Why the "classical" explanation of weak values by Ferrie and Combes does not work: a comment on Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 120404 (2014)

TL;DR

This paper critiques Ferrie and Combes' classical explanation of weak values, demonstrating that their model is invalid because weak measurements cause minimal disturbance, contradicting the proposed statistical artifact explanation.

Contribution

The authors refute Ferrie and Combes' classical model by showing weak measurements induce negligible disturbance, invalidating their statistical artifact hypothesis.

Findings

Weak measurements cause minimal disturbance

Ferrie and Combes' model does not hold under low disturbance

Weak values are not merely statistical artifacts

Abstract

In Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 120404 (2014) [arXiv:1403.2362], Ferrie and Combes claim that weak values could be a statistical artifact caused by correlations between the disturbance and the post-selection condition imposed on the output. In this comment, we show that the disturbance caused by a weak measurement is sufficiently low to definitely rule out the model proposed by Ferrie and Combes.