penrose @xcite coined the term `` counterfactuals '' for describing quantum interaction - free measurements ( ifm ) @xcite .    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ counterfactuals are things that might have happened , although they did not in fact happen . _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    he argued that in the ifm , an object is found because it might have absorbed a photon , although actually it did not .
the idea of the ifm has been applied to `` counterfactual computation '' @xcite , a setup in which one particular outcome of a computation becomes known in spite of the fact that the computer did not run the algorithm .
noh @xcite created counterfactual cryptography , a method for secret key distribution using events in which the particle was not present in the transmission channel .
noh used a random choice of orthogonal input states ( like in @xcite ) in contrast with the non - orthogonal states of bb84 cryptographic protocol @xcite .
it was argued @xcite , that a modification of the counterfactual computation proposed above , which includes quantum zeno effect , can achieve counterfactuality for _ all _ outcomes of the computation .
recently , this idea has been used for performing `` counterfactual communication '' @xcite , which supposedly allowed to send information from bob to alice without transferring any particle between them .
the transmission happens in a counterfactual way : the mere possibility of transmitting the particle allows transmitting the value of the bit .
i find all these results very paradoxical since they contradict physical intuition of causality : information is usually transmitted continuously in space .
i argued @xcite that to resolve the paradoxical feature of the ifm one has to adopt the many - worlds interpretation ( mwi ) of quantum mechanics @xcite , in which the particle touches the object in a parallel world restoring causality at least within the complete physical universe which includes all the worlds .
however , i believe that a protocol which can transmit both values of a bit without any particle present in the transmission channel is impossible , irrespectively of the interpretation of quantum mechanics one adopts .
i have expressed this opinion already @xcite , but more protocols were suggested @xcite and the controversy remains open @xcite .
the clarification of these conceptual issues is particularly important due to the recent increasing interest in the applications of counterfactual protocols @xcite . here
i discuss this issue in more detail and try to resolve the controversy .
the plan of the paper is as follows . in section
ii i introduce the general setup of quantum communication protocols . in sections
iii and iv i describe two recent protocols which are claimed to be counterfactual . in section v i analyze various possible definitions of counterfactuality and define my preferred criterion which is based on the magnitude of the trace left in the transmission channel . in section vi i calculate the trace left by a single particle present in the channel , i.e. the trace of a non - counterfactual communication protocol . in sections
vii - ix i show that the trace in the protocols claimed to be `` counterfactual '' is not less than the trace in a non - counterfactual protocol . in section
x i analyze the security of `` counterfactual '' protocols against an eavesdropper .
section xi is devoted to counterfactuality in the framework of the bohmian interpretation .
i summarize the results in section xii .
there is a surprisingly low bound on the number of bits which can be sent using 1 qubit : the holevo bound of 1 , when the qubit is not entangled @xcite , and 2 , when entanglement is allowed @xcite .
this is when we transmit one particle with an internal structure of a qubit such as a polarization state of a photon . in this paper
i analyze protocols in which the particle does not have an internal structure : the information is encoded in the presence or absence of the particle .
let alice and bob be on the two separate sides of a region , see fig .  1 .
bob has a mirror on his side which causes particles sent by alice to be bounced back to her . for a bit value of 1
, bob places a shutter which absorbs alice s particles , while for 0 , the shutter is absent .
quantum mechanics , via ifm , allows , at least sometimes , to transmit the bit 1 in a counterfactual manner , i.e. , without having any particle in the transmission channel , see fig .  2 .
alice arranges a mach - zehnder interferometer ( mzi ) tuned to destructive interference in one of the ports , say @xmath0 , such that one arm of the interferometer crosses the place where bob s shutter might be .
detection of the particle in the dark port of the interferometer tells her with certainty that the bit is equal to 1 ( the shutter is present ) .
never clicks if the paths are free .
alice knows that bit 1 has been chosen ( bob blocked the path ) when she observes the click in @xmath0 . ,
width=272 ]    the simplest argument that in this case the particle was not present in the transmission channel is : `` if the particle were in the transmission channel , it could not be detected by alice '' . in my view
, this argument can not be used for claims about quantum particles @xcite .
i , instead , suggest to rely on the fact that the particle does not leave any trace in the transmission channel .    note that counterfactual transmission of just one bit value can be achieved using a classical particle @xcite .
alice and bob agree in advance that at a particular time , for a particular value of a bit , bob sends the particle to alice , while for the other bit value , he sends nothing .
note , however , that this classical protocol can not achieve the task of the quantum ifm . in the ifm
, alice learns about the shutter in bob s place without prior agreement with bob and without bob knowing that she acquired this information .    in the ifm shown in fig .  2
, alice does not obtain a definite information about the classical bit 0 . without the shutter ,
the click in the bright port happens with certainty , but it might happen ( with probability 25% ) with the shutter too .
this protocol is also not the most efficient method for communication of the bit 1 .
when the particle is detected by a bright port ( probability 25% ) we get no decisive information , and in half of the cases the particle is lost ( then we get the information that the bit is 1 but not in a counterfactual manner ) .
the quantum method can be modified to be a reliable transmission of both values of the bit . to this end , instead of the shutter , bob inserts a half - wave plate ( hwp ) , see fig .
3 . this transforms the dark port to bright port and vice versa . however , half of the wave always passes through the communication channel , so one can not argue that this is a counterfactual communication .    .
bob communicates the bit to alice by changing the destructive interference to detector @xmath1 by inserting the hwp in the right path of the particle .
, width=309 ]    .
b ) . bob blocks the interferometers and then , due to zeno effect , the particle reaches detector @xmath0 with probability close to 1 .
, width=272 ]    consider next what happens when we combine the quantum zeno effect with the ifm @xcite .
it allows to perform a counterfactual transmission of bit 1 with probability arbitrary close to 1 .
the device consists of a chain of @xmath2 interferometers with identical beam splitters with small transmittance @xmath3 , see fig .
each one of the beam splitters in the chain performs the following unitary evolution of the state of the particle : @xmath4 a straightforward calculation shows that @xmath5 beam splitters perform the following evolution of the wave packets of the particle entering the chain : @xmath6 for the particular choice of the transmittance parameter , @xmath7 , after passing all @xmath2 beam splitters , the wave packet of the particle moves from one side to the other : @xmath8 , @xmath9 .
the zeno effect takes place when the right arms of the interferometers are blocked , fig .
the state remains @xmath10 with probability close to 1 when @xmath2 is large , @xmath11 .    in summary , for bit 0
bob does nothing and alice gets the click with certainty at the right port in the detector @xmath1 . for bit 1 bob blocks the interferometers and alice
gets the click with a very high probability in the detector @xmath0 .
when the right path of the inner interferometer is blocked . , title="fig:",width=234 ]   when the right path of the inner interferometer is blocked .
, title="fig:",width=234 ]    in this section i describe the recent protocol by salih et al .
@xcite which followed the idea of counterfactual computation @xcite .
let us first consider a mzi nested in another mzi , see fig .
the inner interferometer is tuned for destructive interference toward the second beam splitter of the external interferometer , see fig .
the external interferometer is tuned for destructive interference towards @xmath1 when the lower path of the inner interferometer is blocked , see fig .
this configuration provides ( sometimes ) definite information about value 0 of the bit , namely the absence of the shutter .
indeed , click in @xmath1 is possible only if the shutter is not present .
one can naively argue that alice obtains this information in a counterfactual way , since the particle can not pass through bob s site and reach @xmath1 .
however , as detailed in section [ criteria ] , the presence of a weak trace inside the inner interferometer contradicts it .
salih et al .
@xcite further argued that a scheme with numerous nested interferometers leads to a protocol for transmitting both values of the bit in a counterfactual way with an efficiency which is arbitrarily close to 100% . in the protocol ,
@xmath12 chains of the @xmath13 interferometers described in fig .  4 are parts of another chain of interferometers with @xmath14 beam splitters having transmittance , @xmath15 . to simplify the analysis ,
i modify salih et al .
protocol making it slightly less efficient , but still good according to their line of argument .
i replace the mirrors of the external chain of interferometers by highly reflective beam splitters .
transmitted waves are lost , but the modification balances the losses in the inner chains when shutters are introduced , such that the states of particles which are not lost are still described by the same equation ( [ n - steps ] ) .
the setup is described in fig .
. the external chain of interferometers has @xmath14 beam splitters with transmittance @xmath16 and the transmittance of the side beam splitters serving as mirrors is @xmath17 .
all right mirrors of the internal chains are in bob s territory .
he knows that alice sends a particle at a particular time at the top of the external chain in the state @xmath18 . for communicating bit 1 ,
bob blocks all inner interferometers , see fig .
then , after @xmath19 beam splitters of the external interferometer , the _
normalized _ quantum state is @xmath20 and after all @xmath21 beam splitters the state is @xmath22 in both equations `` ... '' signify states orthogonal to the term which is shown .
if @xmath23 , then the norm of the leading term in ( [ m - step ] ) is close to 1 : @xmath24 thus , in the limit of large @xmath2 , bob s choice of bit 1 leads to a click of alice s detector @xmath1 .
since the state @xmath25 is orthogonal to the state @xmath10 at the output port of the interferometer , there is zero probability for a click of @xmath0 .
the particle can be lost in alice s or bob s territories , and then none of the detectors click , but the probability of such a case vanishes for large @xmath2 .    if bob wants to communicate the bit 0 , instead , he does nothing , fig .
then , every wave packet entering any of the inner chains of the interferometers follows evolution ( [ n - steps ] ) inside this chain and does not come back to the external interferometer . at the output of the interferometer , the normalized quantum state
is @xmath26 under the condition @xmath27 , the norm of the leading term in ( [ m0-step ] ) is also close to 1 : @xmath28 therefore , the detection of the particle in the left port by @xmath0 tells alice that bob sent bit 1 .
note , that the probability for a failure might become large if the condition @xmath27 is not fulfilled .
the particle might be lost or detected by @xmath1 . however , if the condition holds , the probability for a failure is vanishingly small .
the probability for loosing the particle and getting no result is of order @xmath29 for bit 1 and @xmath30 for bit 0 .
the click of @xmath1 tells alice with certainty that the bit is 1 , and the click of @xmath0 tells her that the bit is 0 with only a very small probability for an error : about @xmath31 .
this is a good direct communication protocol .
as in the simple example in sec .
[ comqp ] ( fig .
3 ) , using hwps instead of absorbing shutters leads to a communication protocol which is theoretically free of errors .
@xcite suggest such a protocol and argue that it has `` arbitrarily small probability of the existence of the particle in the transmission channel '' .
the configuration is similar to the experiment of salih et al .
@xcite : a chain of @xmath12 interferometers with inner chains of @xmath13 interferometers ( but now @xmath32 have to be even numbers ) . without absorbers ,
the evolution is unitary and the zeno effect is not used in this protocol .
there is no need to modify the protocol by replacing mirrors with beam splitters , because there are no losses to compensate .
the new protocol is different also in the transmittance of the beam splitters in the inner chains .
the parameter @xmath33 is bigger by a factor of 2 : @xmath34 . as a result ,
the chain ( without the hwps ) works as two consecutive inner chains of the protocol discussed in the previous section .
the first half of the chain moves the wave packet to the right side and the second brings it back to the left . from ( [ n - steps ] ) we obtain the transformation of the wave packet in the inner chain of the interferometers @xmath35 , see fig .
b ) . hwps `` undo '' the transformation on every second interferometer and the wave packet ends up in the original state on the left without additional phase .
, width=234 ]    when the hwps are inserted in every interferometer of the inner chain , see fig .
7b , they cause a @xmath36 phase change of every state @xmath37 and , consequently , every second beam splitter reverses the operation of the previous one : @xmath38 since every chain has an even number of beam splitters , the transformation of the wave packet in the inner chain is @xmath39 .        the setup for sending bit 0 is described on fig .
bob leaves the inner interferometers untouched .
then , each inner chain of the interferometers changes the phase of the quantum state of the particle : @xmath40 .
a state @xmath10 of the inner interferometer is a state @xmath37 of the external interferometer .
thus , the operation of the first external interferometer is @xmath41 since the number of beam splitters in the external chain is even , at the end of the process the particle is on the left side and it is detected by detector @xmath0 with certainty .
if bob wants to communicate the bit 1 , instead , he inserts hwps in all the interferometers of the inner chains fig .
now , after every two beam splitters of the inner chain , the wave packet comes back to the left side without acquiring additional phase .
thus , every inner chain works as a mirror and the external chain of the interferometers moves the particle from left to right , to be detected with certainty by detector @xmath1 .
alice knows with certainty the choice of bob by observing which detector clicks .
this is an ideal direct communication protocol : theoretically , when there are no losses , there is zero probability for an error .
the question i want to answer in this paper is : can the protocols of sections [ directcf ] and [ directnonzeno ] be considered as _ counterfactual _ communication protocols ?
let us consider the following three statements which try to capture the meaning of counterfactuality .
\1 ) the probability of finding the particle in the transmission channel is zero or can be made arbitrarily small .
\2 ) the particle did not pass through the transmission channel .
\3 ) the particle was not present in the transmission channel ( or the probability of its existence in the transmission channel can be made arbitrarily small ) .    in the papers on counterfactual communication
@xcite all these statements were considered to be interchangeable , i.e. all are true and each one of them represents counterfactuality .
i argue that the situation is more subtle and clarification is needed .
statement ( 1 ) .
a non - demolition measurement of the presence of the particle in the transmission channel disturbs completely the operation of the communication protocols which are considered .
when such a measurement is added to the protocol , bob does not transmit information to alice by his actions .
so , the truth or falsehood of this statement is not a decisive indication of the counterfactuality of the protocols .
however , since there is a separate controversy about the validity of this statement for the two protocols under discussion , it should be clarified too .
the papers on counterfactual communication claim that this is a correct statement while i @xcite claim that in these protocols the probability of finding the particle in the transmission channel is 1 .
the source of this controversy is our different assumptions .
the communication protocols involve preparation and detection of the particle .
i consider the probability of finding the particle in the transmission channel under the condition of the same final detection as in the protocol without intermediate measurement . in this case
, the probability of finding the particle is exactly 1 , since had it it not been found , the result of the final detection could not be that of the undisturbed protocol .
on the other hand , without the condition on the result of the final detection , the probability to detect the particle in the transmission channel is vanishingly small .
these are two correct statements about the probability of finding the particle in the intermediate measurement : the probability is 1 when both the proper preparation and the proper final detection are done , and it is vanishingly small when only the preparation of the particle is assumed . none of these statements shed much light on the issue of counterfactuality of the protocols _ without _ intermediate non - demolition measurements .
statement ( 2 ) .
in contrast to such a claim for a classical particle , the meaning of this statement for a quantum particle is not well defined . for a classical particle , the operational meaning
of ( 2 ) is ( 1 ) , but as discussed above , statement ( 1 ) is not helpful in the quantum case . in a double slit experiment with a screen , there is no good answer through which slit the particle passed and through which it did not pass .
however , if the detector which finds the particle is placed after one of the slits , and the wave packet passing through the other slit does not reach the detector , then it is frequently declared , following wheeler @xcite , that the particle did not pass through the second slit .
( note that this contradicts the textbook picture , attributed to von neumann , according to which the wave passes through both slits and then collapses to the location of the detector . )
if we adopt wheeler s definition , then statement ( 2 ) is correct for the protocol of section [ directcf ] .
the wave packets of the particle passing through the transmission channel do not reach the detector which detects the particle in this protocol .
i , however , argued that we should not adopt wheeler s definition for discussing the past of a quantum particle @xcite .
the concept of a quantum particle passing through a channel has no clear meaning in the standard quantum mechanics in which particles do not have trajectories .
it is rigorously defined in the framework of bohmian mechanics @xcite . however , since the authors of papers on counterfactual communication never mentioned bohmian mechanics , it is not particularly relevant to the current controversy .
still , due to to its conceptual importance i , following the advice of a referee , will provide the analysis in the framework of the bohmian interpretation , but only at the end of the paper , in section [ bohm ] .
statement ( 3 ) . apart from bohmian mechanics , quantum mechanics
does not provide a rigorous meaning also for statement ( 3 ) . without a clear ontological definition
i suggest to introduce an operational meaning .
we can not rely on an operational definition based on statement ( 1 ) , since strong , even nondemolition , measurements change the setup we want to analyze .
so , my proposal is to look at the _ weak _ trace the particle leaves .
all particles interact locally with the environment .
if the particle is present in a particular place , it leaves some trace there , and it does not leave any trace where it was not present . therefore , we can run the protocol we want to analyze , and then look at the trace left in the environment . if in the transmission channel there is a non - zero trace , we will say that the protocol is not counterfactual .
the counterpart of ( 3 ) , a definition of counterfactual as a process without a local trace , is less robust , because , although very unlikely , it is possible that the particle changed the local environment via some local interaction , but then changed it back to its original state .
since we are all along analyzing interference experiments , the trace left by the particles has to be small , as otherwise the interference is destroyed .
when the trace is small , one may argue that it can be neglected .
i , however , claim that it can be neglected only if it is small compare to the trace which a single particle with the same coupling being at the same place would leave .
hence , the remaining task is the comparison between the trace left in the transmission channel in the `` counterfactual '' communication protocols @xcite and the trace left by a single particle passing through the channel . in the next section
i will analyze the minimal trace left by a single particle being in a transmission channel and the comparison will be made in the following sections .
in the framework of standard quantum mechanics there is no rigorous way to decide if statement ( 3 ) holds , that is : whether or not the particle was present in the transmission channel . in a two - slit experiment
it is not clear whether the particle was in a particular slit .
if a particle starts on one side of a plate with two slits and it is found later on the other side , we do not know if the particle was in the two slits together , or in one of them . however , we firmly believe that it can not be that the particle was not present in both .    ) . , width=272 ]    consider first a single - path transmission channel with a single particle in the form of a single localized wave packet .
the wave packet passes from alice to bob , see fig .
let us model the interaction of the particle with the transmission channel as von neumann measurement with a gaussian probe .
the initial wave function of the pointer is @xmath42 when a particle is present in the transmission channel , the interaction shifts @xmath43 by @xmath44 .
thus , the state of the measuring device after the interaction is @xmath45 where @xmath46 is orthogonal to the initial pointer state and @xmath47 .    how to quantify the strength of the trace ?
one option is to consider the probability of detecting the change in the state of the channel in an idealized experiment .
the probability equals @xmath48 .
another option is just to use the shift of the pointer via the parameter @xmath49 .    for a strong trace
, the probability criterion does not represent the trace well : it remains almost 1 for @xmath50 and also for @xmath51 . in practice , however , it is plausible that in a realistic experiment , when in addition to the quantum uncertainty of the pointer there is an uncertainty of the grid on which we read the pointer , only very large @xmath49 can be observed .    for a small value of @xmath49 ,
the probability of detection is proportional to the square of this parameter .
the transmission of two particles doubles the shift , but increases the probability of detection by a factor of 4 .
the linear response seems to be a better representation of the trace .
consider now a single particle passing through the transmission channel which consists of @xmath2 identical paths as above .
the quantum state of the particle is an equal weight superposition of wave packets in all paths , @xmath52 , where @xmath53 signifies the wave packet of the particle inside path @xmath54 in the transmission channel , see fig .
after the particle passes the transmission channel , the state of the particle and the pointers representing the transmission channel becomes @xmath55 the probability to detect the particle in the transmission channel is the probability to find one of the states @xmath56 .
it is @xmath48 as in the case of the single - path channel .
the sum of the expectation values of the shifts of the @xmath57s is also the same , @xmath58 .
it is important to consider the post - selection measurement of the state of the particle made by bob .
let bob select the undisturbed state @xmath59 .
this corresponds to detection of the particle by bob s detector in fig .
10 . for a good , low noise channel
, the probability to find this state is very close to 1 .
the state of the transmission channel then becomes @xmath60 at this stage , the probability to find one of the states @xmath56 is reduced dramatically .
this is because the failure of post - selection by bob implies that the probability to find one of the states @xmath56 is 1 . for small @xmath61 , the probability to detect the particle in the transmission channel after the successful post - selection is approximately @xmath62 .
it is interesting that the post - selection of the particle state does not change the expectation value of the sum of the pointer variables @xmath63 .
one way to see this is to note that @xmath63 is proportional to the weak value @xcite of the sum of the projections on all parts of the channel which equals 1 because the initial state is the eigenstate of the sum of the projections with the eigenvalue 1 @xcite . for describing the magnitude of the trace ,
the directions of the shifts are not important .
so the relevant parameter is @xmath64 .
we have found a lower bound , @xmath65 .
i analyse next the trace left in the transmission channel in communication protocols discussed above . all protocols are based on interference , therefore , when they work properly , only a small trace can be left .
i use the same model : in every path of the transmission channel , the presence of the particle shifts the gaussian pointer , see ( [ a ] ) .
i assume that the coupling is weak : @xmath66 , and consequently , @xmath67 . for simplicity ,
i consider the trace created by particles moving from alice to bob and disregard the trace created on the way from bob to alice .
then , the example described in fig .  1 , is identical to that of fig .
and the trace in the communication channel is the shift @xmath44 of the pointer and the probability to discover the presence of the particle by observing the trace , is @xmath48 . in the communication of the bit 0 using ifm , fig .  2 , and in the protocol with hwps , fig .
3 the trace is of the same order of magnitude .    in the ifm communication of the bit 1 , see fig
.  2 , after the interaction with the transmission channel , the state of the particle and the pointer is @xmath68.\ ] ] if the particle is absorbed by bob , the trace in the channel is exactly as in the single - path channel of section [ presence ] : shift by @xmath44 and the probability to find the trace is @xmath48 .
if the particle is detected by alice , then there is no trace in the transmission channel . the wave packet `` tagged '' by an orthogonal state of the channel
, @xmath46 can not reach alice .
now i consider the ifm experiment with the chain of the interferometers , fig .  4 ,
starting with the communication of bit 0 , the case in which bob leaves the interferometers undisturbed .
the exact expressions are complicated , but for weak coupling , only the first order contibution in @xmath61 is significant . neglecting the coupling to the channel , we obtain from ( [ n - steps ] ) the state of the particle in the @xmath5th interferometer @xmath69 the wave packet @xmath37 , `` tagged '' at the @xmath5th interferometer by the state @xmath70 in the transmission channel , interferes only with itself and reaches detectors in the state @xmath71 in this experiment , the particle ends up in detector @xmath1 ( state @xmath37 ) with the probability close to 1 .
the state of the transmission channel then is @xmath72 with normalization @xmath73 close to 1 .
therefore , the probability to detect the particle in the transmission channel , i.e. , to find at least one of the states @xmath70 , @xmath74 is much larger than the minimal probability to find a single particle present in this multiple - path channel , which can be as low as @xmath62 .
thus , the case of the bit 0 is definitely not a `` counterfactual '' communication .
this can also be seen by calculating the pointers shifts .
these shifts are proportional to the expectation value of the projection on the paths of the transmission channel .
the shift in path @xmath5 is @xmath75 and the sum of all shifts , @xmath76 , is much larger than @xmath44 , the standard for the presence of a single particle in the channel .
the situation is different for communication of bit 1 , when bob blocks the paths of the interferometers , fig .
4b . due to zeno effect , the probability of absorbtion by bob is negligible .
detector @xmath0 clicks with probability close to 1 telling alice that the bit value is 1 . in this case
, there is no trace in the communication channel .
it is , therefore , a counterfactual communication for bit value 1 .
let us turn now to the case of nested interferometers , fig .
the case which is particularly interesting is described in fig .
bob does not put the shutter in , and detector @xmath0 clicks .
alice knows that the bit is 0 , and naively , it seems to be a counterfactual communication since the particle `` could not pass through the transmission channel '' .
indeed , the wave packet entering the nested interferometer does not reach detector @xmath0 .
the interferometer was defined only by demanding destructive interferences in particular situations . to make quantitative predictions
, we have to specify the beam splitters of the interferometer . in a possible implementation of the interferometer @xcite , the first two beam splitters transform the localized wave packet entering the interferometer into a superposition : @xmath77 where states @xmath53 signifies a wave packet entering detector @xmath78 , ( @xmath54=1,2,3 ) .
it is is easy to see that these rules ensure the required destructive interferences .
after the interaction , the joint state of the particle and the channel is @xmath79.\ ] ] from ( [ abc2 ] ) we see that the detection of the particle in detector @xmath0 post - selects the state @xmath80 therefore , the state of the channel after the post - selection is @xmath81 this is exactly the same state of the channel as in the case that a single particle passed through it , see ( [ a ] ) .
thus , contrary to the naive expectation , the scheme with nested interferometers does not provide counterfactual communication @xcite .
now we are ready to analyze the trace left in the  direct counterfactual quantum communication " .
the case of bit 1 , fig .
6a , is simple .
the trace in the communication channel is correlated with the final location of the particle . if it is absorbed by alice , which happens with a probability close to 1 and
corresponds to the proper operation of the protocol , the trace is zero .
the wave packets `` tagged '' by orthogonal states of the channel , @xmath82 , can not reach alice .
the trace is present only if the particle is absorbed by one of the bob s shutters which happens with vanishing probability .
this is a counterfactual communication protocol for bit 1 .
the more interesting case is that of bit 0 , when bob leaves the interferometer undisturbed , fig .
we assume that the interaction with the channel is small , @xmath83 , @xmath84 , so only the first order in @xmath61 should be considered .    the amplitude of the wave packet of the particle in the @xmath5th path of @xmath19th chain of the inner interferometers @xmath85 , is @xmath86 a particle present in the path @xmath85 changes the state of the corresponding pointer according to ( [ a ] ) : @xmath87 the wave packet @xmath88 `` tagged '' by the orthogonal state @xmath82 interferes only with itself and leaves the inner chain in the state , see ( [ n - n steps ] ) : @xmath89 state @xmath37 is lost and the state @xmath10 of the last inner interferometer of the chain @xmath19 enters from the right the remaining @xmath90 large interferometers .
the transformation of this state ( which is named @xmath37 in the following equation ) in the remaining interferometers is : @xmath91 where `` ... '' signifies the wave packets which do not reach the detectors .    in the protocol
, the particle is found with probability close to 1 by detector @xmath0 .
after the detection of the particle , the amplitude of the term @xmath82 corresponding to detection of the particle in the path @xmath85 can be found by collecting the factors in ( 23 - 26 ) .
it is @xmath92 as explained in section [ directcf ] , the protocol works properly if @xmath93 , so that @xmath94 and the probability that one of the orthogonal states @xmath82 will be found in the transmission channel is , approximately , @xmath95    the number of paths in the channel is @xmath96 .
we have seen that a single particle present in such a channel can be found with probability as low as @xmath97 which is smaller than the probability of detection of the particle in the protocol by a factor of approximately @xmath98 . since the protocol works well only when
@xmath99 , the trace in the protocol is larger than the trace of a single particle passing through the channel .
another criterion of counterfactuality is the sum of displacements of the pointers in all paths of the channel , the standard for which is @xmath44
. it can be found by calculating the absolute values of weak values of all projections : @xmath100 with pre- and post - selection specified by the protocol .
the scalar product in the denominator of the weak value is close to 1 since the probability of the post - selection is close to 1 .
the amplitude of the forward evolving state at path @xmath85 is given by ( [ ampnm ] ) and , similarly , the amplitude of the backward evolving state is @xmath101 thus , the weak value of the projection on the path @xmath85 can be approximated as @xmath102 and the sum of all shifts of pointers is @xmath103 since @xmath99 , the trace in the protocol is much larger than the standard of the trace of a single particle present in such multiple - path channel .
let us turn to the `` direct quantum communication with almost invisible photons '' protocol @xcite .
when bob transmits 0 , i.e. does nothing , fig .
8a , the amplitude in the path @xmath85 is @xmath104 the wave packet @xmath88 , `` tagged '' by the orthogonal state @xmath82 , interferes only with itself and it leaves the inner chain in the state @xmath105 the state @xmath37 is lost and the state @xmath10 of the last inner interferometer of the chain @xmath19 enters from the right the remaining @xmath90 large interferometers . using the fact that `` tagging '' takes place only for odd @xmath19 , and that the number of the large interferometers is odd ( @xmath14 , the number of beam splitters is even ) , and that after every second beam splitter the wave function repeats itself , we can conclude that the wave packet leaves the last beam splitter of the last inner chain with the same amplitude .
the wave packet entering the last beam splitter of the large interferometers transforms into @xmath106    in the protocol , the particle is detected with probability close to 1 by detector @xmath0 which detects the state @xmath10 .
thus , after detection of the particle , the amplitude of the term @xmath82 corresponding to the detection of the particle in the path @xmath85 can be found by collecting factors from ( [ inv1]-[inv3 ] ) and a factor @xmath61 due to the interaction : @xmath107 this expression holds only for odd @xmath19 , the amplitude in the paths with even @xmath19 vanishes . summing the probabilities of finding the record the particle leaves in all the paths , i.e. summing on odd @xmath19s up to @xmath12 and on integers @xmath5 up to @xmath13 , we obtain the probability of detection of the particle : @xmath108    a single particle passing through this transmission channel can be found with probability of order @xmath109 .
depending on the ratio @xmath110 , it can be smaller or larger than ( [ ampnmapprox ] ) , so we can not yet decide on the counterfactuality of the protocol .
compare now the sum of the pointer shifts in the channel .
it can be found by calculating the absolute values of weak values of all projections : @xmath100 with the pre- and post - selection specified by the protocol . in this case , the pre- and post - selected states are identical , so the weak values are expectation values : @xmath111 and @xmath112    the sum of the pointer shifts when there is one particle in the transmission channel equals @xmath44 , so the ratio @xmath110 tells us when the sum of displacements in the protocol ( [ wvproj0 ] ) is smaller or larger than that of a single particle present in the channel .
we can see that the criterion of the pointer shifts is in agreement with the criterion of the probability of detection .
let us now repeat the analysis for the case of bit 1 , when bob puts hwps in every inner interferometer . now
the amplitude in the path @xmath85 is @xmath113    the wave packet @xmath88 , can be `` tagged '' by the orthogonal state @xmath82 only for odd @xmath5 .
thus , due to the presence of the hwps , the wave packet comes back unchanged every second beam splitter .
it leaves the chain of the inner interferometers in the state @xmath114 state @xmath37 is lost , and the state @xmath10 of the last inner interferometer of the chain @xmath19 enters from the right the remaining @xmath90 large interferometers . in the chain of the large interferometers it performs usual evolution ( [ n - steps ] ) and ends up in the state @xmath115    in the protocol , the particle is detected with probability close to 1 by detector @xmath1 which detects the state @xmath37 .
thus , after the detection of the particle , the amplitude of the term @xmath82 corresponding to the detection of the particle in the path @xmath85 can be found by collecting factors from ( [ inv4]-[inv6 ] ) and the factor @xmath61 due to the interaction : @xmath116 this expression holds only for odd @xmath5 , the amplitude in the paths with even @xmath5 , vanishes . summing the probabilities of finding the record the particle leaves in all the paths , we obtain the probability of detection of the particle : @xmath117    again , as in the case of bit 0
, the ratio @xmath110 tells us if it is larger or smaller than the minimal probability of detection in case of a single particle present in the transmission channel .
however , the dependence is opposite : if for bit 0 the probability of detection in the protocol was smaller than single - particle standard , for bit 1 it will be larger , and vice versa .
the pointer shifts criterion of counterfactuality is in agreement with these results .
the sum of pointers shifts in all paths of the channel is proportional to the sum of the weak values of all projections : @xmath100 .
also in this case , the pre- and post - selected states are identical and the weak values are expectation values : @xmath118 and @xmath119 the ratio @xmath110 tells us when the sum of displacements in the protocol ( [ wvproj1 ] ) is smaller or larger than that of a single particle . if it is smaller for bit 1 , it is larger for bit 0 , and vice versa .
one of the motivations for `` counterfactual '' protocols , in which no particles are present in the transmission channel , is that it is secure against eve who is trying to eavesdrop the communication : she has no particles to look at @xcite .
the obvious cryptographic weakness of the protocols with shutters which are 100% counterfactual is that eve can use an active attack detecting the presence of the shutters .
moreover , the shutter can be detected by eve in a counterfactual way @xcite , and recently there has been a claim of a very efficient attack of this kind @xcite .
if eve uses an active attack , probing bob s bit by sending her particles , the counterfactuality property does not help .
so , for the analysis of counterfactuality we should only consider passive attacks in which eve `` eavesdrops '' , i.e. measures the presence of the particle in the transmission channel . under this condition ,
the counterfactual protocols with shutters are secure .
consider the following counterfactual key distribution protocol .
there are two identical chains of interferometers as in fig .
one of the chains is defined as bit 0 , and the other as bit 1 . on each run of the protocol
, alice randomly sends a single particle through one of the interferometers and bob randomly chooses one of the interferometers and places the shutters in all of its paths .
every time alice detects the particle in detector @xmath0 of one of the interferometers , she makes a public announcement .
detector @xmath0 can click only if alice and bob chose the same interferometer , i.e. they chose the same bit .
this creates a common key .
the multiple shutters bob placed represent the weak point of the protocol due to the reason above , although we can improve it using detectors instead of shutters and telling alice to send particles not every time , but only at some random times ( using ideas of @xcite ) .
anyway , we made a postulate here that eve only performs some ( weak ) nondemolition measurements of the presence of the particle running in the interferometer .
let us see if eve can get some information about the key in this way .
if eve detects the particle in one of the interferometers , it can not be the one which generates a correct bit in the key .
for a correct bit generation event , alice and bob have to choose the same interferometer .
eve can detect the particle only if it is present , i.e. , it has to be chosen by alice .
if bob also chooses this interferometer , then after detection by eve , the particle has to be absorbed by bob , so it will not reach alice .
only if the interferometer is not chosen by bob , the particle seen by eve in the nondemolition measurement can reach alice , and there is a nonzero probability that the detector @xmath0 will click and thus alice will declare generation of a bit in the key . but this will be an error bit , since bob has chosen the other interferometer .
eve introduces errors , and the only information she gets is about these error bits .
let us turn to the `` direct counterfactual quantum communication '' protocol .
when bob places the shutters , fig .
6a , eve can not get information about the correct bit because eve s detection causes the loss of the particle .
( it is not surprising , since in this case the protocol is counterfactual . )
if the bit is 0 , and the interferometer is free , fig .  6b ,
eve s detection will not necessarily lead to the loss of the particle .
detection of the particle by eve in the last chain of inner interferometers will lead to part of its wave packet to enter the last beam splitter from the right , so most probably it will create an error : @xmath1 clicks , but bob s bit is 0 .
however , eve s detection of the particle in any of the first @xmath120 chains of inner interferometers will lead to part of the particle wave packet to enter the last beam splitter from the left side , so most probably @xmath0 will click , corresponding to a successful transmission of the correct bit .
thus , sometimes , eve gets a reliable information about the transmitted bit .
eve , who eavesdrops only by observing the original particle of the communication protocol , can not learn any correct bit of real counterfactual protocols with shutters which transmit bit 1 , but she does learn some correct bits in `` counterfactual '' communication protocols of bit 0 .
this provides another argument why such protocols should not be named counterfactual .
it seems that bohmian mechanics @xcite , which postulates that every particle has a trajectory , should provide the ultimate answer regarding the counterfactuality of a protocol .
there are unambiguous answers to criteria ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of sec .
[ criteria ] : either the bohmian trajectory passes through the transmission channel , or it does not .
however , the fact that the bohmian trajectory does not pass through the transmission channel does not tell us that eve , who has an access to this channel , can not get some information about this communication .    for completeness of the counterfactuality analysis
, i will consider the following technical question .
is the bohmian trajectory present in the transmission channel of the protocols discussed in this paper ?
bohmian position of a particle can not be in a place where the ( forward evolving ) wave function vanishes .
therefore , the successful ifms of the presence of an opaque object , described in fig .  2 and fig .
4b , are counterfactual according to the bohmian trajectory criterion .
moreover , the ifm of the absence of an opaque object , fig .
5a , is counterfactual too .
direct counterfactual communication @xcite , as its predecessor @xcite and their variation presented in fig .  6 , are counterfactual . in all these protocols
there is no continuous path with non - vanishing wave function between the source and the detector the particle reached .     when the shutter is present .
thus , if detector @xmath1 clicks , we know that path @xmath121 is free .
although naively , the particle reaching @xmath1 can not pass through the inner interfereometer , the bohmian trajectory of the particle ( solid line ) does pass through @xmath121 .
, width=272 ]    in the `` direct quantum communication with almost invisible photons '' @xcite , see fig .
8 , the probability that the bohmian particle will pass through the transmission channel can be found from the maximal amplitude in the paths passing through the channel . for bit 0
, the amplitude is given by ( [ inv1 ] ) , and therefore , the maximum probability is approximately @xmath31 . for bit 1
, the amplitude is given by ( [ inv4 ] ) , and the maximum probability is approximately @xmath122 .
thus , for large @xmath14 and @xmath2 , the probability that the communication is counterfactual is close to 1 for both bit values .
however , it should be mentioned , that in most cases when the communication is not counterfactual , the bohmian particle crosses the transmission channel , not once , but many times .
given equal probability for bit values , the expectation value of the number of crosses of the transmission channel by the bohmian particle can be obtained from the sum of the probabilities on all paths .
the amplitudes are given by ( [ inv1 ] ) and ( [ inv4 ] ) .
consequently , the expectation value of the number of crosses is , approximately , @xmath123 , and it can not be much less than 1 for any choice of @xmath14 and @xmath2 .    note that in the `` direct counterfactual communication protocol '' _ experiment _ @xcite , the expectation value of the number of crosses of the transmission channel is also of order 1 , but all these events happen when the particle is lost , and these cases are discarded according to the protocol .     or @xmath1 possible .
only empty wave passes through the transmission channel when alice s detector clicks .
, width=272 ]    i mentioned above that the protocol presented in fig .
5a , which demonstrates the absence of an object in the apparently interaction - free manner , is counterfactual according to bohm .
it is interesting that a slight modification of this setup , similar to the experiment actually performed @xcite , is _ not _ counterfactual .
consider a setup presented in fig .
11 . a straightforward calculations of bohmian trajectories ( similar to that of bell @xcite , or in a simplified way @xcite ) show that _ all _ particles detected by @xmath1 passed through arm @xmath121 .
in fact , the experiment @xcite indicated the presence of the weak trace in @xmath121 , but it had nothing to do with the presence of the bohmian trajectory there .
the weak trace appeared also in @xmath124 and @xmath125 where the bohmian particle was not present .
empty waves cause observable difference when they `` catch '' bohmian particles .
this allows a very simple communication protocol which is counterfactual according to bohmian criterion , see fig .
particles are sent through a mzi without a second beam splitter at particular times .
one of the mirrors is in bob s place and he has two options for placing it , such that the wave bouncing off the mirror will end up in detector @xmath0 or @xmath1 on alice s side .
the wave packet going through another arm ends at detector @xmath126 on bob s side .
if the particle does not reach @xmath126 , bob knows that it reaches alice and that  it he has chosen the detector which will detect the particle .
every time @xmath0 or @xmath1 clicks the bohmian particle does not pass through bob s place .
only an empty wave was directed by bob s mirror .
indeed , the wave packets overlap at point @xmath127 or @xmath128 and the bohmian particle must `` change hands '' in the overlap , so bohmian particles reaching alice s detectors never cross communication channel .
probably the majority would not consider the communication protocol described in fig .
12 as counterfactual .
according to wheeler s common sense argument @xcite , the particle reaching alice could come only through bob s site .
this example , and englert et al .
setup @xcite , in which a strong trace ( observed at a later time ) is left in a place where the bohmian particle was not present , explain why the bohmian criterion of counterfactuality does not agree with the intuition of most physicists .
the standard quantum formalism , in contrast to bohmian mechanics , does not specify the position of a quantum particle .
thus , it does not provide an unambiguous answer to the question : is a particular communication protocol counterfactual ?
i.e. : was the particle present in the transmission channel ? in this paper
i analyzed an approach to answering this question based on the weak trace the particle leaves in the channel .
i compared the trace left in the channel in recently proposed protocols claimed to be counterfactual with the trace in the protocol constructed to transmit a single particle in the same channel .    in the analysis , i considered two criteria for comparing the traces .
first , the probability of finding a conclusive evidence for the presence of the particle , and second , the expectation value of the sum of total shifts of some variables of the channel .    the question of counterfactuality of the protocols is considered in cases the protocols work properly , i.e. when the particle is detected by the right detector .
it means that the particle is pre- and post - selected .
the protocols were compared with the transmission of a single pre- and post - selected particle . in all these cases
the probability of post - selection was closed to 1 .      the protocol  direct counterfactual quantum communication "
@xcite is fully counterfactual for bit value 1 .
the trace is identically 0 .
nothing changes in the transmission channel and therefore there is zero probability to detect the particle in the transmission channel .
passive eavesdropping provides no information about the transmitted bit .    however , the protocol is not counterfactual for the bit value 0 .
it is true that by increasing the number of paths in the channel , the probability of finding a conclusive evidence of the presence of the particle reduces , but increasing the number of paths also reduces the probability to find a single quantum particle when it passes the channel .
the probability to find the presence of the particle in the transmission channel in the event of successful operation of the protocol is larger than the probability to detect a particle successfully passing through this channel .
eve , using passive attack , obtains some information about the transmitted bit .
the criterion of the shifts of variables of the channel tells us the same .
the expectation value of the sum of the shifts is zero for bit 1 , but for bit value 0 it is larger than the sum of the shifts when a single particle passes the channel .    the protocol `` direct quantum communication with almost invisible photons '' is not fully counterfactual for any bit value .
some trace is always left in the transmission channel . however
, if we are ready to consider a protocol as counterfactual when it leaves a trace which is much smaller than the trace of a single particle passing through this channel , then we can arrange that it will be counterfactual for one of the bit values . by playing with the numbers @xmath2 and @xmath14 of the inner and the external interferometers respectively
, the protocol can be made counterfactual for value 0 or for value 1 of the bit .
it _ can not _ be made counterfactual for both .
the analysis of the trace left by a particle passing through a @xmath2-path channel of section vi showed a surprising result : the probability of detection in the channel of the successfully transmitted particle is reduced by the factor of @xmath129 .
it helped me to analyse the counterfactuality of the protocols , but it might also open new avenues for useful quantum communication applications .
i thank yakir aharonov , eliahu cohen and shmuel nussinov for helpful discussions .
this work has been supported in part by the israel science foundation grant no .
1311/14 and the german - israeli foundation grant no .
i-1275 - 303.14 .