arXiv:2510.01888 · Physical Review A

Counterfactual quantum measurements

Ingita Banerjee, Kiarn T. Laverick, Howard M. Wiseman

Published Mar 10, 2026• 0 citations

Abstract

Counterfactual reasoning plays a crucial role in exploring hypothetical scenarios, by comparing some consequent under conditions identical except as results from a differing antecedent. David Lewis' well-known analysis evaluates counterfactuals using a hierarchy of desiderata. These were, however, built upon a deterministic classical framework, and whether it could be generalized to indeterministic quantum theory has been an open question. In this paper, we propose a formalism for quantum counterfactuals in which antecedents are measurement settings. Unlike other approaches, it non-trivially answers questions like: "Given that a photon-detector, observing an atom's fluorescence, clicked at a certain time, what would a field-quadrature detector have measured, if it had been used instead?"

DOI: 10.1103/9836-q2q3

Related papers

Non-locality and Possible World

Tomasz Bigaj

This book uses the formal semantics of counterfactual conditionals to analyze the problem of non-locality in quantum mechanics. Counterfactual conditionals (subjunctive conditionals) enter the analysis of quantum entangled systems in that they enable us to precisely formulate the locality condition that purports to exclude the existence of causal interactions between spatially separated parts of a system. They also make it possible to speak consistently about alternative measuring settings, and to explicate what is meant by quantum property attributions. The book develops the possible-world semantics of quantum counterfactuals using David Lewis’s famous approach as a starting point but modifying it significantly in order to achieve compatibility with the demands of the special theory of relativity as well as quantum mechanics. There have been several attempts to use counterfactual semantics to strengthen Bell’s theorem and its cognates such as the GHZ and Hardy theorems. These are critically evaluated in the book. Finally, a counterfactual reconstruction of the EPR argument and Bell’s theorem is proposed that sheds a new light on their philosophical consequences regarding the relations between realism and local causation.

De Gruyter eBooksDec 31, 20068 citations

Consistent quantum counterfactuals

Robert B. Griffiths

An analysis using classical stochastic processes is used to construct a consistent system of quantum counterfactual reasoning. When applied to a counterfactual version of Hardy's paradox, it shows that the probabilistic character of quantum reasoning together with the ``one framework'' rule prevents a logical contradiction, and there is no evidence within this approach for any nonlocal influences. Counterfactual reasoning can support a realistic interpretation of standard quantum theory (measurements reveal what is actually there) under appropriate circumstances.

arXiv:quant-ph/9805056Physical Review AJul 1, 199973 citations

Correlation between measured and unmeasured quantities in quantum mechanics, locality, and the legitimacy of counterfactual reasoning

Oliver Cohen

A correlation measure relating to measured and unmeasured local quantities in quantum mechanics is introduced, and is then applied to assess the locality implications for Bell/CHSH and similar set-ups. This leads to some interesting results, and the scheme is extended to the generalized no-signalling boxes framework. Some questions are raised about the use of counterfactual reasoning in quantum mechanics.

arXiv:1004.3011Apr 18, 20101 citation

Quantum Measurement

Bob Coecke, Aleks Kissinger

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. – Max Planck, 1936 The only way quantum theory allows us to interact with quantum systems is via quantum processes. Thus, the only way we can extract information about the state of a quantum system is to apply some non-deterministic process and observe which of the branches happened. For that reason, many people refer to the act of applying certain quantum processes as measurement and sometimes even as observation . A consequence of this unfortunate terminology is that one of the most touted ‘strange’ features of quantum theory is often misleadingly described as follows: ‘The mere act of observing a quantum state changes it.’ ‘Misleading’, since the concept of measurement described in the previous paragraph is far from the passive concept of observation familiar from our macroscopic world, but is rather a non-trivial process that will almost always drastically affect the quantum state. So, the mysterious aspect of quantum theory is not that ‘observation’ alters the quantum state but, rather, that it is impossible, even in principle, to ‘observe’ a quantum system in the classical sense. Given this fundamental restriction on how we can extract information from a quantum system, what can we learn about that system by means of a quantum process? The answer is, in fact, very little! First, performing a particular measurement could, for the vast majority of quantum states, yield any outcome i with a non-zero probability. In that case, obtaining an outcome i doesn't tell us much about what the state of the system was. Second, we say ‘was’, because the measurement will moreover irreversibly change the state according to the outcome. So rather than revealing the state of a system, a quantum measurement typically erases that state from history! Nonetheless, these quantum measurements are crucial to quantum theory since they constitute the only interface between us, in our classical world, and the quantum world. The great insight of the quantum computing community is that the non-deterministic changes induced by these quantum measurements are not a nuisance, but rather an extremely useful resource.

Cambridge University Press eBooksMar 16, 20170 citations

The Nature of the Controversy over Time-Symmetric Quantum Counterfactuals

Ruth E. Kastner

It is proposed that the recent controversy over “time-symmetric quantum counterfactuals” (TSQCs), based on the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz Rule for measurements of pre- and post-selected systems, can be clarified by taking TSQCs to be counterfactuals with a specific type of compound antecedent. In that case, inconsistency proofs such as that of Sharp and Shanks (1993) are not applicable, and the main issue becomes not whether such statements are true, but whether they are nontrivial. The latter question is addressed and answered in the negative. Thus it is concluded that TSQCs, understood as counterfactuals with a compound antecedent, are true but only trivially so, and provide no new contingent information about specific quantum systems (except in special cases already identified in literature).

arXiv:1401.5790Philosophy of ScienceJan 1, 200317 citations

A Logic of Quantum Measurement

Olivier Brunet

We present a formulation of quantum mechanics based on a logic representing some aspects of the behaviour of the measurement process. With such an approach, we make no direct mention of quantum states, and thus avoid the problems associated to this rather evasive notion. We then study some properties of the models of this logic, and deduce some characteristics that any model (and hence any formulation of quantum mechanics compatible with its prediction and relying on a notion of measurement) should verify. The main results we obtain are that in the case of a Hilbert space of dimension at least 3, no model can lead to the prediction with certainty of more than one atomic outcome. Moreover, if the Hilbert space is finite dimensional, then we are able to precisely describe the structure of the predictions of any model of our logic. As a consequence, we finally show that all the models of our logic make exactly the same predictions regarding whether a given sequence of outcomes is possible or not.

Feb 17, 20150 citations