[Paper Review] Counterexample to "Sufficient Conditions for uniqueness of the Weak Value" by J. Dressel and A. N. Jordan, arXiv:1106.1871v1

Stephen Parrott|arXiv (Cornell University)|May 20, 2011

Quantum Mechanics and Applications10 references3 citations

TL;DR

This paper presents a counterexample to a claim in Dressel and Jordan's (2011) paper 'Sufficient conditions for uniqueness of the Weak Value,' demonstrating that their proposed sufficient conditions for the uniqueness of the weak value in the minimal disturbance limit do not hold. The counterexample shows that even under the stronger hypotheses of the follow-up paper, the weak value does not uniquely emerge from the generalized conditioned average, challenging the foundational claim of uniqueness in weak measurement theory.

ABSTRACT

The abstract of "Contextual Values of Observables in Quantum Measurements" by J. Dressel, S. Agarwal, and A. N. Jordan [Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 240401 (2010)] (called DAJ below), states: "We introduce contextual values as a generalization of the eigenvalues of an observable that takes into account both the system observable and a general measurement procedure. This technique leads to a natural definition of a general conditioned average that converges uniquely to the quantum weak value in the minimal disturbance limit." A counterexample to the claim of the last sentence was presented in Version 1. Subsequently Dressel and Jordan placed in the arXiv the paper of the title (called DJ below) which attempts to prove the claim of DAJ quoted above under stronger hypotheses than given in DAJ, hypotheses which the counterexample does not satisfy. The present work (Version 6) presents a new counterexample to this revised claim of DJ. A brief introduction to "contextual values" is included. Also included is a critical analysis of DJ.

Motivation & Objective

• To challenge the claim in Dressel and Jordan (2011) that a generalized conditioned average converges uniquely to the weak value under their proposed sufficient conditions.
• To demonstrate that the minimal disturbance limit does not guarantee uniqueness of the weak value, even under stronger hypotheses.
• To clarify the ambiguity in the original DAJ paper regarding the role of the pseudo-inverse in defining contextual values.
• To expose inconsistencies in the reasoning and editorial practices of the physics community regarding foundational claims in weak measurement.
• To prevent future research from being misled by an incorrect convergence claim in weak value theory.

Proposed method

• Constructs a 3×3 matrix counterexample with specific measurement operators and system observables to violate the uniqueness claim.
• Uses the Wiseman and Milburn definition of 'minimally disturbing' measurements (positive measurement operators) as the basis for the counterexample.
• Analyzes the generalized conditioned average (equation 6 in DJ) and shows it does not converge uniquely to the weak value under the proposed conditions.
• Identifies and critiques the flawed assumption in DJ that the pseudo-inverse solution is implicitly required for convergence.
• Revises and corrects a typo in the original counterexample (3,3) matrix entry, confirming the counterexample remains valid.
• Engages in critical analysis of DJ's reinterpretation of its own hypotheses, showing the counterexample still invalidates the claim.

Experimental results

Research questions

• RQ1 Does the generalized conditioned average defined by Dressel and Jordan uniquely converge to the weak value under their proposed sufficient conditions in the minimal disturbance limit?
• RQ2 Is the pseudo-inverse prescription for contextual values a necessary assumption in the minimal disturbance limit, as implied by the authors?
• RQ3 Can a counterexample be constructed that satisfies the stronger hypotheses of DJ but still violates the uniqueness claim of weak value convergence?
• RQ4 Why did the authors of DJ fail to acknowledge or respond to prior counterexamples and correspondence?
• RQ5 Does the minimal disturbance limit, as defined by Wiseman and Milburn, truly guarantee uniqueness of the weak value in the context of generalized measurements?

Key findings

• A valid counterexample exists to the claim in Dressel and Jordan's 2011 paper that the generalized conditioned average uniquely converges to the weak value under their sufficient conditions.
• The counterexample remains valid even after correction of a typo in the (3,3) matrix entry, confirming the robustness of the result.
• The minimal disturbance limit defined by Wiseman and Milburn does not ensure uniqueness of the weak value, contradicting the claim in the original DAJ paper.
• The authors of DJ did not acknowledge prior correspondence or counterexamples, raising concerns about editorial and scientific accountability.
• The pseudo-inverse solution is not a necessary component of the minimal disturbance limit, and its absence invalidates the uniqueness argument in DJ.
• The analysis reveals that the claim of uniqueness in weak value theory is not generally valid, even under stronger hypotheses, undermining a central assumption in the field.