eigenvector. The value is determined by the eigenvalue associated with the eigenvector for a given operator. Different operators in general may share one or more eigenvectors, but the eigenvalues are unrelated. As an example, consider the operator Q, in 3D. This will have three eigenvectors, q(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); _{1}, q_{2}, and q_{3}, and three corresponding projection operators, P_{1}, P_{2}, and P_{3}. All three of these have (or can have, by construction, since they are all degenerate) the same three eigenvectors, q_{1}, q_{2}, and q_{3}. But the eigenvalues that go with these are not all the same. In particular, the eigenvalues for P_{1}are 1, for q_{1}, 0, for q_{2}, and 0 for q_{3}. Similarly for P_{2}, they are 0, 1, and 0, and for P_{3}, 0, 0, and 1. So all three of the q_{i}have both zero and one as value depending on which projection operator you use. This seems to disprove all of the K-S proofs that I have seen.

I assume someone can explain to me what I am missing here. Thanks.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Kochen-Specker Proofs Look Wrong to Me

Loading...

Similar Threads - Kochen Specker Proofs | Date |
---|---|

Kochen-Specker Theorem Assumptions | May 7, 2015 |

Simultaneously testing the Kochen-Specker and Bell theorems | Aug 29, 2013 |

Ax-Kochen paper | Mar 4, 2012 |

Kochen-Specker As Simple Corollary Of Gleasons Theroem | Jan 26, 2012 |

Kochen-Specker for two particles | Nov 8, 2009 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**