Phase-adjusted realification of a $\mathbb{C}^3$ Kochen-Specker configuration into $\mathbb{R}^6$

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2511.17223
• Title: Phase-adjusted realification of a $\mathbb{C}^3$ Kochen-Specker configuration into $\mathbb{R}^6$
• Authors: Andrei Khrennikov (Linnaeus University), Karl Svozil (TU Wien)
• Classification: quant-ph (Quantum Physics)
• Submission Date: November 21, 2024
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.17223

Abstract

This paper describes a phase-adjusted realification procedure that can embed any finite set of rays in $\mathbb{C}^3$ into $\mathbb{R}^6$. By assigning appropriate phases to each ray before applying the standard coordinate mapping, one ensures that two rays are orthogonal in $\mathbb{C}^3$ if and only if their images are orthogonal in $\mathbb{R}^6$, thereby constructing a faithful orthogonal representation of the original complex configuration. As a concrete example, the authors consider 165 rays from a $\mathbb{C}^3$ Kochen-Specker configuration derived from mutually unbiased bases (MUBs), explicitly listing their representations in $\mathbb{C}^3$ and their images in $\mathbb{R}^6$. The paper further notes that, since the original three-element contexts are no longer maximal in $\mathbb{R}^6$, the embedded configuration admits bivalued states, despite being Kochen-Specker non-colorable as a maximal context realization in $\mathbb{C}^3$.

Research Background and Motivation

Core Problem

A fundamental question in quantum theory is whether the use of complex numbers is merely a matter of mathematical convenience or an essential feature of the physical formalism. Although any finite-dimensional complex Hilbert space $\mathbb{C}^n$ can be represented as a real Hilbert space $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ through the standard "realification" mapping, increasing evidence suggests that the structure of complex Hilbert spaces permits logical and physical phenomena that cannot be reproduced by purely real descriptions.

Research Significance

1. Theoretical Foundation: Distinguishing between real and complex quantum theories is crucial for understanding the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics.
2. Experimental Verifiability: This question has evolved from a purely theoretical level to one that can be experimentally verified.
3. Logical Structure: The Kochen-Specker theorem provides a deterministic, non-probabilistic framework for studying this issue.

Limitations of Existing Methods

1. Early realification methods may introduce "spurious orthogonality"—rays that are non-orthogonal in $\mathbb{C}^3$ become orthogonal in $\mathbb{R}^6$.
2. Existing methods for distinguishing real and complex quantum theories are primarily based on correlations and measurement statistics, lacking analysis at the purely logical level.
3. Certain orthogonal configurations feasible in $\mathbb{C}^3$ cannot be realized in $\mathbb{R}^3$.

Research Motivation

The core motivation of this paper is to provide a completely deterministic argument, through the logical framework of the Kochen-Specker theorem, to distinguish three-dimensional real and complex quantum theories. Specifically:

• Prove that certain logical structures existing in $\mathbb{C}^3$ are impossible to realize in $\mathbb{R}^3$
• Demonstrate that the same orthogonal hypergraph has different colorability properties in different spaces

Core Contributions

1. Phase-Adjusted Realification Method: Proposes a systematic phase-adjustment procedure that can faithfully embed any finite set of rays from $\mathbb{C}^3$ into $\mathbb{R}^6$, preserving complete correspondence of orthogonal relations.
2. Explicit Construction: Explicitly lists the 165-ray Kochen-Specker configuration based on mutually unbiased bases, including the representation of each ray in $\mathbb{C}^3$ and its image in $\mathbb{R}^6$.
3. Proof of Logical Inequivalence: Through concrete configurations, proves the logical inequivalence of three-dimensional complex and real quantum theories:
   • The configuration is KS non-colorable as a maximal context in $\mathbb{C}^3$
   • The same configuration admits classical bivalued states in $\mathbb{R}^6$
4. Theoretical Insight: Clarifies how dimension elevation changes the maximality of contexts, thereby resolving the Kochen-Specker contradiction.

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Input: A finite set of rays $\{[\psi_k]\}_{k=1}^N$ in $\mathbb{C}^3$, where each ray is represented by a normalized representative $\psi_k \in \mathbb{C}^3$

Output: A set of vectors $\{R_k\}_{k=1}^N$ in $\mathbb{R}^6$

Constraint: Faithfulness of orthogonality preservation, i.e., $c_{k\ell} = \langle\psi_k, \psi_\ell\rangle_{\mathbb{C}} = 0 \Leftrightarrow R_k \cdot R_\ell = 0$

Phase-Adjusted Realification Method

1. Standard Realification Mapping

Define the standard coordinate mapping $\Phi_0 : \mathbb{C}^3 \to \mathbb{R}^6$: $\Phi_0(z_1, z_2, z_3) = (\Re z_1, \Re z_2, \Re z_3, \Im z_1, \Im z_2, \Im z_3)$

2. Phase Adjustment

For each ray $[\psi_k]$, multiply by a unit complex phase $e^{i\theta_k}$ (which does not change the ray), and define the phase-adjusted realification: $R_k := \Phi_0(e^{i\theta_k}\psi_k) \in \mathbb{R}^6$

3. Orthogonality Analysis

The inner product of real vectors satisfies: $R_k \cdot R_\ell = \Re(e^{i(\theta_\ell - \theta_k)}c_{k\ell})$

where $c_{k\ell} = |\langle\psi_k, \psi_\ell\rangle|e^{i\phi_{k\ell}}$

Key observations:

• If $c_{k\ell} = 0$ (complex orthogonality), then $R_k \cdot R_\ell = 0$ for all phases
• If $c_{k\ell} \neq 0$, then $R_k \cdot R_\ell = |c_{k\ell}|\cos((\theta_\ell - \theta_k) + \phi_{k\ell})$

4. Forbidden Phase Differences

For non-orthogonal pairs $(k, \ell)$ (where $c_{k\ell} \neq 0$), to avoid spurious orthogonality, we require: $(\theta_\ell - \theta_k) + \phi_{k\ell} \not\equiv \frac{\pi}{2} \pmod{\pi}$

For fixed $\theta_k$ and $c_{k\ell}$, this excludes at most two values of $\theta_\ell$ (modulo $2\pi$): $\theta_\ell \equiv -\phi_{k\ell} + \frac{\pi}{2} \quad \text{or} \quad \theta_\ell \equiv -\phi_{k\ell} + \frac{3\pi}{2} \pmod{2\pi}$

Inductive Construction Algorithm

Algorithm Flow:

1. Set $\theta_1 := 0$ (arbitrary initial value)
2. Assume $\theta_1, \ldots, \theta_{m-1}$ have been chosen such that all non-orthogonal pairs $(k, \ell)$ (with $1 \leq k < \ell < m$) satisfy $R_k \cdot R_\ell \neq 0$
3. For the new ray $m$, define the forbidden set: $F_m := \bigcup_{\substack{1 \leq k < m \\ c_{km} \neq 0}} F_{k,m}$ where $F_{k,m}$ contains two forbidden phase values
4. Choose $\theta_m \in S^1 \setminus F_m$ (always possible, since $F_m$ is a finite subset)

Existence Guarantee: Since $F_m$ is a finite subset of the unit circle, and the unit circle is connected, there always exists $\theta_m$ such that the construction succeeds.

Implementation Details

For the 165-ray configuration, the paper proves that there exists a phase choice of the form $\theta_k = \frac{n_k\pi}{K}$ (with $n_k \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $K = 1009$ being a certain large prime) such that:

• Condition (i): $\langle v_i, v_j \rangle = 0$ in $\mathbb{C}^3$ $\Rightarrow$ $w_i \cdot w_j = 0$ in $\mathbb{R}^6$
• Condition (ii): $\langle v_i, v_j \rangle \neq 0$ in $\mathbb{C}^3$ $\Rightarrow$ $w_i \cdot w_j \neq 0$ in $\mathbb{R}^6$

This rational phase assignment demonstrates that the entire configuration admits an analytic (real algebraic) realification without altering its orthogonal structure.

Technical Innovations

1. Systematic Utilization of Phase Freedom

Innovation: First systematic exploitation of the phase freedom of rays to eliminate spurious orthogonality

Rationale:

• A ray $[\psi]$ remains unchanged when multiplied by any unit complex phase $e^{i\theta}$
• This freedom is ignored in standard realification, leading to possible spurious orthogonality
• By carefully choosing phases, one can "rotate" each pair of real components, avoiding accidental zero inner products

2. Completeness of Inductive Construction

Innovation: Proves that for any finite set of rays, there always exists a phase choice making the realification faithful

Key Technique:

• Finiteness of forbidden sets: each new ray only needs to avoid finitely many phase values
• Topological argument: the connectedness of the unit circle guarantees the existence of selectable phases
• Inductive structure: stepwise construction ensures global consistency

3. Relationship Between Dimension and Colorability

Deep Insight:

• In $\mathbb{C}^3$, three-element orthogonal bases form maximal contexts (exactly requiring 3 vectors to span the space)
• In $\mathbb{R}^6$, the same three vectors only span a 3-dimensional subspace, no longer maximal
• This non-maximality allows construction of bivalued states by placing value "1" in the orthogonal complement space

Mathematical Expression:

• $\mathbb{C}^3$: $\sum_{i=1}^3 P_i = I_{\mathbb{C}^3}$ $\Rightarrow$ $\sum_{i=1}^3 v(P_i) = 1$ (strict)
• $\mathbb{R}^6$: $\sum_{i=1}^3 \Pi_i = \Pi_{\text{sub}} \neq I_{\mathbb{R}^6}$ $\Rightarrow$ $0 \leq \sum_{i=1}^3 v(\Pi_i) \leq 1$ (relaxed)

Experimental Setup

Configuration Description

Kochen-Specker Configuration:

• Number of Rays: 165 projectively distinct rays
• Number of Contexts: 130 three-element contexts
• Construction Basis: 4 mutually unbiased bases (MUBs) in $\mathbb{C}^3$
• Source: Yu-Oh-Cabello triple extension configuration

Mutually Unbiased Bases (MUBs) Characteristics

Two orthonormal bases are mutually unbiased if and only if each vector in one basis has equal "overlap" with each vector in the other basis:

• In $\mathbb{C}^3$, one can construct $D+1=4$ complete MUBs
• In $\mathbb{R}^3$, it is impossible to find two mutually unbiased orthonormal bases
• This structural difference is the source of inequivalence between complex and real theories

Coordinate System

Using third roots of unity: $\omega := e^{2\pi i/3} = -\frac{1}{2} + i\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}, \quad \omega^2 = \bar{\omega} = -\frac{1}{2} - i\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}$

satisfying $1 + \omega + \omega^2 = 0$

Realification Rule: $\Re z = a - \frac{b+c}{2}, \quad \Im z = \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}(b-c)$ where $z = a + b\omega + c\omega^2$ (with $a, b, c \in \mathbb{R}$)

Explicit Listing

The paper provides a complete list of all 165 rays in Table I, including:

• Labels (such as $a_{11}, u_1, b_{11}$, etc.)
• Vector representations in $\mathbb{C}^3$
• Standard realification in $\mathbb{R}^6$ (with $\theta_k = 0$)

Examples:

• $u_1 = (1,1,1) \mapsto (1,1,1,0,0,0)$
• $u_2 = (1,\omega,\omega^2) \mapsto (1,-\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{2},0,\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2},-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2})$

Experimental Results

Main Findings

1. Existence of Faithful Embedding

Result: Through numerical backtracking script verification, for the 165-ray configuration, there exists a phase assignment $\theta_k = \frac{n_k\pi}{1009}$ (with $n_k \in \mathbb{Z}$) such that:

• All original orthogonal relations are preserved in $\mathbb{R}^6$
• No spurious orthogonality is introduced

Significance: Demonstrates the practical feasibility of the theoretical construction

2. Colorability Contrast

In $\mathbb{C}^3$:

• 165 rays, 130 contexts
• KS non-colorable: no bivalued state $v: \{P_k\} \to \{0,1\}$ exists satisfying exactly one projector taking value 1 in each context
• Logical contradiction: any attempt leads to certain contexts violating the completeness condition

In $\mathbb{R}^6$:

• Same 165 rays (faithful embedding)
• Each three-element context spans only a 3-dimensional subspace
• Bivalued states exist: assign value 0 to all 165 rays, and select one vector in the orthogonal complement of each context to assign value 1
• Global consistency: due to the continuum of orthogonal complement spaces, all contexts can be consistently completed

3. Global Valuation Bounds

For 130 contexts, define the global sum: $S = \sum_{j=1}^{130} \sum_{i=1}^3 v(\Pi_{i,j})$

Theoretical Bounds:

• Lower bound: $S \geq 0$ ("all-zero" assignment)
• Upper bound: $S < 130$ (strictly less than, since non-colorable in $\mathbb{C}^3$)
• Exact bound: $S \leq 128$

Interpretation: At least two contexts must place value "1" in the additional dimensions of $\mathbb{R}^6$ to resolve the logical contradiction.

Numerical Verification

• Backtracking algorithm used to search for phase assignments
• Verified that $K=1009$ (prime) is sufficient to satisfy faithfulness conditions
• Confirmed orthogonality preservation or non-orthogonality preservation for all $\binom{165}{2}$ ray pairs

Related Work

1. Distinguishing Real and Complex Quantum Theories

McKague, Mosca, Gisin (2009): First to propose the question of whether real Hilbert spaces can simulate complex quantum systems

Renou et al. (2021): Proposed that quantum theory based on real numbers can be experimentally falsified using correlation inequalities

Wu et al. (2022): Experimentally refuted real-valued quantum mechanics under strict locality conditions

This Paper's Contribution: Provides a deterministic, non-probabilistic, logical-level distinction

2. Kochen-Specker Theorem

Yu-Oh (2012): Proposed a 13-ray KS proof

Cabello (2025): Extended the Yu-Oh configuration to a triple configuration, yielding the 165-ray "simplest" KS set

This Paper's Contribution: Explicitly demonstrates the realization of this configuration in different dimensional spaces and its colorability differences

3. Mutually Unbiased Bases Theory

Schwinger (1960): First introduced the concept of mutually unbiased bases

Wootters & Fields (1989): Achieved optimal state determination through MUBs

Klappenecker & Rötteler (2004): Construction methods for MUBs

This Paper's Application: Utilizes the existence of 4 MUBs in $\mathbb{C}^3$ and their non-existence in $\mathbb{R}^3$ as the key distinction

4. Orthogonal Representation Theory

Harding & Salinas Schmeis (2025): Noted that certain configurations representable in $\mathbb{C}^3$ cannot be faithfully orthogonally represented in $\mathbb{R}^3$

Navara & Svozil (2025): Detailed analysis of KS set construction from MUBs

Lovász (1979): Defined the concept of faithful orthogonal representation

This Paper's Contribution: Provides an explicit faithful embedding method from $\mathbb{C}^3$ to $\mathbb{R}^6$

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Methodological Contribution: Phase-adjusted realification provides a systematic, constructible method for faithfully embedding any finite set of rays from $\mathbb{C}^3$ into $\mathbb{R}^6$
2. Logical Inequivalence: The same orthogonal hypergraph has fundamentally different logical properties in different spaces:
   • As a maximal context in $\mathbb{C}^3$: KS non-colorable (non-classical)
   • As a non-maximal context in $\mathbb{R}^6$: admits classical bivalued states
3. Critical Role of Dimension:
   • $\mathbb{R}^3$: Cannot realize faithful orthogonal representation of this configuration
   • $\mathbb{R}^6$: Can realize faithful orthogonal representation, but loses non-classicality
   • Dimension elevation changes context maximality, thereby changing logical properties
4. Theoretical Significance: Provides a deterministic, non-probabilistic proof distinguishing three-dimensional complex and real quantum theories, complementing correlation-based separation methods

Limitations

1. Dimension Requirements: The method requires elevating dimensions from 3 to 6, unable to achieve faithful embedding while preserving dimensionality
2. Context Interpretation: In $\mathbb{R}^6$, the physical meaning of original three-element contexts changes (no longer maximal), potentially affecting physical interpretation
3. Non-Uniqueness of Phase Selection:
   • Multiple phase assignments satisfy faithfulness conditions
   • The paper chooses $K=1009$, but other values may also work
   • No standard for "optimal" phase selection is provided
4. Experimental Implementation: While theoretically feasible, implementing the 165-ray configuration in actual quantum systems remains challenging
5. Generalizability:
   • Methods focus on the $\mathbb{C}^3 \to \mathbb{R}^6$ case
   • For general $\mathbb{C}^n \to \mathbb{R}^{2n}$, some conclusions may require modification
   • Existence of MUBs in higher dimensions remains an open problem

Future Directions

1. Optimizing Phase Selection:
   • Study optimization criteria for phase assignments
   • Explore minimum possible $K$ value (possibly smaller than 1009)
   • Analyze algebraic structure of phase choices
2. Generalization to Higher Dimensions:
   • Study general case of $\mathbb{C}^n$ to $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$
   • Explore dimension-dependent KS configurations
3. Experimental Verification:
   • Implement qutrit systems using multi-port interferometers
   • Verify non-classicality of MUBs configurations
4. Computational Complexity:
   • Study algorithmic complexity of finding faithful phase assignments
   • Develop more efficient construction algorithms
5. Physical Applications:
   • Explore applications in quantum information processing
   • Study connections with quantum contextuality tests

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Rigor

• Complete Mathematical Proof: The existence proof for inductive construction is rigorous and elegant
• Clear Concepts: The idea of phase adjustment is simple yet effective
• Logical Coherence: The reasoning chain from problem statement to solution is complete

2. Concreteness and Verifiability

• Explicit Construction: Table I lists all 165 rays, fully reproducible
• Numerical Verification: Theory predictions verified through computer programs
• Algebraic Realizability: Rational phase assignments guarantee the possibility of real algebraic realization

3. Deep Physical Insights

• Dimension-Logic Relationship: Reveals how dimension elevation changes logical properties
• Context Maximality Importance: Clarifies why the same configuration has different colorability in different spaces
• MUBs' Key Role: Connects abstract MUBs theory with concrete KS configurations

4. Method Universality

• Applicable to any finite set of rays in $\mathbb{C}^3$
• Simple construction algorithm, easy to implement
• Generalizable to other complex space realification problems

5. Interdisciplinary Contribution

• Quantum Foundations: New perspective on distinguishing real and complex quantum theories
• Quantum Information: Application of MUBs in quantum information
• Mathematics: New results in orthogonal representation theory

Weaknesses

1. Experimental Level

• Insufficient Implementation Discussion: While mentioning multi-port interferometer implementation, lacks detailed experimental schemes
• Noise Robustness: No discussion of noise effects on the configuration in actual quantum systems
• Measurement Schemes: Lacks detailed plans for actually measuring and verifying the 165-ray configuration

2. Theoretical Analysis

• Optimality Questions:
  • Is $K=1009$ the minimum possible value?
  • Do more elegant phase assignment schemes exist?
  • No optimization standards for phase selection provided
• Generalization Limitations:
  • Main results concentrate on the specific $\mathbb{C}^3$ case
  • Limited discussion of generalization to $\mathbb{C}^n$
  • Existence of MUBs in higher dimensions remains open

3. Computational Aspects

• Algorithm Efficiency: Computational efficiency of inductive construction for large-scale configurations not discussed
• Phase Search: Complexity analysis of backtracking algorithm missing
• Numerical Precision: Numerical error handling in actual computation not detailed

4. Physical Interpretation

• Physical Meaning of Non-Maximal Contexts: What does it mean physically that original contexts are no longer maximal in $\mathbb{R}^6$?
• Physical Interpretation of Extra Dimensions: How to physically understand the additional three dimensions in $\mathbb{R}^6$?
• Observability: How to experimentally distinguish $\mathbb{C}^3$ and $\mathbb{R}^6$ implementations?

5. Literature Review

• While citing major related works, discussion of recent developments in experimental quantum foundations is insufficient
• Comparison with other methods for distinguishing real and complex quantum theories (such as correlation inequalities) could be deeper

Impact

1. Contribution to Quantum Foundations

• Theoretical Level: Provides new dimension (logical structure vs. statistical correlations) for distinguishing real and complex quantum theories
• Methodology: Phase-adjusted realification may become a standard tool for studying complex-to-real space mappings
• Conceptual Clarification: Clarifies relationships between dimension, context maximality, and non-classicality

2. Practical Value

• Quantum Information: MUBs configurations have applications in quantum state tomography and quantum cryptography
• Quantum Computing: Understanding contextuality is important for understanding quantum advantage
• Experimental Design: Provides new ideas for experiments verifying the necessity of complex numbers

3. Reproducibility

• High Reproducibility:
  • All 165 rays explicitly listed
  • Construction algorithm clear
  • Numerical verification method sufficiently described
• Openness:
  • Specific phase assignment values not completely given (only $K=1009$ provided)
  • Numerical verification code not publicly released (though described as "simple backtracking script")

4. Academic Impact

• Citation Potential: Expected to be widely cited in quantum foundations, quantum information, and mathematical physics
• Follow-up Research: Likely to inspire research in:
  • Similar constructions in other dimensions
  • Experimental implementation
  • Connections with other non-classicality proofs
  • Computational complexity analysis

Applicable Scenarios

1. Theoretical Research

• Quantum Foundations: Study mathematical structure of quantum theory
• Non-Classicality Proofs: Construct new KS configurations
• Hilbert Space Theory: Study relationships between complex and real spaces

2. Quantum Information

• Quantum State Tomography: Use MUBs for complete state reconstruction
• Quantum Cryptography: MUBs-based quantum key distribution
• Quantum Computing: Understand sources of quantum advantage

3. Experimental Physics

• Three-Dimensional Quantum Systems: Qutrit system experimental implementation
• Multi-Port Interferometers: Implement arbitrary unitary operations
• Contextuality Tests: Verify non-classical properties of quantum mechanics

4. Mathematical Applications

• Combinatorics: Combinatorial properties of orthogonal configurations
• Algebraic Geometry: Algebraic structure of ray configurations
• Topology: Topological properties of phase spaces

5. Educational Applications

• Advanced topics in quantum mechanics courses
• Demonstrate essential role of complex numbers in quantum theory
• Illustrate relationship between dimension and logical structure

Key References

2 McKague, Mosca, Gisin (2009): "Simulating quantum systems using real Hilbert spaces" - First systematic study of real Hilbert space simulation

3 Renou et al. (2021): "Quantum theory based on real numbers can be experimentally falsified" - Nature paper proposing experimental falsification scheme

5 Cabello (2025): "The simplest Kochen-Specker set" - Proposes 165-ray KS configuration

6 Yu & Oh (2012): "State-independent proof of Kochen-Specker theorem with 13 rays" - Original Yu-Oh configuration

7 Harding & Salinas Schmeis (2025): "Remarks on orthogonality spaces" - Notes inequivalence of $\mathbb{C}^3$ and $\mathbb{R}^3$

8 Navara & Svozil (2025): "Construction of Kochen-Specker sets from mutually unbiased bases" - Detailed analysis of MUBs-KS configurations

13 Durt et al. (2010): "On mutually unbiased bases" - Comprehensive review of MUBs theory

Overall Assessment: This is an excellent paper with rigorous theory, explicit construction, and deep insights. Through the simple yet elegant method of phase-adjusted realification, it provides a new perspective on a core question in quantum foundations. The paper's main value lies in revealing how dimension elevation changes logical structure and how the same configuration can possess fundamentally different non-classical properties in different spaces. While there is room for improvement in experimental feasibility and certain theoretical details, as a fundamental theoretical work, its contributions are significant and enduring.