Can There be Given Any Meaning to Contextuality Without Incompatibility?

Abstract

AbstractOur aim is to compare the fundamental notions of quantum physics - contextuality vs. incompatibility. One has to distinguish two different notions of contextuality, Bohr-contextuality and Bell-contextuality. The latter is defined operationally via violation of noncontextuality (Bell type) inequalities. This sort of contextuality will be compared with incompatibility. It is easy to show that, for quantum observables, there is no contextuality without incompatibility. The natural question arises: What is contextuality without incompatibility? (What is “dry-residue”?) Generally this is the very complex question. We concentrated on contextuality for four quantum observables. We shown that, for “natural quantum observables” , contextuality is reduced to incompatibility. But, generally contextuality without incompatibility may have some physical content. We found a mathematical constraint extracting the contextuality component from incompatibility. However, the physical meaning of this constraint is not clear. In Appendix 1, we briefly discuss another sort of contextuality based on Bohr’s contextuality-incompatibility principle. Bohr-contextuality plays the crucial role in quantum foundations. Incompatibility is, in fact, a consequence of Bohr-contextuality. Finally, we remark that outside of physics, e.g., in cognitive psychology and decision making Bell-contextuality distilled of incompatibility can play the important role.