arXiv:1112.0820 · Physical Review A

Reply to “Comment on ‘Information flow of quantum states interacting with closed timelike curves’”

Timothy C. Ralph, Casey R. Myers

Published Nov 23, 2011• 4 citations

Abstract

We respond to the comment by K\l{}obus et al. [Phys. Rev. A 84, 056301 (2011)] by emphasizing that the equivalent circuit, once constructed, obeys the standard rules of quantum mechanics---hence there is no ambiguity in how to choose initial states in our model. We discuss the distinction between correlated ensembles produced nonlocally via measurements on entangled states and those produced via local preparation.

DOI: 10.1103/physreva.84.056302

Related papers

Comment on “Information flow of quantum states interacting with closed timelike curves”

Waldemar Kłobus, Andrzej Grudka, Antoni Wójcik

We show that recent results on the interaction of causality-respecting particles with particles on closed timelike curves derived in [Phys. Rev. A 82, 062330 (2010)] depend on ambiguous assumptions about the form of the state which is inputted into the proposed equivalent circuit. Choosing a different form of this state leads to an opposite conclusion on the power of closed timelike curves.

arXiv:1103.0774Physical Review ANov 23, 20112 citations

Information flow of quantum states interacting with closed timelike curves

Timothy C. Ralph, Casey R. Myers

Recently, the quantum information processing power of closed timelike curves has been discussed. Because the most widely accepted model for quantum closed timelike curve interactions contains ambiguities, different authors have been able to reach radically different conclusions as to the power of such interactions. By tracing the information flow through such systems we are able to derive equivalent circuits with unique solutions, thus allowing an objective decision between the alternatives to be made. We conclude that closed timelike curves, if they exist and are well described by these simple models, would be a powerful resource for quantum information processing.

arXiv:1003.1987Physical Review ADec 29, 201037 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Counterfactual entanglement and nonlocal correlations in separable states’ ”

Oliver Cohen

Two objections have been raised to the arguments presented by Cohen [Phys. Rev. A 60, 80 (1999)]. It is pointed out that neither objection has anything to do with the main subject matter of that paper, and shown that both objections are based on misunderstandings of the examples to which they relate.

arXiv:quant-ph/0008080Physical Review ADec 4, 20002 citations

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

Miguel Montero, Eduardo Martín-Martínez

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.

arXiv:1108.6074Physical Review AJan 17, 201224 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 ‘Why quantum mechanics cannot be formulated as a Markov process’ ”

Daniel T. Gillespie

It is argued that the stochastic model of a quantum-mechanical two-state oscillator discussed in the preceding Comment by Hardy et al. [Phys. Rev. A 56, 3301 (1997)] does not constitute a valid classical stochastic process.

Physical Review AOct 1, 19973 citations