© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

arXiv:1709.07728 · International Journal of Quantum Information

Past of a particle in an entangled state

Dilip Paneru, Eliahu Cohen

Published Dec 1, 2017• 15 citations

Abstract

Vaidman has proposed a controversial criterion for determining the past of a single quantum particle based on the “weak trace” it leaves. We here consider more general examples of entangled systems and analyze the past of single, as well as pairs of entangled pre- and postselected particles. Systems with nontrivial time evolution are also analyzed. We argue that in these cases, examining only the single-particle weak trace provides information which is insufficient for understanding the system as a whole. We therefore suggest to examine, alongside with the past of single particles, also the past of pairs, triplets and eventually the entire system, including higher-order, multipartite traces in the analysis. This resonates with a recently proposed top-down approach by Aharonov, Cohen and Tollaksen for understanding the structure of correlations in pre- and postselected systems.

DOI: 10.1142/s0219749917400196

Related papers

Past of a quantum particle

Lev Vaidman A

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.

arXiv:1304.7474•Physical Review A•May 3, 2013•184 citations

Comment on “Past of a quantum particle”

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

We present an analysis of a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer in which an ensemble of identical pre- and postselected particles leaves a weak trace. A knowledge of the weak value partially destroys the quantum interference. The results, contrary to some recent claims [Vaidman, Phys. Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013)], are in accordance with the usual quantum-mechanical expectations.

Physical Review A•Oct 29, 2013•65 citations

Tracing the past of a quantum particle

Lev Vaidman A

The question ``Where was a quantum particle between pre- and postselection measurements?'' is analyzed in view of a recent proposal that the quantum particle was in the overlap of the forward and backward evolving wave functions. It is argued that this proposal corresponds not only to the criterion of where the particle leaves a weak trace but also to the criterion of where the local interactions can affect the probability of postselection and where finding the particle in a strong nondemolition measurement is possible. The concept of a ``secondary presence'' of a pre- and postselected particle where local interactions affect the weak trace in the overlap region is introduced.

arXiv:1312.7566•Physical Review A•Feb 13, 2014•64 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Weak values and the past of a quantum particle' ”

Jonte R. Hance, John Rarity, James Ladyman

We here reply to a recent comment by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 048001 (2023)] on our paper [Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023048 (2023)]. In his Comment, Vaidman first admits that he is just defining (assuming) the weak trace gives the presence of a particle---however, in this case, he should use a term other than presence, as this already has a separate, intuitive meaning other than ``where a weak trace is.'' Despite this admission, Vaidman then goes on to argue for this definition by appeal to ideas around an objectively existing idea of presence. We show these appeals rely on their own conclusion---that there is always a matter of fact about the location of a quantum particle.

arXiv:2309.07599•Physical Review Research•Nov 8, 2023•4 citations

Past of a quantum particle and weak measurement

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

We present an analysis of a double Mach-Zehnder interferometer in which an ensemble of identical pre- and postselected particles leave a weak trace. A knowledge of the weak value partially destroys the quantum interference. The results, contrary to some recent claims, are in accordance with the usual quantum mechanical expectations.

arXiv:1306.3048•Jun 13, 2013•2 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Weak values and the past of a quantum particle' ”

Jonte R. Hance, JG Rarity, J Ladyman

We here reply to a recent comment by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 048001 (2023)] on our paper [Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023048 (2023)]. In his Comment, Vaidman first admits that he is just defining (assuming) the weak trace gives the presence of a particle—however, in this case, he should use a term other than presence, as this already has a separate, intuitive meaning other than “where a weak trace is.” Despite this admission, Vaidman then goes on to argue for this definition by appeal to ideas around an objectively existing idea of presence. We show these appeals rely on their own conclusion—that there is always a matter of fact about the location of a quantum particle.

•Nov 8, 2023•0 citations

Vaidman has proposed a controversial criterion for determining the past of a single quantum particle based on the “weak trace” it leaves. We here consider more general examples of entangled systems and analyze the past of single, as well as pairs of entangled pre- and postselected particles. Systems with nontrivial time evolution are also analyzed. We argue that in these cases, examining only the single-particle weak trace provides information which is insufficient for understanding the system as a whole. We therefore suggest to examine, alongside with the past of single particles, also the past of pairs, triplets and eventually the entire system, including higher-order, multipartite traces in the analysis. This resonates with a recently proposed top-down approach by Aharonov, Cohen and Tollaksen for understanding the structure of correlations in pre- and postselected systems.

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.

The question ``Where was a quantum particle between pre- and postselection measurements?'' is analyzed in view of a recent proposal that the quantum particle was in the overlap of the forward and backward evolving wave functions. It is argued that this proposal corresponds not only to the criterion of where the particle leaves a weak trace but also to the criterion of where the local interactions can affect the probability of postselection and where finding the particle in a strong nondemolition measurement is possible. The concept of a ``secondary presence'' of a pre- and postselected particle where local interactions affect the weak trace in the overlap region is introduced.

We here reply to a recent comment by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 048001 (2023)] on our paper [Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023048 (2023)]. In his Comment, Vaidman first admits that he is just defining (assuming) the weak trace gives the presence of a particle---however, in this case, he should use a term other than presence, as this already has a separate, intuitive meaning other than ``where a weak trace is.'' Despite this admission, Vaidman then goes on to argue for this definition by appeal to ideas around an objectively existing idea of presence. We show these appeals rely on their own conclusion---that there is always a matter of fact about the location of a quantum particle.

We here reply to a recent comment by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 048001 (2023)] on our paper [Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023048 (2023)]. In his Comment, Vaidman first admits that he is just defining (assuming) the weak trace gives the presence of a particle—however, in this case, he should use a term other than presence, as this already has a separate, intuitive meaning other than “where a weak trace is.” Despite this admission, Vaidman then goes on to argue for this definition by appeal to ideas around an objectively existing idea of presence. We show these appeals rely on their own conclusion—that there is always a matter of fact about the location of a quantum particle.