Footprints of quantum pigeons Gregory Reznik,1 Shrobona Bagchi,1 Justin Dressel,2, 3 and Lev Vaidman1, 2 1Raymond and Beverly Sackler School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel 2Institute for Quantum Studies, Chapman University, Orange CA 92866, USA 3Schmid College of Science and Technology, Chapman University, Orange CA 92866, USA (Dated: February 18, 2020) We show that in the mathematical framework of the quantum theory the classical pigeonhole principle can be violated more directly than previously suggested, i.e., in a setting closer to the traditional statement of the principle. We describe how the counterfactual reasoning of the paradox may be operationally grounded in the analysis of the tiny footprints left in the environment by the pigeons. After identifying the drawbacks of recent experiments of the quantum pigeonhole effect, we argue that a definitive experimental violation of the pigeonhole principle is still needed and propose such an implementation using modern quantum computing hardware: a superconducting circuit with transmon qubits. I. INTRODUCTION A somewhat weaker failure of the classical pigeonhole principle can be obtained when the holes are also quan- Quantum paradoxes describe phenomena that would tum (e.g. spin states), since it is less surprising that be impossible if Nature strictly obeyed classical intrinsically quantum features do not follow classical physics. Quantum mechanics presents many para- rules. doxes. A particular class of quantum paradoxes arises Even if the \holes" in such a scenario are classical, when we consider quantum systems between an initial we still have to clarify the meaning of a \quantum pi- preparation and final measurement. Notable examples geon being in a hole". Standard quantum mechanics of such pre- and postselection paradoxes include the does not have a clear answer to the question: Where three-box paradox [1] where it is inferred that a parti- was a particle in between a preselection and postselec- cle with certainty has been in two distinct locations si- tion? In classical physics, the statement \this pigeon is multaneously, and the Hardy paradox [2] where it is in- in that hole" can be tested in parallel by many differ- ferred that each particle of a particle-antiparticle pair ent measurements that do not affect the situation. We has traveled through the same region of space with- do not assume this for quantum pigeons, because mea- out appearing there together. A more recent example surements performed on a quantum object generally is the quantum pigeonhole paradox [3, 4] where one change its state. A quantum pigeon can be prepared places a number of particles into a smaller number of in a superposition of several spatial locations, which boxes and infers that no two particles had occupied the also makes statements about such a pigeon occupying same box. This latter paradox has prompted extensive a particular hole not clearly defined. The exception is discussion and several experimental implementations when a quantum pigeon is described by a well-localized [5{9]. We revisit this pigeonhole paradox and propose wave packet with support only in one hole, in which a conceptually stronger variation. We also suggest case no paradoxical behavior arises. So, we need to that the existing experimental implementations have carefully define what we mean by a quantum pigeon not yet definitively demonstrated the paradox. occupying a particular hole. We will use the following The classical pigeonhole principle states that if one definition [11]: puts N pigeons into M pigeonholes, such that N > M, If we can infer with certainty [that] the re- then there must be at least one pigeonhole that con- sult of a measurement at time t of an ob- tains more than one pigeon. It was formulated by servable C equals to c, then C = c is an Dirichlet in the 19th century [10] and is widely used element of reality. in number theory and combinatorics. The principle In our case: If we can infer with certainty that the seems obvious and formalizes the fundamental concept measurement at time t of the presence of the pigeon of counting, yet it can be apparently violated by pre- in a particular hole would yield a positive result, then arXiv:2002.06990v1 [quant-ph] 17 Feb 2020 and postselected quantum systems. the pigeon was in the hole at time t. For a quantum system that is only preselected, a measurement outcome C = c will be obtained with II. ELEMENTS OF REALITY certainty only if the system is prepared in an eigen- state of C. However, when the system is both pre- To demonstrate a quantum violation of the classical and postselected, the condition for obtaining measure- pigeonhole principle one prepares a particular super- ment outcome C = c with certainty is different. position of N (quantum) pigeons distributed into M For a system preselected in a state jΨi and postse- (classical) holes, then later measures another particu- lected in a state jΦi, the probability for a particular lar superposition of the N pigeons. In between the result of an intermediate measurement is given by the preparation and a successful postselection one then Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) formula [12] predicts with certainty that any particular hole does jhΦjP jΨij2 not contain more than one pigeon. Moreover, this C=c Prob(C = c) = 2 2 : surprising prediction may be checked experimentally jhΦjPC=cjΨij + jhΦjPC6=cjΨij by placing a probe to count the pigeons in any box. (1) 2 Thus, the requirement for C = c to be an element of or zero pigeons: reality, i.e. Prob(C = c) = 1, becomes: ≤1 Y (m) X (j) Y (m) PX = P + PX P : (4) ( X X C = c is an element hΦjP jΨi 6= 0 m fjg m6=j () C=c : of reality hΦjPC6=cjΨi = 0 For the pigeonhole principle to fail, the observ- ≤1 (2) able C = PX should be inferred to have the value c = 1 with certainty for either choice of X. Since ≤1 >1 Provided that the postselection becomes impossible PC=1 = PX and PC6=1 = PX , (1) produces the fol- when C 6= c, we can infer that C would be measured lowing requirements: to be c with certainty when the postselection succeeds. ≤1 >1 The measurement in this definition is understood hΦjPX jΨi 6= 0; hΦjPX jΨi = 0: (5) as counterfactual, i.e., it did not necessarily happen. However, it is assumed that if the measurement of C had been performed, then it must have been the only A. How to place four pigeons in two holes with not more than one pigeon in each hole measurement on the system between the pre- and post- selection. Making more than one measurement would change the scenario and disrupt the inference. Even if We now demonstrate the failure of the pigeonhole the parts of the system are far away, performing mea- principle with four pigeons in two pigeonholes, mod- surement on one part can influence possible outcomes eled as four particles in two boxes. (We do not expect of the measurement of other parts. to perform experiments with real quantum pigeons.) A single measurement of the presence of more than one particle in any of the holes, yields with certainty >1 PX = 0. We prepare the particles in the initial state III. VIOLATING THE PIGEONHOLE PRINCIPLE WITH N PIGEONS IN TWO 1 jΨi = p jAi1jAi2jAi3jAi4 + jAi1jAi2jBi3jBi4+ HOLES 3 jBi jBi jBi jBi ; The classical pigeonhole principle is a global state- 1 2 3 4 ment about all holes: there should exist at least one (6) hole with a particular property (having more than one pigeon). We will now show for quantum mechanics then postselect the particles in the final state: that given a particular pre- and postselection scenario 1 we can infer with certainty that we will not find more jΦi = p jAi1jAi2jAi3jAi4 − jAi1jAi2jBi3jBi4+ than one pigeon in a single hole that we check. The 3 paradoxical situation is that we are certain not to find jBi1jBi2jBi3jBi4 : more than one pigeon in any one of the holes we try, no (7) matter how many times we try to find a hole contain- ing more than one pigeon. Nature seems to conspire Our requirements for (2) are then satisfied: against the experimenter by always hiding multiple pi- geons from view, provided that the experimenter only 1 1 hΦjP>1jΨi = (1 − 1) = 0; hΦjP≤1jΨi = : (8) checks one box at a time and obtains a successful post- A 3 A 3 selection. We consider N pigeons placed in two pigeonholes A Similarly, and B. The pigeons may be partitioned into subsets of 1 labeled pairs fj; kg, triples fj; k; lg and so forth. The hΦjP>1jΨi = 0; hΦjP≤1jΨi = : (9) B B 3 statement that pigeonhole X contains more than one pigeon then corresponds to the projection operator If we were to try to find more than one particle in box A between pre- and postselection, then we would be X Y (m) Y (m) certain to fail. Similarly, if we were to try to find more P>1 = P P + X X X than one particle in box B, we would be certain to fj;kg m=j;k m6=j;k fail. No matter how many times we attempt to find X Y (m) Y (m) Y (m) P P + ::: + P ; (3) multiple particles in any single box, we would fail. X X X fj;k;lg m=j;k;l m6=j;k;l m In fact, our example demonstrates even stronger vi- olation of classical reasoning. We put four particles (j) in two boxes such that there are no particles at all in where PX = jXijhXjj denotes the projection on a 0 =0 every box! That is, an observable C = PX testing state in which pigeon j is present in hole X, P(j) = X whether there are zero particles in box X will show I(j) − P(j) denotes the complementary projection on with certainty that there are none, c0 = 1.