Quick Navigation

Topics

Open Quantum Systems Decoherence

Three approaches for analyzing the counterfactuality of counterfactual protocols

arXiv
Authors: Alon Wander, Eliahu Cohen, Lev Vaidman

Year

2021

Paper ID

63325

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

90

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Counterfactual communication protocols are analysed using three approaches: a classical argument, the weak trace criterion, and the Fisher information criterion. It is argued that the classical analysis leads to contradiction and should therefore be abandoned. The weak trace and Fisher information criteria are shown to agree about the degree of counterfactuality of communication protocols involving postselection. It is argued that postselection is a necessary ingredient of counterfactual communication protocols. Coherent interaction experiments, as well as a recently introduced modification of counterfactual communication setups which eliminates the weak trace, are discussed.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Open Quantum Systems & Decoherence research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2021 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Counterfactual communication protocols are analysed using three approaches: a classical argument, the weak trace criterion, and the Fisher information criterion.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #63325 #69040 Collective Emission in LH2 Asse... #69031 Amplitude-dependent quantum hyd... #69030 Non-Hermitian Crystalline Braid... #69029 Higher-order Symmetric Quantum ...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.