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.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
