arXiv:1402.2954

Reply to comments on "Weak value amplification is suboptimal for estimation and detection"

Christopher Ferrie, Joshua Combes

Published Feb 12, 2014• 2 citations

Abstract

Kedem's Comment [arXiv:1402.1352] on our Letter [PRL 112, 040406 (2014)] contains only the criticism that we did not consider complex weak values. We point out follow-up work which uses the same analysis as in our Letter, includes any type of weak values and draws the same conclusion. Vaidman's Comment [arXiv:1402.0199] on our Letter can be deconstructed in to two distinct logical fallacies.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1402.2954

Related papers

Comment on "Weak value amplification is suboptimal for estimation and detection"

Lev Vaidman A

The assumptions of Ferrie and Combes are irrelevant for realistic experimental situations. This undermines their conclusions.

arXiv:1402.0199Feb 2, 20149 citations

A comment on "Weak value amplification is suboptimal for estimation and detection"

Yaron Kedem

By assuming that the weak value is real, Ferrie and Combes render their result inapplicable to weak measurement experiments which are aimed at enhancing precision.

arXiv:1402.1352Feb 6, 20143 citations

Reply to "Comment on Protocol for Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication"

Hatim Salih, Li, Zheng-Hong, M. Al-Amri +1 more

In reply to Vaidman's Comment [arXiv:1304.6689], we show that his claim that our Protocol for Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication [PRL 110, 170502 (2013), arXiv:1206.2042] is counterfactual only for one type of information bit is wrong.

arXiv:1404.5392Apr 22, 20144 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Optimal probe wave function of weak-value amplification’ ”

Yuki Susa, Yutaka Shikano, Akio Hosoya

It is pointed out that the ``counterexample'' presented in the Comment is a family of probe wave functions which are increasingly broad as the shift becomes large. Furthermore, the author's variational calculation is not correct in the sense that we have to gauge fix the freedom of the phase translation. It is shown that there are two kinds of solutions, normalizable and un-normalizable. The former is our optimal solution, and the latter is what he found. It seems only the former is relevant from a practical point of view.

arXiv:1304.1352Physical Review AApr 12, 20134 citations

Reply to "Comment on 'Strong Measurements Give a Better Direct Measurement of the Quantum Wave Function' "

Giuseppe Vallone, Daniele Dequal

This is the reply to [arXiv:1711.00764], in which the authors claim that there is crucial normalization error in PRL 116, 040502 (2016) and that some quantities appearing in the method of PRL 116, 040502 (2016) are not experimentally measurable. We show that the claim of [arXiv:1711.00764] is not correct and that the quantities appearing in PRL 116, 040502 (2016) can be measured.

arXiv:1711.02055Nov 6, 20170 citations

Li et al. Reply:

Xin Li, Sooran Kim, Xi Chen +1 more

This Reply to preceding Comment of arXiv:1909.09867 shows why the statements in the Comment are misleading. We point out that our physical picture and theirs are fundamentally different, therefore the claim of using their correlation to include ours shows a very limited physical relevance, which instead may impede the precise understanding of either of the two pictures.

arXiv:2003.03992Physical Review LettersMar 12, 202013 citations