Asher Peres
In the standard physical interpretation of quantum theory, prediction and retrodiction are not symmetric. The opposite assertion by some authors results from their use of non-standard interpretations of the theory.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
继续探索
I reply to Ravon and Vaidman's criticism (quant-ph/0606067) of my classical implementation (quant-ph/0207124) of a three-box system as a card game.
Vaidman's analysis of the photon's past is based on incorrect interpretation of quantum probability amplitudes. The confusion stems from his original work [{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{60}, 1351 (1988)], which missed the connection between the amplitudes and the "weak values" introduced therein.
Reply to Comment on "Multitime Quantum Communication: Interesting But Not Counterfactual" by L. Vaidman
本文是对Vaidman发表在arXiv:2306.16756上、针对Griffiths 2023年《物理评论A》相关论文的评论的回复文章。
The correctness of the consistent histories analysis of weakly interacting probes, related to the path of a particle, is maintained against the criticisms in the Comment, and against the alternative approach described there, which receives no support from standard (textbook) quantum mechanics.
We illustrate two simple spin examples which show that in the consistent histories approach to quantum mechanics one can retrodict with certainty incompatible or contradictory propositions corresponding to non-orthogonal or, respectively, orthogonal projections. V.2 vs. V1: The example previously quoted as "d'Espagnat's example" is now properly quoted as "Griffiths' example". A reference to a previous work by Aharonov and Vaidman is added.
We stand by our findings in Phys. Rev A. 96, 022126 (2017). In addition to refuting the invalid objections raised by Peleg and Vaidman, we report a retrocausation problem inherent in Vaidman's definition of the past of a quantum particle.
The inference of a hidden variable's historical value, based on observations before and after the fact, is a controversial subject in quantum mechanics. Here I address the controversy by proposing a formalism that unifies and generalizes some of the previous proposals for the task, including the quantum minimum-mean-square-error estimators proposed by Ohki, the generalized conditional expectation proposed by Accardi and Cecchini, the quantum smoothing theory proposed by Tsang, the optimal observables for parameter estimation proposed by Personick, Belavkin, and Grishanin, and the weak values p…
In reply to Vaidman's Comment [arXiv:1304.6689], we show that his claim that our Protocol for Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication [PRL 110, 170502 (2013), arXiv:1206.2042] is counterfactual only for one type of information bit is wrong.
Griffiths [Phys. Rev. A 94, 032115 (2016)] analyzed, in the framework of consistent histories interpretation, the controversy regarding the approach to the past of a quantum particle introduced by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013)]. I argue that Griffith's criticism of my approach using analysis of experiments with weak probes is unfounded.
Kedem's Comment [arXiv:1402.1352] on our Letter [PRL 112, 040406 (2014)] contains only the criticism that we did not consider complex weak values. We point out follow-up work which uses the same analysis as in our Letter, includes any type of weak values and draws the same conclusion. Vaidman's Comment [arXiv:1402.0199] on our Letter can be deconstructed in to two distinct logical fallacies.
Reply to "Comment on `Weak values and the past of a quantum particle' ''
本文是对Vaidman评论的回复，指出其一方面承认仅是定义弱迹表征粒子存在，另一方面又用客观存在概念为该定义辩护，且该辩护循环依赖量子粒子位置总有确定事实的预设结论。
A simple classical probabilistic system (a simple card game) classically exemplifies Aharonov and Vaidman's "Three-Box 'paradox'" [J. Phys. A 24, 2315 (1991)], implying that the Three-Box example is neither quantal nor a paradox and leaving one less difficulty to busy the interpreters of quantum mechanics. An ambiguity in the usual expression of the retrodiction formula is shown to have misled Albert, Aharonov, and D'Amato [Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 5 (1985)] to a result not, in fact, "curious"; the discussion illustrates how to avoid this ambiguity.
In the 1987 spin retrodiction puzzle of Vaidman, Aharonov, and Albert one is challenged to ascertain the values of $σ_x$, $σ_y$, and $σ_z$ of a spin-1/2 particle by utilizing entanglement. We report the experimental realization of a quantum-optical version in which the outcome of an intermediate polarization projection is inferred by exploiting single-photon two-qubit quantum gates. The experimental success probability is consistently above the 90.2% threshold of the optimal one-qubit strategy, with an average success probability of 95.6%.
Recently, several authors have criticized the time-symmetrized quantum theory originated by the work of Aharonov et al. (1964). The core of this criticism was a proof, appearing in various forms, which showed that the counterfactual interpretation of time-symmetrized quantum theory cannot be reconciled with standard quantum theory. I, (Vaidman, 1996a, 1997) have argued that the apparent contradiction is due to a logical error and introduced consistent time-symmetrized quantum counterfactuals. Here I repeat my arguments defending the time-symmetrized quantum theory and reply to the criticism of…
扫码添加微信好友，提出您的宝贵建议 👇
💡 备注请填写：网站反馈
发表机构由 AI 从论文文本抽取，如发现错误，欢迎反馈修正建议。