Can a future choice affect a past measurement's outcome?

DOI10.1016/J.AOP.2015.02.020zbMATH Open1343.81014OpenAlexW3101893657WikidataQ62568713 ScholiaQ62568713MaRDI QIDQ307197FDOQ307197

Authors Y. Aharonov, Eliahu Cohen, Avshalom C. Elitzur

Publication date 1 September 2016

Published in Annals of Physics (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6224

zbMATH Keywords

weak measurementquantum nonlocalitytwo-state-vector-formalism

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

General and philosophical questions in quantum theory (81P05) Quantum measurement theory, state operations, state preparations (81P15)

Abstract: An EPR experiment is studied where each particle within the entangled pair undergoes a few weak measurements (WMs) along some pre-set spin orientations, with the outcomes individually recorded. Then the particle undergoes one strong measurement along an orientation chosen at the last moment. Bell-inequality violation is expected between the two final measurements within each EPR pair. At the same time, statistical agreement is expected between these strong measurements and the earlier weak ones performed on that pair. A contradiction seemingly ensues: (i) Bell's theorem forbids spin values to exist prior to the choice of the orientation measured; (ii) A weak measurement is not supposed to determine the outcome of a successive strong one; and indeed (iii) Almost no disentanglement is inflicted by the WMs; and yet (iv) The outcomes of weak measurements statistically agree with those of the strong ones, suggesting the existence of pre-determined values, in contradiction with (i). Although the conflict can be solved by mere mitigation of the above restrictions, the most reasonable resolution seems to be that of the Two-State-Vector Formalism (TSVF), namely, that the choice of the experimenter has been encrypted within the weak measurement's outcomes, even before the experimenters themselves know what their choice will be.

Recommendations

• Is the past determined?
• Nonlocal character of quantum theory?
• Taming the delayed choice quantum eraser
• Past of a particle in an entangled state
• Do weak values capture the complete truth about the past of a quantum particle?

Cites work

• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 2102224 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3208040 (Why is no real title available?)
• Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?
• Introduction to weak measurements and weak values
• Measurement and collapse within the two-state vector formalism
• Quantum Paradoxes
• Quantum computation and quantum information. 10th anniversary edition
• Time-symmetric quantum mechanics

Cited in

(17)

• The phase space formulation of time-symmetric quantum mechanics
• The post-determined block universe
• Past of a particle in an entangled state
• \(\Psi\)-epistemic quantum cosmology?
• The universe remembers no wavefunction collapse
• Extraction of product and higher moment weak values: applications in quantum state reconstruction and entanglement detection
• What weak measurements and weak values really mean: reply to Kastner
• An intricate quantum statistical effect and the foundation of quantum mechanics
• Introduction to weak measurements and weak values
• Is the past determined?
• A bi-directional big bang/crunch universe within a two-state-vector quantum mechanics?
• Quantum measurement and initial conditions
• Analysis of single-particle nonlocality through the prism of weak measurements
• Completing the physical representation of quantum algorithms provides a quantitative explanation of their computational speedup
• Interaction-free effects between distant atoms
• Can the two-time interpretation of quantum mechanics solve the measurement problem?
• A relational time-symmetric framework for analyzing the quantum computational speedup

This page was built for publication: Can a future choice affect a past measurement's outcome?

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q307197)