Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1511.06615 · Physical Review A

Comment on “Direct counterfactual transmission of a quantum state”

Lev Vaidman A

Published Jun 2, 2016• 27 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The protocol for counterfactual transmission of a qubit [Z.-H. Li et al., Phys. Rev. A 92, 052315 (2015)] relies on the counterfactuality of transmissions of bit 1 and of bit 0. Since counterfactuality of transmission of bit 0 is not established, the claim of counterfactuality of transmission of a quantum state is not established too.
DOI
10.1103/physreva.93.066301

Related papers

Reply to "Comment on Protocol for Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication"

Hatim Salih, Li, Zheng-Hong, M. Al-Amri +1 more

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.

arXiv:1404.5392•Apr 22, 2014•4 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Direct counterfactual transmission of a quantum state’”

Zheng-Hong Li, M. Al-Amri, Muhammad Suhail Zubairy

We address criticisms made in the preceding Comment by Vaidman regarding our claims of counterfactuality of transmission of a quantum state in our recent work.Received 4 April 2016DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.93.066302©2016 American Physical Society

Physical Review A•Jun 2, 2016•12 citations

Comment on “Protocol for Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication”

Lev Vaidman A

I argue that recent "Protocol for Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication" by Salih et al. [PRL 110, 170502 (2013), arXiv:1206.2042] is counterfactual only for one type of the information bit.

arXiv:1304.6689•Physical Review Letters•May 23, 2014•64 citations

Comment on “Multitime quantum communication: Interesting but not counterfactual”

Lev Vaidman A

In a recent paper, Griffiths [Phys. Rev. A 107, 062219 (2023)] analyzed a protocol for transmission of information between two parties introduced by Salih et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 170502 (2013)]. There is a considerable controversy about the counterfactuality of this protocol, and Griffiths suggested to resolve it by introducing a new measure of channel usage, which he called ``Cost.'' I argue that this measure is not appropriate because the original interaction-free measurement protocol which triggered the definition of the concept of counterfactuality is not counterfactual according to this measure.

arXiv:2306.16756•Physical Review A•Nov 8, 2023•2 citations

Counterfactual communication

Lev Vaidman A

Counterfactual communication, transferring bits and even qubits without particle travelling in the transmission channel is a bizarre quantum effect. It is also a very controversial topic. Here I will try to clarify the meaning of various “counterfactual" quantum protocols.

Optical and Quantum Sensing and Precision Metrology II•Mar 1, 2019•1 citation

Counterfactuality of “counterfactual” communication

Lev Vaidman A

The counterfactuality of recently proposed protocols for direct quantum communication is analyzed. It is argued that the protocols can be counterfactual only for one value of transmitted bit. The protocols achieve reduced probability of detection of the particle in the transmission channel by increasing the number of paths in the channel, but not below the probability of detecting of a particle actually passing through such multi-path channel.

Latin America Optics and Photonics Conference•Jan 1, 2014•0 citations
In a recent paper, Griffiths [Phys. Rev. A 107, 062219 (2023)] analyzed a protocol for transmission of information between two parties introduced by Salih et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 170502 (2013)]. There is a considerable controversy about the counterfactuality of this protocol, and Griffiths suggested to resolve it by introducing a new measure of channel usage, which he called ``Cost.'' I argue that this measure is not appropriate because the original interaction-free measurement protocol which triggered the definition of the concept of counterfactuality is not counterfactual according to this measure.