arXiv:1610.04781

Past of a particle inside an interferometer: the two-state vector approach

Lev Vaidman A

Published Oct 15, 2016• 2 citations

Abstract

Hashmi et al. [J. Phys. A 49, 345302 (2016)] claimed that the approach to the past of a quantum particle introduced by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013)] has difficulties in certain examples and that it even can be refuted. Here I reply to their criticism showing that the approach provides a good explanation of all examples they considered. It is fully consistent with standard quantum mechanics and provides a useful tool for analyzing interference experiments.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1610.04781

Related papers

Comment on ‘Two-state vector formalism and quantum interference’

Lev Vaidman A

Abstract Hashmi et al (2016 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor . 49 345302) claimed that the approach to the past of a quantum particle introduced by Vaidman (2013 Phys. Rev . A 87 052104) has difficulties in certain examples and that it can even be refuted. Here I reply to their criticism showing that the approach provides a good explanation for all the examples they considered. It is fully consistent with standard quantum mechanics and provides a useful tool for analyzing interference experiments.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSep 19, 201722 citations

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

Berthold‐Georg Englert, Kelvin Horia, Jibo Dai +2 more

We stand by our findings in Phys. Rev. A 96, 022126 (2017). In addition to refuting the invalid objections raised by Peleg and Vaidman, we report a retrocausation problem inherent in Vaidman's definition of the past of a quantum particle.

arXiv:1901.05673Physical Review AFeb 27, 201917 citations

Particle path(s) through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer: Reply to Griffiths

Lev Vaidman A

Griffiths [Phys. Rev. A 94, 032115 (2016)] analyzed, in the framework of consistent histories interpretation, the controversy regarding the approach to the past of a quantum particle introduced by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013)]. I argue that Griffith's criticism of my approach using analysis of experiments with weak probes is unfounded.

arXiv:1610.07734Oct 25, 20162 citations

Comment on “Past of a quantum particle revisited”

Uri Peleg, Lev Vaidman A

The recent criticism of Vaidman's proposal for the analysis of the past of a particle in the nested interferometer is refuted. It is shown that the definition of the past of the particle adopted by Englert et al. [B. G. Englert et al., Phys. Rev. A 96, 022126 (2017)] is applicable only to a tiny fraction of photons in the interferometer which indeed exhibit different behavior. Their proof that all pre- and postselected particles behave this way, i.e., follow a continuous trajectory, does not hold, because it relies on the assumption that it is intended to prove.

arXiv:1805.12171Physical Review AFeb 27, 201936 citations

Comment on “Particle path through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer”

Lev Vaidman A

Griffiths [Phys. Rev. A 94, 032115 (2016)] analyzed, in the framework of a consistent histories interpretation, the controversy regarding the approach to the past of a quantum particle introduced by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013)]. I argue that Griffith's criticism of my approach using an analysis of experiments with weak probes is unfounded.

Physical Review AJun 28, 201736 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