Advertisement

Weak values are quantum: you can bet on it

  • Alessandro RomitoEmail author
  • Andrew N. Jordan
  • Yakir Aharonov
  • Yuval Gefen
Regular Paper

Abstract

The outcome of a weak quantum measurement conditioned to a subsequent post-selection (a weak value protocol) can assume peculiar values. These results cannot be explained in terms of conditional probabilistic outcomes of projective measurements. However, a classical model has been recently put forward that can reproduce peculiar expectation values, reminiscent of weak values. This led the authors of that work to claim that weak values have an entirely classical explanation. Here we discuss what is quantum about weak values with the help of a simple model based on basic quantum mechanics. We first demonstrate how a classical theory can indeed give rise to non-trivial conditional values, and explain what features of weak values are genuinely quantum. We finally use our model to outline some main issues under current research.

Keywords

Quantum measurement Weak values Quantum estimation Quantum back-action 

References

  1. 1.
    Aharonov, Y., Albert, D., Vaidmann, L.: How the result of a measurement of a component of the spin of a spin-1/2 particle can turn out to be 100. Phys Rev. Lett. 60, 1351 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ferrie, C., Combes, J.: How the result of a single coin toss can turn out to be 100 heads. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 120404 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kirkpatrick, K.: Classical three-box ‘paradox’. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36, 4891900 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dressel, J., Jordan, A.N.: Sufficient conditions for uniqueness of the weak value. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45, 015304 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ravon, T., Vaidman, L.: The three-box paradox revisited. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40, 2873 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dressel, J., Agarwal, A., Jordan, A.: Contextual values of observables in quantum measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 240401 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dressel, J.: Weak values as interference phenomena. Phys. Rev. A 91, 032116 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pusey, M.F.: Anomalous weak values are proofs of contextuality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 200401 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoffmann, H., Iinuma, M., Shikano, Y.: Why the “classical” explanation of weak values by Ferrie and Combes does not work: a comment on. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 120404 (2014). arXiv:1410.7126
  10. 10.
    Ipsen, A.: Disturbance in weak measurements and the difference between quantum and classical weak values. Phys. Rev. A 91, 062120 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Steinberg, A.M.: How Much Time Does a Tunneling Particle Spend in the Barrier Region? Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2405 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Choi, Y., Jordan, A.N.: Operational approach to indirectly measuring the tunneling time. Phys. Rev. A 88, 052128 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Romito, A., Gefen, Y.: Weak measurement of cotunneling time. Phys. Rev. B 90, 085417 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman University 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Romito
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrew N. Jordan
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yakir Aharonov
    • 3
    • 4
  • Yuval Gefen
    • 5
  1. 1.Dahlem Center for Complex Quantum Systems and Fachbereich PhysikFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Physics and Astronomy & Rochester Theory CenterUniversity of RochesterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Institute for Quantum StudiesChapman UniversityOrangeUSA
  4. 4.School of Physics and AstronomyTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  5. 5.Department of Condensed Matter PhysicsWeizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations