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

Foundations of Physics

Time-Symmetrized Counterfactuals in Quantum Theory

Lev Vaidman A

Published May 1, 1999• 27 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1023/a:1018826607583

Related papers

Counterfactual Reasoning in Time-Symmetric Quantum Mechanics

D. J. Miller

arXiv:quant-ph/0410076•Foundations of Physics Letters•Jul 24, 2006•3 citations

The Controversy over the Nature of Time-Symmetric Quantum Counterfactuals: A Response to Kastner

Ulrich Mohrhoff

•Jan 15, 2008•0 citations

Time-Symmetrised Quantum Theory, Counterfactuals and ‘Advanced Action’

Ruth E. Kastner

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics•Jun 1, 1999•26 citations

Time-Symmetrized Counterfactuals in Quantum Theory

Lev Vaidman A

Recently, several authors have criticized the time-symmetrized quantum theory originated by the work of Aharonov et al. (1964). The core of this criticism was a proof, appearing in various forms, which showed that the counterfactual interpretation of time-symmetrized quantum theory cannot be reconciled with standard quantum theory. I argue here that the apparent contradiction is due to a logical error. I analyze the concept of counterfactuals in quantum theory and introduce time-symmetrized counterfactuals. These counterfactuals do not lead to any contradiction with the predictions of quantum theory. I discuss applications of time-symmetrized counterfactuals to several surprising examples and show the usefulness of the time-symmetrized quantum formalism.

arXiv:quant-ph/9807075•Jul 27, 1998•8 citations

Time-symmetrized quantum theory: A critique

Ruth E. Kastner

•Jan 1, 1999•0 citations

Time-Symmetrized Quantum Theory, Counterfactuals, and `Advanced Action'

Ruth E. Kastner

Recent authors have raised objections to the counterfactual interpretation of the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule of time symmetrized quantum theory (TSQT). I distinguish between two different readings of the ABL rule, counterfactual and non-counterfactual, and confirm that TSQT advocate L. Vaidman is employing the counterfactual reading to which these authors object. Vaidman has responded to the objections by proposing a new kind of time-symmetrized counterfactual, which he has defined in two different ways. It is argued that neither definition succeeds in overcoming the objections, except in a special case previously noted by Cohen and Hiley. In addition, a connection is made between TSQT and Price's concept of `advanced action', which further supports the special case discussed.

arXiv:quant-ph/9806002•Jun 1, 1998•5 citations
Recently, several authors have criticized the time-symmetrized quantum theory originated by the work of Aharonov et al. (1964). The core of this criticism was a proof, appearing in various forms, which showed that the counterfactual interpretation of time-symmetrized quantum theory cannot be reconciled with standard quantum theory. I argue here that the apparent contradiction is due to a logical error. I analyze the concept of counterfactuals in quantum theory and introduce time-symmetrized counterfactuals. These counterfactuals do not lead to any contradiction with the predictions of quantum theory. I discuss applications of time-symmetrized counterfactuals to several surprising examples and show the usefulness of the time-symmetrized quantum formalism.
Recent authors have raised objections to the counterfactual interpretation of the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule of time symmetrized quantum theory (TSQT). I distinguish between two different readings of the ABL rule, counterfactual and non-counterfactual, and confirm that TSQT advocate L. Vaidman is employing the counterfactual reading to which these authors object. Vaidman has responded to the objections by proposing a new kind of time-symmetrized counterfactual, which he has defined in two different ways. It is argued that neither definition succeeds in overcoming the objections, except in a special case previously noted by Cohen and Hiley. In addition, a connection is made between TSQT and Price's concept of `advanced action', which further supports the special case discussed.