Recently various gedankenexperiments have been formulated which argue that the assumption that “elements of reality” are Lorentz invariant cannot be reconciled with standard quantum mechanics. Two of these gedankenexperiments were subsequently analyzed using the notion of pre- and postselected quantum systems, and it was claimed that elements of reality can be made Lorentz invariant if the “product rule” of standard quantum mechanics is abandoned. In this paper we show that the apparent violations of the product rule in these gedankenexperiments are (...) not as significant as they appeared to be in the previous analysis. We conclude that the problems with Lorentz invariance which arise in these gedankenexperiments are essentially unrelated to the product rule violations. (shrink)

A brief review of the attempts to define “elements of reality” in the framework of quantum theory is presented. It is noted that most definitions of elements of reality have in common the feature to be a definite outcome of some measurement. Elements of reality are extended to pre- and post- selected systems and to measurements which fulfill certain criteria of weakness of the coupling. Some features of the newly introduced concepts are discussed.

Counterfactuals in quantum theory are briefly reviewed and it is argued that they are very different from counterfactuals considered in the general philosophical literature. The issue of time symmetry of quantum counterfactuals is considered and a novel time-symmetric definition of quantum counterfactuals is proposed. This definition is applied for analyzing several controversies related to quantum counterfactuals.

In the context of a discussion of time symmetry in the quantum mechanical measurement process, Aharonov et al. (1964) derived an expression concerning probabilities for the outcomes of measurements conducted on systems which have been pre- and postselected on the basis of both preceding and succeeding measurements. Recent literature has claimed that a resulting "time-symmetrized" interpretation of quantum mechanics has significant implications for some basic issues, such as contextuality and determinateness, in elementary, nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. Bub and Brown (1986) have (...) shown that under the standard interpretation of the aforementioned expression, these claims employ ensembles which are not well defined. It is argued here that under a counterfactual interpretation of the expression, these claims may be understood as employing well-defined ensembles; it is shown, however, that such an interpretation cannot be reconciled with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. (shrink)