aqora

What is paradoxical about the "Three-box paradox"?

J. Finkelstein

This paper is a comment on quant-ph/0606067 by Ravon and Vaidman, in which they defend the position that the ``three-box paradox'' is indeed paradoxical.

arXiv:quant-ph/0606218Jun 26, 20064 citations

The Three-Box Paradox Revisited

Ravon, T, Vaidman, L

The classical three-box paradox of Kirkpatrick [J. Phys. A 36 4891 (2003)] is compared to the original quantum Three-Box paradox of Aharonov and Vaidman [J. Phys. A 24 2315 (1991)]. It is argued that the quantum Three-Box experiment is a "quantum paradox" in the sense that it is an example of a classical task which cannot be accomplished using classical means, but can be accomplished using quantum devices. It is shown that Kirkpatrick's card game is analogous to a different game with a particle in three boxes which does not contain paradoxical features.The classical three-box paradox of Kirkpatrick [J. Phys. A 36 4891 (2003)] is compared to the original quantum Three-Box paradox of Aharonov and Vaidman [J. Phys. A 24 2315 (1991)]. It is argued that the quantum Three-Box experiment is a "quantum paradox" in the sense that it is an example of a classical task which cannot be accomplished using classical means, but can be accomplished using quantum devices. It is shown that Kirkpatrick's card game is analogous to a different game with a particle in three boxes which does not contain paradoxical features.

Jun 8, 200630 citations

Classical three-box paradox

K A Kirkpatrick

A simple classical probabilistic system (a simple card game) classically exemplifies Aharonov and Vaidman's ‘three-box ‘paradox’’ (1991 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 24 2315 ), implying that the three-box example is neither quantal nor a paradox and leaving one with less difficulty to busy the interpreters of quantum mechanics. An ambiguity in the usual expression of the retrodiction formula is shown to have misled Albert et al (1985 Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 5) to a result not, in fact, ‘curious’; the discussion illustrates how to avoid this ambiguity.A simple classical probabilistic system (a simple card game) classically exemplifies Aharonov and Vaidman's ‘three-box ‘paradox’’ (1991 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 24 2315 ), implying that the three-box example is neither quantal nor a paradox and leaving one with less difficulty to busy the interpreters of quantum mechanics. An ambiguity in the usual expression of the retrodiction formula is shown to have misled Albert et al (1985 Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 5) to a result not, in fact, ‘curious’; the discussion illustrates how to avoid this ambiguity.

arXiv:quant-ph/0207124Journal of Physics A Mathematical and GeneralApr 14, 200338 citations

The three-box paradox revisited

Tamar Ravon, Lev Vaidman

The classical three-box paradox of Kirkpatrick ( 2003 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36 4891 ) is compared to the original quantum three-box paradox of Aharonov and Vaidman ( 1991 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 24 2315 ). It is argued that the quantum three-box experiment is a 'quantum paradox' in the sense that it is an example of a classical task which cannot be accomplished using classical means, but can be accomplished using quantum devices. It is shown that Kirkpatrick's card game is analogous to a different game with a particle in three boxes which does not contain paradoxical features.The classical three-box paradox of Kirkpatrick ( 2003 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36 4891 ) is compared to the original quantum three-box paradox of Aharonov and Vaidman ( 1991 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 24 2315 ). It is argued that the quantum three-box experiment is a 'quantum paradox' in the sense that it is an example of a classical task which cannot be accomplished using classical means, but can be accomplished using quantum devices. It is shown that Kirkpatrick's card game is analogous to a different game with a particle in three boxes which does not contain paradoxical features.

arXiv:quant-ph/0606067Journal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalFeb 28, 200746 citations

Reply to the comment of Y. Aharonov and L. Vaidman on “Time asymmetry in quantum mechanics: a retrodiction paradox”

Asher Peres

arXiv:quant-ph/9501005Physics Letters AJul 1, 19956 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:2310.05968Sep 23, 20230 citations

Reply to ‘The three-box paradox revisited’ by T Ravon and L Vaidman

Abstract

Related papers

Reply to ‘The three-box paradox revisited’ by T Ravon and L Vaidman

Abstract

Related papers