Nondestructive weak measurements (WMs) made on a quantum particle are useful in order to extract information as the particle evolves from a prepared state to a finally detected state. The physical meaning of this information has been open to debate, particularly in view of the apparent discontinuous trajectories of the particle recorded by WMs. In this work we investigate the properties of vanishing weak values for projection operators as well as general observables. We then analyze the implications when inferring the past of a quantum particle. We provide a nonoptical example for which apparent discontinuous trajectories are obtained by WMs. Our approach is compared to previous results.
Nondestructive weak measurements (WMs) made on a quantum particle are useful in order to extract information as the particle evolves from a prepared state to a finally detected state. The physical meaning of this information has been open to debate, particularly in view of the apparent discontinuous trajectories of the particle recorded by WMs. In this work we investigate the properties of vanishing weak values for projection operators as well as general observables. We then analyze the implications when inferring the past of a quantum particle. We provide a nonoptical example for which apparent discontinuous trajectories are obtained by WMs. Our approach is compared to previous results.
We investigate four key issues with using a nonzero weak value of the spatial projection operator to infer the past path of an individual quantum particle. First, we note that weak measurements disturb a system, so any approach relying on such a perturbation to determine the location of a quantum particle describes the state of a disturbed system, not that of a hypothetical undisturbed system. Second, even assuming no disturbance, there is no reason to associate the nonzero weak value of an operator containing the spatial projection operator with the classical idea of “particle presence.” Third, weak values are only measurable over ensembles, and so to infer properties of individual particles from values of them is problematic. Finally, weak value approaches to the path of a particle do not provide information beyond standard quantum mechanics (and the classical modes supporting the experiment). We know of no experiment with testable consequences that demonstrates a connection between particle presence and weak values.
In the paper "Does the weak trace show the past of a quantum particle?" [arXiv:2109.14060v2], it is argued that null weak values of the spatial projectors are inadequate to infer the presence of a quantum particle at an intermediate time between preparation and detection. This conclusion relies on two arguments - (i) the role of the disturbance induced by a weak measurement, and (ii) classical-like features like continuous paths that must purportedly be associated with a quantum particle presence. Here we first show that (i) arises from a misunderstanding of null weak values by putting forward a simple counter-example that highlights that the relevant quantities to examine are the vanishing amplitudes, not the wavefunction. Then we briefly argue that enforcing classical pre-conditions in order to account for quantum properties during unitary evolution is unlikely to lead to a consistent understanding of quantum phenomena.
We investigate four key issues with using a nonzero weak value of the spatial projection operator to infer the past path of an individual quantum particle. First, we note that weak measurements disturb a system, so any approach relying on such a perturbation to determine the location of a quantum particle describes the state of a disturbed system, not that of a hypothetical undisturbed system. Second, even assuming no disturbance, there is no reason to associate the nonzero weak value of an operator containing the spatial projection operator with the classical idea of ``particle presence.'' Third, weak values are only measurable over ensembles, and so to infer properties of individual particles from values of them is problematic. Finally, weak value approaches to the path of a particle do not provide information beyond standard quantum mechanics (and the classical modes supporting the experiment). We know of no experiment with testable consequences that demonstrates a connection between particle presence and weak values.
We discuss the preceding Comment [D. Sokolovski, preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 97, 046102 (2018)] and conclude that the arguments given there against the relevance of null weak values as representing the absence of a system property are not compelling. We give an example in which the transition matrix elements that make the projector weak values vanish are the same ones that suppress detector clicks in strong measurements. Whether weak values are taken to account for the past of a quantum system or not depend on general interpretational commitments of the quantum formalism itself rather than on peculiarities of the weak measurements framework.
Summary form only given. Measurements are the very basis of Physics, especially in Quantum Mechanics, where they assume even a more fundamental role because of wave function collapse after a “strong” (projective) measurement. Furthermore, measuring a quantum-mechanical observable completely erases the information on its conjugate one (e.g. measurement of position erases information on momentum, and vice-versa). Nevertheless, in Quantum Mechanics other kinds of measurement are possible. For example, wave function collapse can be overcome through Weak Measurements, i.e. measurements performed with an interaction sufficiently weak not to collapse the original state, featuring several interesting properties. An example of these are weak values [1-3], realised for the first time in [4-6], that have been used for addressing fundamental questions [7-12] as Contextuality and are also a tool for Quantum Metrology [13-19]. One of the most intriguing properties of Weak Measurements is that, since they are not affected by wave function collapse, they can allow gathering simultaneous information on non-commuting observables [20], impossible with the standard (projective) measurement protocols. A second example is offered by Protective Measurements [21], a new technique able to extract information on the expectation value of an observable even measuring a single particle. In this talk, after a general introduction to WMs, we present the first realisation of sequential weak value measurements [22], i.e. a joint measurement of the weak value of (incompatible) polarizations on a single photon. Then, we present an experiment addressed to explore the connection between anomalous weak values and Contextuality [23], showing a clear violation of the inequality proposed in [12] while satisfying all the additional theoretical requests, unequivocally demonstrating the contextual nature of weak values. Finally, we present and discuss the first implementation of Protective Measurements, showing unprecedented measurement capability and demonstrating how the expectation value of an observable can be obtained with a single measurement on a single particle.
Although there is no consensus regarding the ``reality'' of the past of a quantum particle, in situations where there is only one trajectory with a nonvanishing quantum wave of the particle between its emission and detection points, it seems ``safe'' to associate the past of the particle with this trajectory. A method for analyzing the past of a quantum particle according to the weak trace it leaves is proposed. Such a trace can be observed via measurements performed on an ensemble of identically pre- and postselected particles. Examples in which this method contradicts the above common sense description of the past of the particle are presented. It is argued that it is possible to describe the past of a quantum particle, but the naive approach has to be replaced by both forward- and backward-evolving quantum states.