Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1609.08977

Reply to Ben-Israel and Vaidman, Comment on Non-representative Quantum Mechanical Weak values

B. E. Y. Svensson

Published Sep 28, 2016• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Ben-Israel and Vaidman (arXiv:1608.07185) raise objections to my arguments that there are cases where a quantum mechanical weak value can be said not to represent the system to which it pertains. They are right in pointing out that some of my conclusions are too general. However, there are still cases where my conclusions withstand to their scrutiny.

Related papers

Response to Comment on ‘Non-representative Quantum Mechanical Weak Values’ by Ben-Israel and Vaidman

B. E. Y. Svensson

Foundations of Physics•Jul 7, 2017•5 citations

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

Jonte R. Hance, JG Rarity, J 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.

•Nov 8, 2023•0 citations

Comment on "Association between quantum paradoxes based on weak values and a realistic interpretation of quantum measurements"

Juan José Seoane, Xabier Oianguren-Asua, Albert Solé +1 more

In their paper (arXiv:2402.09879), Aredes and Saldanha analyze several paradoxes related to weak values and present a "general argument" that aims to show that "realistic interpretations ...of weak values lead to inconsistencies". Although we agree with the identified inconsistencies for the specific weak values analyzed there, in this Comment we demonstrate that the origin of these inconsistencies is not their general argument, which is formally incorrect. We use Bohmian mechanics as a counterexample to confirm that their conclusions are not valid for all weak values and quantum theories. In particular, we show that weak values postselected in position can in fact be interpreted within Bohmian mechanics as properties of quantum systems, detached from any measuring devices, in a consistent and meaningful way.

quant-pharXiv:2603.18713•Physical Review A•Mar 20, 2026•3 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:2309.07599•Physical Review Research•Nov 8, 2023•4 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Association between quantum paradoxes based on weak values and a realistic interpretation of quantum measurements' ”

Alice M. Aredes, Pablo L. Saldanha

Seoane et al. [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 111, 066201 (2025)] criticized our work [Phys. Rev. A 109, 022238 (2024)], saying that our argument that realistic interpretations of weak values lead to inconsistencies is not valid for all weak values and quantum theories. This is true. We never intended that the arguments we presented would be valid for all weak values. We believe it is clearly stated in our work that we were dealing only with the weak values related to the quantum paradoxes cited in our paper. Seoane et al. also said in their Comment that the ``general argument'' we present in our paper is formally incorrect. However, this criticism is related to the interpretation they give to the expression ``equivalent,'' which is different from the one we use. In this sense, the presented criticisms are a matter of semantics, not of physics.

Physical Review A•Jun 2, 2025•1 citation

Vaidmans nested MZI, again

B. E. Y. Svensson

I provide additional arguments for refuting Vaidmans weak value analysis of the path of a particle in a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer. The argument uses sequential weak values to supplement my previous analysis according to which even weak measurements disturb the system to such an extent that projector weak values cannot be considered representative for the undisturbed system.

arXiv:1806.04514•Jun 12, 2018•0 citations
Ben-Israel and Vaidman (arXiv:1608.07185) raise objections to my arguments that there are cases where a quantum mechanical weak value can be said not to represent the system to which it pertains. They are right in pointing out that some of my conclusions are too general. However, there are still cases where my conclusions withstand to their scrutiny.
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.
In their paper (arXiv:2402.09879), Aredes and Saldanha analyze several paradoxes related to weak values and present a "general argument" that aims to show that "realistic interpretations ...of weak values lead to inconsistencies". Although we agree with the identified inconsistencies for the specific weak values analyzed there, in this Comment we demonstrate that the origin of these inconsistencies is not their general argument, which is formally incorrect. We use Bohmian mechanics as a counterexample to confirm that their conclusions are not valid for all weak values and quantum theories. In particular, we show that weak values postselected in position can in fact be interpreted within Bohmian mechanics as properties of quantum systems, detached from any measuring devices, in a consistent and meaningful way.
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.
Seoane et al. [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 111, 066201 (2025)] criticized our work [Phys. Rev. A 109, 022238 (2024)], saying that our argument that realistic interpretations of weak values lead to inconsistencies is not valid for all weak values and quantum theories. This is true. We never intended that the arguments we presented would be valid for all weak values. We believe it is clearly stated in our work that we were dealing only with the weak values related to the quantum paradoxes cited in our paper. Seoane et al. also said in their Comment that the ``general argument'' we present in our paper is formally incorrect. However, this criticism is related to the interpretation they give to the expression ``equivalent,'' which is different from the one we use. In this sense, the presented criticisms are a matter of semantics, not of physics.