© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

arXiv:1701.04109 · Chinese Physics Letters

An Improved Experiment to Determine the ‘Past of a Particle’ in the Nested Mach–Zehnder Interferometer

Alon Ben-Israel, Lukas Knips, Jan Dziewior, Jasmin D. A. Meinecke, Ariel Danan, Harald Weinfurter, Lev Vaidman A

Published Feb 1, 2017• 19 citations

Abstract

We argue that the modification proposed by Li et al. [Chin. Phys. Lett. 32 (2015) 050303] to the experiment of Danan et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 240402] does not test the past of the photon as characterized by local weak traces. Instead of answering the questions: (i) were the photons in A? (ii) were the photons in B? and (iii) were the photons in C? the proposed experiment measures a degenerate operator answering the questions: (i) were the photons in A? and (ii) were the photons in B and C together? A negative answer to the last question does not tell us if photons were present in B or C. On the other hand, a simple variation of the proposal by Li et al. does provide conceptually better evidence for the past of the pre- and post-selected photon, but this evidence will be in agreement with the results of Danan et al.

DOI: 10.1088/0256-307x/34/2/020301

Related papers

Comment on “One-state vector formalism for the evolution of a quantum state through nested Mach-Zehnder interferometers”

Lev Vaidman A

Bartkiewicz et al. [Phys. Rev. A 91, 012103 (2015)] provided an alternative analysis of an experiment performed by Danan et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 240402 (2013)] which presented surprising evidence regarding the past of photons passing through an interferometer. They argued that the quantity used by Danan et al. is not a suitable which-path witness, and proposed an alternative. The weaknesses of the analysis are discussed, and it is argued that the alternative, analyzed properly, provides no new predictions.

arXiv:1508.07614•Physical Review A•Mar 31, 2016•24 citations

Investigating the `Past of a Particle' without disturbing it

F. A. Hashmi, Li, Fu, Shi‐Yao Zhu

In a recent article [Chin. Phys. Lett. 34, 020301 (2017)], Ben-Israel et al. have claimed that the experiment proposed in [Chin. Phys. Lett. 32, 050303 (2015)] to determine the past of a quantum particle in a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer does not work, and they have proposed a modification to the experiment. We show that their claim is false, and the modification is not required.

arXiv:1710.04868•Oct 13, 2017•0 citations

Asking photons where have they been

Danan, Ariel, Demitry Farfurnik, Shimshon Bar-Ad +1 more

Quantum mechanics does not provide a clear answer to the question: What was the past of a photon which went through an interferometer? Various welcher weg measurements, delayed-choice which-path experiments and weak-measurements of photons in interferometers presented the past of a photon as a trajectory or a set of trajectories. We have carried out experimental weak measurements of the paths of photons going through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer which show a different picture: the past of a photon is not a set of continuous trajectories. The photons tell us that they have been in the parts of the interferometer which they could not have possibly reached! Our results lead to rejection of a "common sense" approach to the past of a quantum particle. On the other hand, they have a simple explanation within the framework of the two-state vector formalism of quantum theory.

arXiv:1304.7469•Apr 28, 2013•1 citation

Asking Photons "Where Have They Been?"

Lev Vaidman A

Quantum mechanics does not provide a clear answer to the question: What was the past of a photon which went through an interferometer? Various welcher weg measurements, delayed-choice which-path experiments and weak-measurements of photons in interferometers presented the past of a photon as a trajectory or a set of trajectories. We have carried out experimental weak measurements of the paths of photons going through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer which show a different picture: the past of a photon is not a set of continuous trajectories. The photons tell us that they have been in the parts of the interferometer which they could not have possibly reached! Our results lead to rejection of a ``common sense'' approach to the past of a quantum particle. On the other hand, they have a simple explanation within the framework of the two-state vector formalism of quantum theory.

The Rochester Conferences on Coherence and Quantum Optics and the Quantum Information and Measurement meeting•Jan 1, 2013•6 citations

Comment on “photons can tell ‘contradictory’ answer about where they have been”

Gregory Reznik, Carlotta Versmold, Jan Dziewior +4 more

Abstract Yuan and Feng (Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138:70, 2023) recently proposed a modification of the nested Mach–Zehnder interferometer experiment performed by Danan et al. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 111:240402, 2013) and argued that photons give “contradictory” answers about where they have been, when traces are locally imprinted on them in different ways. They concluded that their results are comprehensible from what they call the “three-path interference viewpoint,” but difficult to explain from the “discontinuous trajectory” viewpoint advocated by Danan et al. We argue that the weak trace approach (the basis of the “discontinuous trajectory” viewpoint) provides a consistent explanation of the Yuan–Feng experiment. The contradictory messages of the photons are just another example of photons lying about where they have been when the experimental method of Danan et al. is applied in an inappropriate setup.

arXiv:2311.03525•The European Physical Journal Plus•Feb 21, 2024•2 citations

Photons in a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer

J. E. Avron

In a paper titled ``Asking photons where they have been? Danan, Farfurnik, Bar-Ad and Vaidman describe an experiment with pre and post selected photons going through nested Mach-Zehnder interferometers. They find that some of the mirrors leave no footprints on the signal and interpret this as evidence that the photon skipped these mirrors and by a discontinuous path. I review the experiment and analyze it within the orthodox framework of quantum mechanics. The picture of interfering multiple trajectories provide a satisfactory explanation of the experimental findings and the absence of footprints.

•Jul 7, 2020•0 citations

We argue that the modification proposed by Li et al. [Chin. Phys. Lett. 32 (2015) 050303] to the experiment of Danan et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 240402] does not test the past of the photon as characterized by local weak traces. Instead of answering the questions: (i) were the photons in A? (ii) were the photons in B? and (iii) were the photons in C? the proposed experiment measures a degenerate operator answering the questions: (i) were the photons in A? and (ii) were the photons in B and C together? A negative answer to the last question does not tell us if photons were present in B or C. On the other hand, a simple variation of the proposal by Li et al. does provide conceptually better evidence for the past of the pre- and post-selected photon, but this evidence will be in agreement with the results of Danan et al.

Bartkiewicz et al. [Phys. Rev. A 91, 012103 (2015)] provided an alternative analysis of an experiment performed by Danan et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 240402 (2013)] which presented surprising evidence regarding the past of photons passing through an interferometer. They argued that the quantity used by Danan et al. is not a suitable which-path witness, and proposed an alternative. The weaknesses of the analysis are discussed, and it is argued that the alternative, analyzed properly, provides no new predictions.

Quantum mechanics does not provide a clear answer to the question: What was the past of a photon which went through an interferometer? Various welcher weg measurements, delayed-choice which-path experiments and weak-measurements of photons in interferometers presented the past of a photon as a trajectory or a set of trajectories. We have carried out experimental weak measurements of the paths of photons going through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer which show a different picture: the past of a photon is not a set of continuous trajectories. The photons tell us that they have been in the parts of the interferometer which they could not have possibly reached! Our results lead to rejection of a "common sense" approach to the past of a quantum particle. On the other hand, they have a simple explanation within the framework of the two-state vector formalism of quantum theory.

Quantum mechanics does not provide a clear answer to the question: What was the past of a photon which went through an interferometer? Various welcher weg measurements, delayed-choice which-path experiments and weak-measurements of photons in interferometers presented the past of a photon as a trajectory or a set of trajectories. We have carried out experimental weak measurements of the paths of photons going through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer which show a different picture: the past of a photon is not a set of continuous trajectories. The photons tell us that they have been in the parts of the interferometer which they could not have possibly reached! Our results lead to rejection of a ``common sense'' approach to the past of a quantum particle. On the other hand, they have a simple explanation within the framework of the two-state vector formalism of quantum theory.

Abstract Yuan and Feng (Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138:70, 2023) recently proposed a modification of the nested Mach–Zehnder interferometer experiment performed by Danan et al. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 111:240402, 2013) and argued that photons give “contradictory” answers about where they have been, when traces are locally imprinted on them in different ways. They concluded that their results are comprehensible from what they call the “three-path interference viewpoint,” but difficult to explain from the “discontinuous trajectory” viewpoint advocated by Danan et al. We argue that the weak trace approach (the basis of the “discontinuous trajectory” viewpoint) provides a consistent explanation of the Yuan–Feng experiment. The contradictory messages of the photons are just another example of photons lying about where they have been when the experimental method of Danan et al. is applied in an inappropriate setup.

In a paper titled ``Asking photons where they have been? Danan, Farfurnik, Bar-Ad and Vaidman describe an experiment with pre and post selected photons going through nested Mach-Zehnder interferometers. They find that some of the mirrors leave no footprints on the signal and interpret this as evidence that the photon skipped these mirrors and by a discontinuous path. I review the experiment and analyze it within the orthodox framework of quantum mechanics. The picture of interfering multiple trajectories provide a satisfactory explanation of the experimental findings and the absence of footprints.