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:2202.11574

Comment on "Does the weak trace show the past of a quantum particle?"

Quentin Duprey, A. Matzkin

Published Feb 23, 2022• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2202.11574

Related papers

Weak values and the past of a quantum particle

Jonte R. Hance, JG Rarity, J Ladyman

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.

•Apr 21, 2023•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Null weak values and the past of a quantum particle”’

Quentin Duprey, A. Matzkin

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.

arXiv:1712.09387•Physical Review A•Apr 13, 2018•15 citations

Weak values and the past of a quantum particle

Jonte R. Hance, John Rarity, James Ladyman

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.

arXiv:2109.14060•Physical Review Research•Apr 21, 2023•22 citations

Comment on “Null weak values and the past of a quantum particle”

D. Sokolovski

In a recent paper [Phys. Rev. A 95, 032110 (2017)], Duprey and Matzkin investigated the meaning of vanishing weak values and their role in the retrodiction of the past of a preselected and postselected quantum system in the presence of interference. Here we argue that any proposition regarding the weak values should be understood as a statement about the probability amplitudes. With this in mind, we revisit some of the conclusions reached in Duprey and Matzkin's work.

arXiv:1709.02170•Physical Review A•Apr 13, 2018•20 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

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
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.
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 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.
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.