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/0504122 · Physical Review A

Comment on “Linear optics implementation of weak values in Hardy’s paradox”

Jeff S. Lundeen, Kevin J. Resch, Aephraim M. Steinberg

Published Jul 11, 2005• 8 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

A recent experimental proposal [S.E. Ahnert and M.C. Payne, Phys. Rev. A 70, 042102 (2004)] outlines a method to measure the weak value predictions of Aharonov in Hardy's paradox. This proposal contains flaws in the state preparation method and the procedure for carrying out the requisite weak measurements. We identify previously published solutions to some of the flaws.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.72.016101

Related papers

Reply to “Comment on ‘Linear optics implementation of weak values in Hardy’s paradox’ ”

Sebastian E. Ahnert, Mike C. Payne

The comment by Lundeen et al. contains two criticisms of our proposal. While we agree that the state-preparation procedure could be replaced by a simpler setup as proposed by the authors of the comment, we do not agree with the authors on their second, and more important point regarding two-particle weak measurements. We believe this to be the result of a misunderstanding of our original paper [S. E. Ahnert and M. C. Payne, Phys. Rev. A 70, 042102 (2004)].

arXiv:quant-ph/0505027•Physical Review A•Jul 11, 2005•5 citations

Linear optics implementation of weak values in Hardy’s paradox

Sebastian E. Ahnert, Mike C. Payne

We propose an experimental setup for the implementation of weak measurements in the context of the gedanken experiment known as Hardy's paradox. As Aharonov et al. [Y. Aharonov, A. Botero, S. Popescu, B. Reznik, and J. Tollaksen, Phys. Lett. A301, 130 (2002)] showed, these weak values form a language with which the paradox can be resolved. Our analysis shows that this language is indeed consistent and experimentally testable. It also reveals exactly how a combination of weak values can give rise to an apparently paradoxical result.

arXiv:quant-ph/0408153•Physical Review A•Oct 20, 2004•23 citations

Linear optics implementation of weak values in Hardy's paradox (4 pages)

Mike C. Payne, Sebastian E. Ahnert

Physical Review A•Jan 1, 2004•0 citations

Experimental weak measurements in Hardy's Paradox

Jeff S. Lundeen, Aephraim M. Steinberg

Hardy's Paradox brings to light some of the striking difficulties in the interpretation of indirect quantum measurements. We weakly measure the location of the particles in Hardy's Paradox. The results provide a self-consistent resolution.

Quantum Electronics and Laser Science Conference•Dec 10, 2005•0 citations

Revisiting Hardy's paradox: counterfactual statements, real measurements, entanglement and weak values

Yakir Aharonov, Alonso Botero, Sandu Popescu +2 more

arXiv:quant-ph/0104062•Physics Letters A•Aug 1, 2002•283 citations

What Weak Measurements and Weak Values Really Mean: Reply to Kastner

Eliahu Cohen

Despite their important applications in metrology and in spite of numerous experimental demonstrations, weak measurements are still confusing for part of the community. This sometimes leads to unjustified criticism. Recent papers have experimentally clarified the meaning and practical significance of weak measurements, yet in Kastner (Found Phys 47:697-707, 2017), Kastner seems to take us many years backwards in the the debate, casting doubt on the very term "weak value" and the meaning of weak measurements. Kastner appears to ignore both the basics and frontiers of weak measurements and misinterprets the weak measurement process and its outcomes. In addition, she accuses the authors of Aharonov et al. (Ann Phys 355:258-268, 2015) in statements completely opposite to the ones they have actually made. There are many points of disagreement between Kastner and us, but in this short reply I will leave aside the ontology (which is indeed interpretational and far more complex than that described by Kastner) and focus mainly on the injustice in her criticism. I shall add some general comments regarding the broader theory of weak measurements and the two-state-vector formalism, as well as supporting experimental results. Finally, I will point out some recent promising results, which can be proven by (strong) projective measurements, without the need of employing weak measurements.

arXiv:1704.00958•Foundations of Physics•Jun 16, 2017•12 citations
A recent experimental proposal [S.E. Ahnert and M.C. Payne, Phys. Rev. A 70, 042102 (2004)] outlines a method to measure the weak value predictions of Aharonov in Hardy's paradox. This proposal contains flaws in the state preparation method and the procedure for carrying out the requisite weak measurements. We identify previously published solutions to some of the flaws.
We propose an experimental setup for the implementation of weak measurements in the context of the gedanken experiment known as Hardy's paradox. As Aharonov et al. [Y. Aharonov, A. Botero, S. Popescu, B. Reznik, and J. Tollaksen, Phys. Lett. A301, 130 (2002)] showed, these weak values form a language with which the paradox can be resolved. Our analysis shows that this language is indeed consistent and experimentally testable. It also reveals exactly how a combination of weak values can give rise to an apparently paradoxical result.
Despite their important applications in metrology and in spite of numerous experimental demonstrations, weak measurements are still confusing for part of the community. This sometimes leads to unjustified criticism. Recent papers have experimentally clarified the meaning and practical significance of weak measurements, yet in Kastner (Found Phys 47:697-707, 2017), Kastner seems to take us many years backwards in the the debate, casting doubt on the very term "weak value" and the meaning of weak measurements. Kastner appears to ignore both the basics and frontiers of weak measurements and misinterprets the weak measurement process and its outcomes. In addition, she accuses the authors of Aharonov et al. (Ann Phys 355:258-268, 2015) in statements completely opposite to the ones they have actually made. There are many points of disagreement between Kastner and us, but in this short reply I will leave aside the ontology (which is indeed interpretational and far more complex than that described by Kastner) and focus mainly on the injustice in her criticism. I shall add some general comments regarding the broader theory of weak measurements and the two-state-vector formalism, as well as supporting experimental results. Finally, I will point out some recent promising results, which can be proven by (strong) projective measurements, without the need of employing weak measurements.