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

Physical Review A

Reply to “Validity of the Aharonov Bergmann-Lebowitz rule”

Oliver Cohen

Published Mar 1, 1998• 4 citations
Publisher

Abstract

It is argued that the proofs [W. D. Sharp and N. Shanks, Philos. Sci. 60, 488 (1993); O. Cohen, Phys. Rev. A 51, 4373 (1995); D. J. Miller, Phys. Lett. A 222, 31 (1996)] of the general nonvalidity of the counterfactual interpretation of the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz rule [Y. Aharonov, P. G. Bergmann, and J. L. Lebowitz, Phys. Rev. 134, B1410 (1964)] are perfectly valid, and that Vaidman's rejection of these proofs [L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. A (Comment for which this paper is the Reply)] is unsustainable. It is demonstrated that Vaidman's proposed formulation of ``counterfactual probability,'' on which his rejection of these proofs depends, is problematic and inconsistent in several respects.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.57.2254

Related papers

Validity of the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz rule

Lev Vaidman A

It is argued that the proof of Cohen [Phys. Rev. A 51, 4373 (1995)] which shows that an application of the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule leads to contradiction with predictions of quantum theory is erroneous. A generalization of the ABL rule for the case of an incomplete final measurement (which is needed for the analysis of Cohen's proof) is presented.

arXiv:quant-ph/9703001•Physical Review A•Mar 1, 1998•18 citations

Closing a Loophole in the Case Against the Counterfactual Usage of the ABL Rule

Ruth E. Kastner

A currently discussed interpretation of quantum theory, Time-Symmetrized Quantum Theory, makes certain claims about the properties of systems between pre- and post- selection measurements. These claims are based on a counterfactual usage of the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule for calculating the probabilities of measurement outcomes between such measurements. It has been argued by several authors that the counterfactual usage of the ABL rule is, in general, incorrect. This paper examines what might appear to be a loophole in those arguments and shows that this apparent loophole cannot be used to support a counterfactual interpretation of the ABL rule. It is noted that the invalidity of the counterfactual usage of the ABL rule implies that the characterization of those outcomes receiving probability 1 in a counterfactual application of the rule as `elements of reality' is, in general, unfounded.

arXiv:quant-ph/9807015•Jul 5, 1998•1 citation

The Utility of Time-Symmetric Quantum Counterfactuals: A Response to Kastner

Ulrich Mohrhoff

Kastner's (Philosophy of Science 70, 2003, pp. 145--163) recent objections to the counterfactual usage of the time-symmetric Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz rule by the author, especially her claims that the resulting time-symmetric quantum counterfactuals are vacuous or invalid, are examined and shown to be unfounded or beside the point.

arXiv:0801.2215•Jan 15, 2008•0 citations

Reply to Comment on "Multitime Quantum Communication: Interesting But Not Counterfactual" by L. Vaidman

Robert B. Griffiths

This is a Reply to the Comment by Vaidman in arXiv:2306.16756 on the paper: R. B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062219 (2023)

arXiv:2310.05968•Sep 23, 2023•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Nonlocality counterfactuals, and quantum mechanics’ ”

William George Unruh

Stapp [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 60, 2595 (1999)] has argued that my criticism of his nonlocality proof is wrong. I point out that counterfactual arguments are fraught with dangers, and that any such claim should use them in a conservative manner. A reanalysis of his claims continues to lead me to the conclusion that the nonlocality of quantum mechanics remains unproven.

Physical Review A•Sep 1, 1999•2 citations

Reply to "Comment on Protocol for Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication"

Hatim Salih, Li, Zheng-Hong, M. Al-Amri +1 more

In reply to Vaidman's Comment [arXiv:1304.6689], we show that his claim that our Protocol for Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication [PRL 110, 170502 (2013), arXiv:1206.2042] is counterfactual only for one type of information bit is wrong.

arXiv:1404.5392•Apr 22, 2014•4 citations
It is argued that the proofs [W. D. Sharp and N. Shanks, Philos. Sci. 60, 488 (1993); O. Cohen, Phys. Rev. A 51, 4373 (1995); D. J. Miller, Phys. Lett. A 222, 31 (1996)] of the general nonvalidity of the counterfactual interpretation of the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz rule [Y. Aharonov, P. G. Bergmann, and J. L. Lebowitz, Phys. Rev. 134, B1410 (1964)] are perfectly valid, and that Vaidman's rejection of these proofs [L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. A (Comment for which this paper is the Reply)] is unsustainable. It is demonstrated that Vaidman's proposed formulation of ``counterfactual probability,'' on which his rejection of these proofs depends, is problematic and inconsistent in several respects.
A currently discussed interpretation of quantum theory, Time-Symmetrized Quantum Theory, makes certain claims about the properties of systems between pre- and post- selection measurements. These claims are based on a counterfactual usage of the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule for calculating the probabilities of measurement outcomes between such measurements. It has been argued by several authors that the counterfactual usage of the ABL rule is, in general, incorrect. This paper examines what might appear to be a loophole in those arguments and shows that this apparent loophole cannot be used to support a counterfactual interpretation of the ABL rule. It is noted that the invalidity of the counterfactual usage of the ABL rule implies that the characterization of those outcomes receiving probability 1 in a counterfactual application of the rule as `elements of reality' is, in general, unfounded.