arXiv:quant-ph/0610174 · Physical Review Letters

Impossibility of the Counterfactual Computation for All Possible Outcomes

Lev Vaidman A

Published Apr 18, 2007• 58 citations

Abstract

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.

DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.98.160403

Related papers

Where is the Quantum Particle between two Position Measurements?

Lev Vaidman A

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.

International Conference on Quantum InformationJan 1, 20080 citations

The limits of counterfactual computation

Graeme Mitchison, Richard Jozsa

We show that the protocol recently proposed by Hosten et al. does not allow all possible results of a computation to be obtained counterfactually, as was claimed. It only gives a counterfactual outcome for one of the computer outputs. However, we confirm the observation that the protocol gives some protection against decoherence. In some situations, though, it may be more effective simply to run the computer several times.

arXiv:quant-ph/0606092Jun 10, 200610 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/0612159Dec 19, 20067 citations

Coins and counterfactuals

Robert B. Griffiths

Quantum paradoxes The next few chapters are devoted to resolving a number of quantum paradoxes in the sense of giving a reasonable explanation of a seemingly paradoxical result in terms of the principles of quantum theory discussed earlier in this book. None of these paradoxes indicates a defect in quantum theory. Instead, when they have been properly understood, they show us that the quantum world is rather different from the world of our everyday experience and of classical physics, in a way somewhat analogous to that in which relativity theory has shown us that the laws appropriate for describing the behavior of objects moving at high speed differ in significant ways from those of pre-relativistic physics. An inadequate theory of quantum measurements is at the root of several quantum paradoxes. In particular, the notion that wave function collapse is a physical effect produced by a measurement, rather than a method of calculation, see Sec. 18.2, has given rise to a certain amount of confusion. Smuggling rules for classical reasoning into the quantum domain where they do not belong and where they give rise to logical inconsistencies is another common source of confusion. In particular, many paradoxes involve mixing the results from incompatible quantum frameworks. Certain quantum paradoxes have given rise to the idea that the quantum world is permeated by mysterious influences that propagate faster than the speed of light, in conflict with the theory of relativity. They are mysterious in that they cannot be used to transmit signals, which means that they are, at least in any direct sense, experimentally unobservable.

Cambridge University Press eBooksNov 29, 20010 citations

Counterfactuality of “counterfactual” communication

Lev Vaidman A

The counterfactuality of recently proposed protocols for direct quantum communication is analyzed. It is argued that the protocols can be counterfactual only for one value of transmitted bit. The protocols achieve reduced probability of detection of the particle in the transmission channel by increasing the number of paths in the channel, but not below the probability of detecting of a particle actually passing through such multi-path channel.

Latin America Optics and Photonics ConferenceJan 1, 20140 citations

Counterfactual computation revisited

Onur Hosten, Matthew T. Rakher, Julio T. Barreiro +2 more

Mitchison and Jozsa recently suggested that the "chained-Zeno" counterfactual computation protocol recently proposed by Hosten et al. is counterfactual for only one output of the computer. This claim was based on the existing abstract algebraic definition of counterfactual computation, and indeed according to this definition, their argument is correct. However, a more general definition (physically adequate) for counterfactual computation is implicitly assumed by Hosten et. al. Here we explain in detail why the protocol is counterfactual and how the "history tracking" method of the existing description inadequately represents the physics underlying the protocol. Consequently, we propose a modified definition of counterfactual computation. Finally, we comment on one of the most interesting aspects of the error-correcting protocol.

arXiv:quant-ph/0607101Jul 14, 20065 citations