A simple quantum interaction is analyzed, where the paths of two superposed particles asymmetrically cross, while a detector set to detect an interaction between them remains silent. Despite this negative result, the particles' states leave no doubt that a peculiar interaction has occurred: One particle's momentum is changed while the other's remains unaffected, in apparent violation of momentum conservation. Revisiting the foundations of the standard quantum measurement process offers the resolution. Prior to the macroscopic recording of no interaction, a brief critical interval (CI) prevails, during which the particles and the detector's pointer form a subtle entanglement which immediately dissolves. It is this self-cancellation, henceforth "quantum oblivion (QO)," that lies at the basis of some well-known intriguing quantum effects. Such is interaction-free measurement (IFM)1 and its more paradoxical variants like Hardy's Paradox2 and the quantum liar paradox.3 Even the Aharonov–Bohm (AB) effect4 and weak measurement (WM)5 turn out to belong to this group. We next study interventions within the CI that produce some other peculiar effects. Finally, we discuss some of the conceptual issues involved. Under a greater time-resolution of the CI, some non-local phenomena turn out to be local. Momentum is conserved due to the quantum uncertainties inflicted by the particle–pointer interaction, which sets the experiment's final boundary condition.
A simple quantum interaction is analyzed, where the paths of two superposed particles asymmetrically cross, while a detector set to detect an interaction between them remains silent. Despite this negative result, the particles' states leave no doubt that a peculiar interaction has occurred: One particle's momentum is changed while the other's remains unaffected, in apparent violation of momentum conservation. Revisiting the foundations of the standard quantum measurement process offers the resolution. Prior to the macroscopic recording of no interaction, a brief critical interval (CI) prevails, during which the particles and the detector's pointer form a subtle entanglement which immediately dissolves. It is this self-cancellation, henceforth "quantum oblivion (QO)," that lies at the basis of some well-known intriguing quantum effects. Such is interaction-free measurement (IFM)1 and its more paradoxical variants like Hardy's Paradox2 and the quantum liar paradox.3 Even the Aharonov–Bohm (AB) effect4 and weak measurement (WM)5 turn out to belong to this group. We next study interventions within the CI that produce some other peculiar effects. Finally, we discuss some of the conceptual issues involved. Under a greater time-resolution of the CI, some non-local phenomena turn out to be local. Momentum is conserved due to the quantum uncertainties inflicted by the particle–pointer interaction, which sets the experiment's final boundary condition.
Among the (in)famous differences between classical and quantum mechanics, quantum counterfactuals seem to be the most intriguing. At the same time, they seem to underlie many quantum oddities. In this article, we propose a simple explanation for counterfactuals, on two levels. Quantum Oblivion (QO) is a fundamental type of quantum interaction that we prove to be the origin of quantum counterfactuals. It also turns out to underlie several well-known quantum effects. This phenomenon is discussed in the first part of the article, yielding some novel predictions. In the second part, a hypothesis is offered regarding the unique spacetime evolution underlying QO, termed Quantum Hesitation (QH). The hypothesis invokes advanced actions and interfering weak values, as derived first by the Two-State-Vector Formalism (TSVF). Here too, weak values are argued to underlie the familiar "strong" quantum values. With these, an event that appears to have never occurred can exert causal effects and then succumb to QO by another time-evolution involving negative weak values that eliminate them. We conclude with briefly discussing the implications of these ideas on the nature of time.
Counterfactuals, i.e., events that could have occurred but eventually did not, play a unique role in quantum mechanics in that they exert causal effects despite their non-occurrence. They are therefore vital for a better understanding of quantum mechanics (QM) and possibly the universe as a whole. In earlier works, we have studied counterfactuals both conceptually and experimentally. A fruitful framework termed quantum oblivion has emerged, referring to situations where one particle seems to "forget" its interaction with other particles despite the latter being visibly affected. This framework proved to have significant explanatory power, which we now extend to tackle additional riddles. The time-symmetric causality employed by the Two State-Vector Formalism (TSVF) reveals a subtle realm ruled by "weak values," already demonstrated by numerous experiments. They offer a realistic, simple and intuitively appealing explanation to the unique role of quantum non-events, as well as to the foundations of QM. In this spirit, we performed a weak value analysis of quantum oblivion and suggest some new avenues for further research.
We study the unique role played in quantum mechanics by non-events or 'counterfactuals'. Our earlier analysis of 'quantum oblivion' has revealed some subtle stages in the measurement process, which may end up in self-cancellation. To these findings, we now add two insights derived by two time-symmetric interpretations of quantum mechanics. (i) Like all quantum interactions, the non-event is formed by the conjunction of forward-plus-backward-evolving wave functions. (ii) Then, it is another feature of such dual evolutions, namely the involvement of negative masses and energies, that enables Nature to make some events 'unhappen' while leaving causal traces.
I shall discuss two recently suggested quantum experiments. These experiments lead to paradoxical situations. I will argue that in the framework of a particular Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum theory the paradoxes do not arise. The first experiment is the “interaction-free measurement” (Elitzur and Vaidman 1993). The experimental group at Innsbruck headed by Prof. Zeilinger is working now on its realization. Before describing the experiment let me discuss a general question: “How do we know that there is an object in a region of space?” The simplest case is when the object itself causes some physical changes outside the region: i) The object is charged, so there is a field outside. We can measure this field. ii) The object yields a potential outside. Aharonov and Bohm have taught us that potential even without field leads to a measurable effect. iii) The objects radiates photons or other particles.
Introduction We will now turn to quantum entanglements and their contemporary, possibly practical, interest. Entanglements, first discussed in the E.P.R. paradox (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, 1935) are a perplexing nonlocal feature of quantum mechanics. This was immediately and succinctly discussed by Schrödinger (1935). The long history of this apparent paradox is outlined in the wonderful book of Jammer (1974). We will not focus on the central issue of “hidden variables” and their resolution by the Bell inequalities (Bell, 1964) and the test, nor the failure, of these in experiment (see Fry, 1998). The distinctive quantum nature of entanglements has led to two quantum effects which we will discuss: quantum information teleportation (Zeilenger, 1998) and quantum computation by means of entangled states. A nice, recent, elementary introduction to the latter is in the Los Alamos reports of James and Kwiat (2002). The quantum correlations or entanglements are sensitive to environmental destruction. This was pointed out early by Zurek, who termed this “decoherence.” The loss of coherence may occur on a short time scale. Recent discussions have been given by Zurek (2002, 2003). We have already given a theoretical example early in Chapter 2. It is pertinent to discuss this here, since it is a property of opensystem quantum master equations that is a central part of our study in this book. In a sense, the decoherence of correlations has turned out to be a “practical” application of these theoretical notions. Are there remedies for unwanted decoherence? Quantum error correction is a possibility. This will be mentioned also. Entanglements: foundations Following the reading of the E.P.R. paper, Schrödinger (1935b) quickly repeated the argument from quantum theory, but more generally. He introduced the term “entanglement” to describe what he seemed to agree was a curious, if not unacceptable, property. Let us follow his point of view. Given a state ψ ( x, y ) of a composite system of particles x and y formed in their mutual interaction. ψ ( x , y ) is not a product state.
A Gedanken experiment is presented where an excited and a ground-state atom are positioned such that, within the former's half-life time, they exchange a photon with 50% probability. A measurement of their energy state will therefore indicate in 50% of the cases that no photon was exchanged. Yet other measurements would reveal that, by the mere possibility of exchange, the two atoms have become entangled. Consequently, the "no exchange" result, apparently precluding entanglement, is non-locally established between the atoms by this very entanglement. This quantum-mechanical version of the ancient Liar Paradox can be realized with already existing transmission schemes, with the addition of Bell's theorem applied to the no-exchange cases. Under appropriate probabilities, the initially-excited atom, still excited, can be entangled with additional atoms time and again, or alternatively, exert multipartite nonlocal correlations in an interaction free manner. When densely repeated several times, this result also gives rise to the Quantum Zeno effect, again exerted between distant atoms without photon exchange. We discuss these experiments as variants of interaction-free-measurement, now generalized for both spatial and temporal uncertainties. We next employ weak measurements for elucidating the paradox. Interpretational issues are discussed in the conclusion, and a resolution is offered within the Two-State Vector Formalism and its new Heisenberg framework.