Weak measurement with post selection

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of weak measurements with post-selection, particularly focusing on its validity and implications for computational performance. Participants explore theoretical and experimental aspects, as well as differing opinions on the interpretation of weak measurements.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express curiosity about the reality of weak measurements, questioning whether there is a consensus on their validity.
  • One participant asserts that weak measurements are real and provides a reference to support this claim.
  • Another participant acknowledges the existence of counterclaims that challenge the certainty of weak measurements, indicating a lack of consensus on interpretations.
  • A participant emphasizes that while the mathematical definition of weak measurements is well-established, the interpretation remains contentious.
  • Experimental evidence for weak measurements is mentioned, suggesting that they are not merely theoretical constructs.
  • Several references to relevant papers are shared to support various viewpoints in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation and implications of weak measurements, with multiple competing views and ongoing debate about their validity and significance.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on specific interpretations of mathematical definitions, and there is an acknowledgment of differing opinions on the implications of weak measurements in the context of computational performance.

cosmik debris
Messages
734
Reaction score
172
I'm reading stuff about weak measurements with post selection and its likely ability to improve computational performance. What I'm curious about is whether weak measurement is a real thing or not. There are many papers showing how to do the measurements and the theory behind them, and then there are the nay-sayers (Lubos amongst them). I am wondering what are the consensus views on this, if there is a consensus?

Thanks for your views.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Bill, thanks for your "vote". I've read a number of papers on this and it all seems perfectly reasonable to me, on the other hand I've read many counter claims and they seem pretty reasonable too. This paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0035v3.pdf by Stephen Parrot was one that made me doubt the certainty of others claims. I am not qualified enough to make this judgment so I though I would appeal to the community for their opinions.

Cheers
 
Had a quick scan of the paper - it didn't seem to doubt they exist - you can't really doubt that because its well defined mathematically - its challenging how you interpret it.

I am not into semantics in physics - the math tells the story - call it what you like - interpret it anyway you like the math is the same.

Its not simply theoretical - its experimentally established eg:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...surements-made-on-optical-polarization-states

Thanks
Bio
 
Thanks, I'll take a look at some of these and get back with questions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
8K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
143
Views
12K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K