Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Super-quantum correlations — correlations that violate Bell-type inequalities beyond the Tsirelson bound — are physically conceivable.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
The Popescu-Rohrlich box is a mathematical construction satisfying no-signaling constraints, not a physically realizable system in any quantum or classical framework.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Physical conceivability requires more than logical or mathematical consistency — it requires embeddability within a coherent physical ontology.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
No proposed physical theory has successfully embedded PR-box correlations into a dynamics that preserves relativistic causality and thermodynamic consistency.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Uffink and others have argued that the Tsirelson bound is not merely contingent but reflects deep structural features of Hilbert-space quantum mechanics tied to local commutativity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the bound is structurally necessary rather than contingent, violations are not physically conceivable but represent category errors about what quantum mechanics permits.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
The Tsirelson bound does not exhaust the full range by which Bell-type correlations can in principle be violated.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Popescu and Rohrlich (1994) identified correlations for particular quantum measurements that exceed the Tsirelson bound.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.