Special Issue on Quantum Theory: From Foundations to Technologies; Guest Editors: B. Coecke and A. KhrennikovNo Access

“Counterfactual” quantum protocols

L. Vaidman

Raymond and Beverly Sackler School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219749916400128Cited by:8 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

The counterfactuality of recently proposed protocols is analyzed. A definition of “counterfactuality” is offered and it is argued that an interaction-free measurement (IFM) of the presence of an opaque object can be named “counterfactual”, while proposed “counterfactual” measurements of the absence of such objects are not counterfactual. The quantum key distribution protocols which rely only on measurements of the presence of the object are counterfactual, but quantum direct communication protocols are not. Therefore, the name “counterfactual” is not appropriate for recent “counterfactual” protocols which transfer quantum states by quantum direct communication.

Keywords:

References

1. C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crepeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 1895. Web of Science, Google Scholar
2. H. Salih, Front. Phys. 3 (2016) 94, arXiv:1404.2200. Web of Science, Google Scholar
3. Z. H. Li, M. Al-Amri and M. S. Zubairy, Phys. Rev. A 92 (2015) 052315. Web of Science, Google Scholar
4. L. Vaidman, J. Phys. 48 (2015) 465303. Google Scholar
5. L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 160403. Web of Science, Google Scholar
6. L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 208901. Web of Science, Google Scholar
7. R. Penrose, Shadows of the Mind (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994). Google Scholar
8. A. C. Elitzur and L. Vaidman, Found. Phys. 23 (1993) 987. Web of Science, Google Scholar
9. P. Kwiat, H. Weinfurter, T. Herzog, A. Zeilinger and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 4763. Web of Science, Google Scholar
10. O. Hosten, M. T. Rakher, J. T. Barreiro, N. A. Peters and P. G. Kwiat, Nature 439 (2006) 949. Web of Science, Google Scholar
11. H. Salih, Z. H. Li, M. Al-Amri and M. S. Zubairy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 170502. Web of Science, Google Scholar
12. Q. Guo, L. Y. Cheng, L. Chen, H. F. Wang and S. Zhang, Opt. Express 22 (2014) 8970. Google Scholar
13. L. Vaidman, arXiv:1511.06615. Google Scholar
14. A. Danan, D. Farfurnik, S. Bar-Ad and L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 240402. Web of Science, Google Scholar
15. Y. Aharonov and L. Vaidman, J. Phys. A 24 (1991) 2315. Google Scholar
16. L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. A 87 (2013) 052104. Web of Science, Google Scholar
17. Y. Aharonov and L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. A 41 (1990) 11. Web of Science, Google Scholar
18. T. G. Noh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 230501. Web of Science, Google Scholar
19. F. Kong, C. Ju, P. Huang, P. Wang, X. Kong, F. Shi, L. Jiang and J. Du, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 080501. Web of Science, Google Scholar
20. G. Mitchison and R. Jozsa, Proc. R. Soc. A 457 (2001) 1175. Google Scholar
21. L. Vaidman, Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. N. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/. Google Scholar