arXiv:1108.6074 · Physical Review A

Reply to “Comment on ‘Fermionic entanglement ambiguity in noninertial frames’ ”

Miguel Montero, Eduardo Martín-Martínez

Published Jan 17, 2012• 24 citations

Abstract

We show that, contrary to the claims of the preceding Comment [Br'adler and J'auregui, Phys. Rev. A 85, 016301 (2012)], our original work [Phys. Rev. A 83, 062323 (2011)] is devoid of flaws or mistakes. We show that the criticism comes from a misunderstanding of part of our work.

DOI: 10.1103/physreva.85.016302

Related papers

Comment on “Fermionic entanglement ambiguity in noninertial frames”

Kamil Brádler, Rocío Jáuregui

In this Comment we show that the ambiguity of entropic quantities calculated by Montero and Mart\'{\i}n-Mart\'{\i}nez [Phys. Rev. A 83, 062323 (2011)] for fermionic fields in the context of the Unruh effect is not related to the properties of anticommuting fields, as claimed therein, but rather to wrong mathematical manipulations with them and not taking into account a fundamental superselection rule of quantum field theory.

arXiv:1201.1045Physical Review AJan 17, 201229 citations

Multipartite entanglement of fermionic systems in noninertial frames revisited

Wen-Chao Qiang, Guo-Hua Sun, Oscar Camacho-Nieto +1 more

In this work we have revisited a few principal formulae about one-tangle of multipartite entanglement of fermionic systems in noninertial frames calculated in the paper [Phys. Rev. A 83, 022314(2011)] and given their correct expressions.

arXiv:1711.04230Nov 12, 20172 citations

Fermionic entanglement ambiguity in noninertial frames

Miguel Montero, Eduardo Martín-Martínez

We analyze an ambiguity in previous works on entanglement of fermionic fields in noninertial frames. This ambiguity, related to the anticommutation properties of field operators, leads to nonunique results when computing entanglement measures for the same state. We show that the ambiguity disappears when we introduce detectors, which are in any case necessary as a means to probe the field entanglement.

arXiv:1104.2307Physical Review AJun 16, 201170 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Entanglement and chaos in the kicked top' ”

M. Lombardi, A. Matzkin

We reply to the preceding Comment that attempts to clarify the connection between chaos and entanglement exposed in our previous paper [Phys. Rev. E 83, 016207 (2011)PRESCM1539-375510.1103/PhysRevE.83.016207]. We present additional computations that show the argument exposed in the Comment to explain the entangling power of some regular states is not important in the present case. More fundamentally we argue that the example chosen in the Comment is not the most significant in order to understand why specific regular dynamics can entangle as efficiently as when the corresponding classical dynamics is chaotic.

Physical Review ESep 23, 20157 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Coherent-state path integrals in the continuum’”

G. Kordas, S. I. Mistakidis, A. I. Karanikas

In this Reply we briefly clarify the main points of our method to construct coherent-state path integrals in the continuum and we reply to the critique raised by in the preceding Comment by Kochetov [Phys. Rev. A 99, 026101 (2019)]. By using definite examples, we prove that our approach is capable of resolving the inconsistencies accompanying the standard coherent-state path-integral representation of interacting systems.

Physical Review AFeb 13, 20193 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Particle path through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer' ”

Robert B. Griffiths

While much of the technical analysis in the preceding Comment is correct, in the end it confirms the conclusion reached in my previous work [Phys. Rev. A 94, 032115 (2016)]: A consistent histories analysis provides no support for the claim of counterfactual quantum communication put forward by Salih et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 170502 (2013)].

arXiv:1712.01895Physical Review AFeb 9, 201812 citations