arXiv:1310.1319

Reply to the Comment "Past of a quantum particle and weak measurement"

Lev Vaidman A

Published Oct 4, 2013• 1 citation

Abstract

Misinterpretation in the preceding Comment of my recent analysis of the past of a photon is corrected. There is nothing in this analysis which is "contrary to the usual quantum expectations" but, nevertheless, it does provide "further understanding and interpretation of the system considered". In particular, it teaches us that the naive common sense argument frequently used in the literature including the Comment has to be abandoned.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1310.1319

Related papers

Reply to “Comment on ‘Past of a quantum particle’ ”

Lev Vaidman A

Misinterpretation in the preceding Comment of my recent analysis of the past of a photon is corrected. There is nothing in this analysis which is ``contrary to the usual quantum expectations'' but, nevertheless, it does provide ``further understanding and interpretation of the system considered.'' In particular, it indicates that the common sense argument used in the Comment should be abandoned.

Physical Review AOct 29, 201347 citations

Reply to the comment on ‘Two-state vector formalism and quantum interference’

F. A. Hashmi, Fu Li, Shi-Yao Zhu +1 more

Abstract In the preceding comment it is claimed that we are mistaken in the analysis of the theory of the ‘past of a quantum particle’ proposed by the author of the comment. We show that the claim is unfounded. Moreover we show that the arguments presented in the comment are not consistent with the already proposed theory.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSep 19, 201713 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Consistent histories and quantum reasoning’ ”

Robert B. Griffiths

The argument presented in the preceding Comment is not consistent with the principles of reasoning employed in the consistent histories interpretation of quantum theory, and hence tells us nothing about locality or nonlocality from the perspective of that interpretation.

Physical Review AOct 1, 19980 citations

Reply to L.Vaidman's comment on "Asking photons where they have been in plain language"

D. Sokolovski

Vaidman's analysis of the photon's past is based on incorrect interpretation of quantum probability amplitudes. The confusion stems from his original work [{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{60}, 1351 (1988)], which missed the connection between the amplitudes and the "weak values" introduced therein.

arXiv:1704.02172Apr 7, 20174 citations

Comment on “Weak values and the past of a quantum particle”

Lev Vaidman A

In a recent paper, Hance et al. [Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023048 (2023)] criticized recent proposals connecting weak values and the past of a quantum particle. I argue that their conclusion follows from a conceptual error in understanding the approach to the past of the particle they discuss.

arXiv:2305.13828Physical Review ResearchNov 8, 20236 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Weak values and the past of a quantum particle' ”

Jonte R. Hance, John Rarity, James Ladyman

We here reply to a recent comment by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 048001 (2023)] on our paper [Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023048 (2023)]. In his Comment, Vaidman first admits that he is just defining (assuming) the weak trace gives the presence of a particle---however, in this case, he should use a term other than presence, as this already has a separate, intuitive meaning other than ``where a weak trace is.'' Despite this admission, Vaidman then goes on to argue for this definition by appeal to ideas around an objectively existing idea of presence. We show these appeals rely on their own conclusion---that there is always a matter of fact about the location of a quantum particle.

arXiv:2309.07599Physical Review ResearchNov 8, 20234 citations