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

International Conference on Quantum Information

Where is the Quantum Particle between two Position Measurements?

Lev Vaidman A

Published Jan 1, 2008• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

A controversy about counterfactual computation [Hosten et al., Nature, 439, 949 (2006), Vaidman, PRL 98, 160403 (2007)] reveals a paradoxical feature of a pre- and post-selected quantum particle: it can reach a certain location without being on the path that leads to and from this location.
DOI
10.1364/icqi.2008.qwd4

Related papers

Is Quantum Mechanics Paradoxical?

Philip R. Wallace

Physics Essays•Dec 1, 1991•1 citation

Impossibility of the Counterfactual Computation for All Possible Outcomes

Lev Vaidman A

A recent proposal for counterfactual computation [O. Hosten et al. Nature (London) 439, 949 (2006) is analyzed. It is argued that the method does not provide counterfactual computation for all possible outcomes. The explanation involves a novel paradoxical feature of pre- and postselected quantum particles: The particle can reach a certain location without being on the path that leads to this location.

arXiv:quant-ph/0610174•Physical Review Letters•Apr 18, 2007•58 citations

Weak Measurements and Counterfactual Computation

Onur Hosten, Paul G. Kwiat

Vaidman, in a recent article adopts the method of 'quantum weak measurements in pre- and postselected ensembles' to ascertain whether or not the chained-Zeno counterfactual computation scheme proposed by Hosten et al. is counterfactual; which has been the topic of a debate on the definition of counterfactuality. We disagree with his conclusion, which brings up some interesting aspects of quantum weak measurements and some concerns about the way they are interpreted.

arXiv:quant-ph/0612159•Dec 19, 2006•7 citations

Paradoxes of quantum mechanics

J. Hrdý

A hypothesis consisting in a different view of the electron is presented.This makes it possible to explain some paradoxes of quantum mechanics.

International Journal of Physics and Applications•Jan 1, 2023•0 citations

Resolving the Three-Box Paradox

R. E. Kastner

An apparent paradox proposed by Aharonov and Vaidman in which a single particle can be found with certainty in two (or more) boxes is analyzed. It is found that the paradox arises from a counterfactual usage of the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule. The paradox is resolved by observing that the counterfactual usage of the rule is, in general, not valid. 1. Background. The Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule is a well-known formula for calculating the probabilities of the possible outcomes of observables measured at an intermediate time t between pre- and post-selection measurements at times t1 and t2, respectively [Aharonov, Bergmann, and Lebowitz, 1964]. If an intermediate measurement of nondegenerate observable C with eigenvalues {ci} is performed at time t, the ABL rule states that the probability of outcome cj in the case of a preselection for the state |ψ1 〉 and a post-selection for the state |ψ2 〉 is given by: 1 PABL(cj|ψ1, ψ2) = |〈ψ2|cj〉 | 2 |〈cj||ψ1〉 | 2 i |〈ψ2|ci〉 | 2 |〈ci||ψ1〉 | 2 (1) It has recently been shown 2 that the ABL rule cannot be used in a counterfactual sense: i.e., in general, it cannot be used to calculate the probabilities of possible outcomes of observables that have not actually been measured at time t. 2. The three-box example.

•Jul 14, 1998•0 citations

On quantum measurement

Alexander B. Givental

We propose a solution to the quantum measurement paradox by first identifying its classical counterpart.

arXiv:2311.02233•Nov 3, 2023•0 citations
An apparent paradox proposed by Aharonov and Vaidman in which a single particle can be found with certainty in two (or more) boxes is analyzed. It is found that the paradox arises from a counterfactual usage of the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule. The paradox is resolved by observing that the counterfactual usage of the rule is, in general, not valid. 1. Background. The Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule is a well-known formula for calculating the probabilities of the possible outcomes of observables measured at an intermediate time t between pre- and post-selection measurements at times t1 and t2, respectively [Aharonov, Bergmann, and Lebowitz, 1964]. If an intermediate measurement of nondegenerate observable C with eigenvalues {ci} is performed at time t, the ABL rule states that the probability of outcome cj in the case of a preselection for the state |ψ1 〉 and a post-selection for the state |ψ2 〉 is given by: 1 PABL(cj|ψ1, ψ2) = |〈ψ2|cj〉 | 2 |〈cj||ψ1〉 | 2 i |〈ψ2|ci〉 | 2 |〈ci||ψ1〉 | 2 (1) It has recently been shown 2 that the ABL rule cannot be used in a counterfactual sense: i.e., in general, it cannot be used to calculate the probabilities of possible outcomes of observables that have not actually been measured at time t. 2. The three-box example.