Theoretical work demonstrates the Tsirelson bound in quantum systems, suggesting implications for quantum nonlocality.
The violation of Bell inequalities by quantum systems is among the most precisely tested predictions in physics, yet the origin of the Tsirelson bound CHSH ≤ 2√2 is rarely stated in fully algebraic terms. We show that this bound is an instance of the stabiliser-range theorem first established for check-digit codes over finite alphabets. The three-element framework (G, F, E) of that work translates to the quantum bipartite setting as follows: the state group G is the unitary group U(HA ⊗ HB), the fold F is the singlet state |ψ−⟩, and the perturbation family E is the set of local unitary transformations. The product stabiliser Stab× (the classical, local-hidden-variable description) is a strict subset of the tensor stabiliser Stab⊗ (the quantum description); the difference is exactly the diagonal SU(2) subgroup {U ⊗ U : U ∈ SU(2)}. We prove a Lie-algebra stretch factor theorem: every generator X ∈ su(2) satisfies ‖dφdiag(X)‖HS = √2 · ‖dφprod(X)‖HS, where φdiag and φprod are the diagonal and product embeddings of SU(2) into U(4). This stretch factor is the algebraic source of the √2 in the Tsirelson bound. We further establish a Stab-Tsirelson equivalence chain: the diagonal stabiliser condition (U ⊗ U)|ψ−⟩ = |ψ−⟩ implies, through a single algebraic sequence, that the CHSH operator has eigenvalue −2√2 on |ψ−⟩. For N-particle systems we prove inductively that the MABK (Mermin-Ardehali-Belinskii-Klyshko) ratio satisfies M(N) = 2(N−1)/2, confirmed numerically for N = 1, …, 5. No-signaling emerges as a corollary: the diagonal stabiliser is inaccessible from either subsystem alone. The framework places the Tsirelson bound, the multiparticle scaling, and the no-signaling principle within a single algebraic structure, providing a unified account of quantum nonlocality that is traceable to the check-digit symmetry-matching condition Stab(G, F) ∩ E = {e}. Complete proofs are provided in the supplementary document.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Csaba Balogh (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: