Are interaction-free measurements interaction free?

2000/06/16 by Lev Vaidman, L. Vaidman · 2 voices
Physics and Astronomy · #Art #Cold Atom Physics and Bose-Einstein Condensates #Computer science #Criticism #Epistemology #Free will #Literature #Meaning (existential) #Mechanical and Optical Resonators #Philosophy #Physics #Quantum Mechanics and Applications #Quantum mechanics #Term (time) #Theoretical physics #quant-ph

paper · pdf · doi:10.1134/1.1405211

11 pages, 3 eps figures. Contribution to the ICQO 2000, Raubichi, Belarus

arxiv created 2000/06/16 · arxiv published 2000/06/16 · arxiv updated 2000/06/16 · openalex publication_date 2001/09/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/05

Abstract

In 1993, Elitzur and Vaidman introduced the concept of interaction-free measurements, which allowed finding objects without “touching” them. In the proposed method, since the objects were not touched, even by photons, thus, the interaction-free measurements can be called “seeing in the dark.” Since then, several experiments have been successfully performed and various modifications were suggested. Recently, however, the validity of the term “interaction-free” has been questioned. The criticism of the name is briefly reviewed and the meaning of the interaction-free measurements is clarified.

Citations

• High Efficiency Interaction-free Measurement from Continuous Wave Multi-beam Interference
• Quantum mechanics, local realistic theories, and Lorentz-invariant realistic theories
• Experiment on interaction-free measurement in neutron interferometry
• Interaction-Free Measurement
• Quantum mechanical interaction-free measurements
• “Interaction-free” imaging
• High-efficiency quantum interrogation measurements via the quantum Zeno effect

Discussions

• I was reading an article by Lev Vaidman, who helped create the quantum bomb tester thought experiment which inspired much work on quantum interaction-free measurements (IFMs), that was analyzing the e [stackexchange, 2 points]
• The setup considered in the original paper is simple enough such that the questions asked in the post are readily answered by reviewing it. The first part (a) of the image below (taken from the same p [stackexchange, 1 points]