- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review A

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Angular momentum flow without anything carrying it

Yakir Aharonov1,2,3, Daniel Collins4, and Sandu Popescu4

PDF

Phys. Rev. A 110, L030201 – Published 5 September, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.110.L030201

Abstract

Transfer of conserved quantities between two remote regions is generally assumed to be a rather trivial process: a flux of particles carrying the conserved quantities propagates from one region to another. However, we demonstrate a flow of angular momentum from one region to another across a region of space in which there is a vanishingly small probability of any particles (or fields) being present. This shows that the usual view of how conservation laws work needs to be revisited.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (40)

  1. Y. Aharonov, E. Cohen, and S. Popescu, A dynamical quantum Cheshire Cat effect and implications for counterfactual communication, Nat. Commun. 12, 4770 (2021).
  2. Y. Aharonov, S. Popescu, D. Rohrlich, and P. Skrzypczyk, Quantum Cheshire Cats, New J. Phys. 15, 113015 (2013).
  3. T. Denkmayr, H. Geppert, S. Sponar, H. Lemmel, A. Matzkin, J. Tollaksen, and Y. Hasegawa, Observation of a quantum Cheshire Cat in a matter-wave interferometer experiment, Nat. Commun. 5, 4492 (2014).
  4. J. M. Ashby, P. D. Schwarz, and M. Schlosshauer, Observation of the quantum paradox of separation of a single photon from one of its properties, Phys. Rev. A 94, 012102 (2016).
  5. Y. Kim, D.-G. Im, Y.-S. Kim, S.-W. Han, S. Moon, Y.-H. Kim, and Y.-W. Cho, Observing the quantum Cheshire Cat effect with noninvasive weak measurement, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 13 (2021).
  6. J.-K. Li, K. Sun, Y. Wang, Z.-Y. Hao, Z.-H. Liu, J. Zhou, X.-Y. Fan, J.-L. Chen, J.-S. Xu, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Experimental demonstration of separating the wave-particle duality of a single photon with the quantum Cheshire Cat, Light: Sci. Appl. 12, 18 (2023).
  7. Y. Guryanova, N. Brunner, and S. Popescu, The complete quantum Cheshire Cat, arXiv:1203.4215.
  8. I. Ibnouhsein and A. Grinbaum, Twin quantum Cheshire photons, arXiv:1202.4894.
  9. A. D. Lorenzo, Hunting for the quantum Cheshire Cat, arXiv:1205.3755.
  10. A. K. Pan, Disembodiment of arbitrary number of properties in quantum Cheshire Cat experiment, Eur. Phys. J. D 74, 151 (2020).
  11. D. Das and A. K. Pati, Teleporting grin of a quantum Chesire Cat without cat, arXiv:1903.04152.
  12. D. Das and A. K. Pati, Can two quantum Cheshire Cats exchange grins? New J. Phys. 22, 063032 (2020).
  13. Z.-H. Liu, W.-W. Pan, X.-Y. Xu, M. Yang, J. Zhou, Z.-Y. Luo, K. Sun, J.-L. Chen, J.-S. Xu, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Experimental exchange of grins between quantum Cheshire Cats, Nat. Commun. 11, 3006 (2020).
  14. A. Elitzur and L. Vaidman, Quantum-mechanical interaction-free measurements, Found. Phys. 23, 987 (1993).
  15. P. Kwiat, H. Weinfurter, T. Herzog, A. Zeilinger, and M. A. Kasevich, Interaction-free measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4763 (1995).
  16. L. Hardy, Quantum mechanics, local realistic theories, and lorentz-invariant realistic theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2981 (1992).
  17. R. Jozsa, Quantum effects in algorithms, in Quantum Computing and Quantum Communications, edited by C. Williams, Lecture Notes In Computer Science Vol. 1509, (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1999), pp. 103–112.
  18. G. Mitchison and R. Jozsa, Counterfactual computation, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 457, 1175 (2001).
  19. O. Hosten, M. Rakher, J. Barreiro, N. Peters, and P. Kwiat, Counterfactual quantum computation through quantum interrogation, Nature (London) 439, 949 (2006).
  20. L. Vaidman, Impossibility of the counterfactual computation for all possible outcomes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 160403 (2007).
  21. G. Mitchison and R. Jozsa, The limits of counterfactual computation, arXiv:quant-ph/0606092.
  22. T.-G. Noh, Counterfactual quantum cryptography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 230501 (2009).
  23. G.-C. Guo and B.-S. Shi, Quantum cryptography based on interaction-free measurement, Phys. Lett. A 256, 109 (1999).
  24. H. Salih, Z.-H. Li, M. Al-Amri, and M. S. Zubairy, Protocol for direct counterfactual quantum communication, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 170502 (2013).
  25. H. Salih, Protocol for counterfactually transporting an unknown qubit, Front. Phys. 3, 94 (2016).
  26. R. B. Griffiths, Particle path through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer, Phys. Rev. A 94, 032115 (2016).
  27. L. Vaidman, Comment on “Particle path through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer,” Phys. Rev. A 95, 066101 (2017).
  28. H. Salih, Comment on “Particle path through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer,” Phys. Rev. A 97, 026101 (2018).
  29. R. B. Griffiths, Reply to “Comment on ‘Particle path through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer’, ” Phys. Rev. A 95, 066102 (2017).
  30. R. B. Griffiths, Reply to “Comment on ‘Particle path through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer,’ ” Phys. Rev. A 97, 026102 (2018).
  31. L. Vaidman, Counterfactuality of ‘counterfactual’ communication, J. Phys. A 48, 465303 (2015).
  32. D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, A. N. O. Gottfries, and C. H. W. Barnes, Evaluation of counterfactuality in counterfactual communication protocols, Phys. Rev. A 96, 062316 (2017).
  33. L. Vaidman, Comment on “Protocol for direct counterfactual quantum communication,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 208901 (2014).
  34. H. Salih, Z. H. Li, M. Al-Amri, and M. S. Zubairy, Reply to “Comment on ‘Protocol for direct counterfactual quantum communication', ” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 208902 (2014).
  35. A. Danan, D. Farfurnik, S. Bar-Ad, and L. Vaidman, Asking photons where they have been, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 240402 (2013).
  36. L. Vaidman, Past of a quantum particle, Phys. Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013).
  37. Y. Aharonov and L. Vaidman, Modification of counterfactual communication protocols that eliminates weak particle traces, Phys. Rev. A 99, 010103(R) (2019).
  38. Y. Aharonov and D. Rohrlich, What is nonlocal in counterfactual quantum communication? Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 260401 (2020).
  39. L. Vaidman, Analysis of counterfactuality of counterfactual communication protocols, Phys. Rev. A 99, 052127 (2019).
  40. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevA.110.L030201 for 1. The calculation of the Angular Momentum Flux and 2. The calculation of the Linear Momentum Transfer.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 110, L030201– Published 5 September, 2024
  • Received 26 October 2023
  • Accepted 1 August 2024
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation