arXiv:1710.04868

Investigating the `Past of a Particle' without disturbing it

F. A. Hashmi, Li, Fu, Shi‐Yao Zhu

Published Oct 13, 2017• 0 citations

Abstract

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.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1710.04868

Related papers

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

Alon Ben-Israel, Lukas Knips, Jan Dziewior +4 more

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.

arXiv:1701.04109Chinese Physics LettersFeb 1, 201719 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 AOct 29, 201365 citations

Comment on “Particle path through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer”

Lev Vaidman A

Griffiths [Phys. Rev. A 94, 032115 (2016)] analyzed, in the framework of a consistent histories interpretation, the controversy regarding the approach to the past of a quantum particle introduced by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013)]. I argue that Griffith's criticism of my approach using an analysis of experiments with weak probes is unfounded.

Physical Review AJun 28, 201736 citations

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

李福, Hashmi, 张俊香 +1 more

Chinese Physics LettersJan 1, 20150 citations

Particle path(s) through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer: Reply to Griffiths

Lev Vaidman A

Griffiths [Phys. Rev. A 94, 032115 (2016)] analyzed, in the framework of consistent histories interpretation, the controversy regarding the approach to the past of a quantum particle introduced by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013)]. I argue that Griffith's criticism of my approach using analysis of experiments with weak probes is unfounded.

arXiv:1610.07734Oct 25, 20162 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Particle path through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer' ”

Robert B. Griffiths

While much of the technical analysis in the preceding Comment is correct, in the end it confirms the conclusion reached in my previous work [Phys. Rev. A 94, 032115 (2016)]: A consistent histories analysis provides no support for the claim of counterfactual quantum communication put forward by Salih et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 170502 (2013)].

arXiv:1712.01895Physical Review AFeb 9, 201812 citations