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:quant-ph/0307082

The Counterfactual Meaning of the ABL Rule

‎Louis Marchildon

Published Jul 10, 2003• 2 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz rule assigns probabilities to quantum measurement results at time t on the condition that the system is prepared in a given way at t_1 < t and found in a given state at t_2 > t. The question whether the rule can also be applied counterfactually to the case where no measurement is performed at the intermediate time t has recently been the subject of controversy. I argue that the counterfactual meaning may be understood in terms of the true value of an observable at t. Such a value cannot be empirically determined for, by stipulation, the measurement that would yield it is not performed. Nevertheless, it may or may not be well-defined depending on one's proposed interpretation of quantum mechanics. Various examples are discussed illustrating what can be asserted at the intermediate time without running into contradictions.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0307082

Related papers

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

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

Comment on Mohrhoff's "What quantum mechanics is trying to tell us"

Ruth E. Kastner

Mohrhoff proposes using the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule for time-symmetric ``objective'' (meaning non-epistemic) probabilities corresponding to the possible outcomes of not-actually-performed measurements between specified pre- and post-selection measurement outcomes. It is emphasized that the ABL rule was formulated on the assumption that such intervening measurements are actually made and that it does not necessarily apply to counterfactual situations. The exact nature of the application of the ABL rule considered by Mohrhoff is made explicit and is shown to fall short of his stated counterfactual claim.

arXiv:quant-ph/0003098•Mar 21, 2000•2 citations

Comment on “What quantum mechanics is trying to tell us,” by Ulrich Mohrhoff [Am. J. Phys. 68 (8), 728–745 (2000)]

Ruth E. Kastner

Mohrhoff proposes using the Aharonov–Bergmann–Lebowitz (ABL) rule for time-symmetric “objective” (meaning nonepistemic) probabilities corresponding to the possible outcomes of not-actually-performed measurements between specified pre- and post-selection measurement outcomes. It is emphasized that the ABL rule was formulated on the assumption that such intervening measurements are actually made and that it does not necessarily apply to counterfactual situations. The exact nature of the application of the ABL rule considered by Mohrhoff is made explicit and is shown to fall short of his stated counterfactual claim.

American Journal of Physics•Aug 1, 2001•5 citations

Time-Symmetrized Quantum Theory and Counterfactuals

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). L. Vaidman has responded to those objections by proposing a new kind of time-symmetrized counterfactual, which he has defined in two different ways. It is argued that both definitions are problematic, and that the ABL rule cannot in general be used counterfactually. In particular, it is shown that Vaidman's counterargument to the Sharp and Shanks inconsistency proof fails. However, it is possible to retain a meaningful counterfactual reading of the ABL rule in a limited special case. This special case, which falls under a class identified by Cohen and Hiley, is discussed from a time-symmetry standpoint.

Fortschritte der Physik•Nov 1, 1998•1 citation

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
The Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz rule assigns probabilities to quantum measurement results at time t on the condition that the system is prepared in a given way at t_1 < t and found in a given state at t_2 > t. The question whether the rule can also be applied counterfactually to the case where no measurement is performed at the intermediate time t has recently been the subject of controversy. I argue that the counterfactual meaning may be understood in terms of the true value of an observable at t. Such a value cannot be empirically determined for, by stipulation, the measurement that would yield it is not performed. Nevertheless, it may or may not be well-defined depending on one's proposed interpretation of quantum mechanics. Various examples are discussed illustrating what can be asserted at the intermediate time without running into contradictions.
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.
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.
Mohrhoff proposes using the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule for time-symmetric ``objective'' (meaning non-epistemic) probabilities corresponding to the possible outcomes of not-actually-performed measurements between specified pre- and post-selection measurement outcomes. It is emphasized that the ABL rule was formulated on the assumption that such intervening measurements are actually made and that it does not necessarily apply to counterfactual situations. The exact nature of the application of the ABL rule considered by Mohrhoff is made explicit and is shown to fall short of his stated counterfactual claim.
Mohrhoff proposes using the Aharonov–Bergmann–Lebowitz (ABL) rule for time-symmetric “objective” (meaning nonepistemic) probabilities corresponding to the possible outcomes of not-actually-performed measurements between specified pre- and post-selection measurement outcomes. It is emphasized that the ABL rule was formulated on the assumption that such intervening measurements are actually made and that it does not necessarily apply to counterfactual situations. The exact nature of the application of the ABL rule considered by Mohrhoff is made explicit and is shown to fall short of his stated counterfactual claim.
Recent authors have raised objections to the counterfactual interpretation of the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule of time symmetrized quantum theory (TSQT). L. Vaidman has responded to those objections by proposing a new kind of time-symmetrized counterfactual, which he has defined in two different ways. It is argued that both definitions are problematic, and that the ABL rule cannot in general be used counterfactually. In particular, it is shown that Vaidman's counterargument to the Sharp and Shanks inconsistency proof fails. However, it is possible to retain a meaningful counterfactual reading of the ABL rule in a limited special case. This special case, which falls under a class identified by Cohen and Hiley, is discussed from a time-symmetry standpoint.
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.