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
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
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.