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:1805.12171 · Physical Review A

Comment on “Past of a quantum particle revisited”

Uri Peleg, Lev Vaidman A

Published Feb 27, 2019• 36 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.99.026103

Related papers

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:1901.05673•Physical Review A•Feb 27, 2019•17 citations

Comment on “Past of a quantum particle”

Zheng-Hong Li, M. Al-Amri, Muhammad Suhail Zubairy

We present an analysis of a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer in which an ensemble of identical pre- and postselected particles leaves a weak trace. A knowledge of the weak value partially destroys the quantum interference. The results, contrary to some recent claims [Vaidman, Phys. Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013)], are in accordance with the usual quantum-mechanical expectations.

Physical Review A•Oct 29, 2013•65 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 A•Jun 28, 2017•36 citations

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

Lev Vaidman A

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.

arXiv:1610.04781•Oct 15, 2016•2 citations

Past of a quantum particle revisited

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

We analyze Vaidman's three-path interferometer with weak path marking [L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013)] and find that common sense yields correct statements about the particle's path through the interferometer. This disagrees with the original claim that the particles have discontinuous trajectories at odds with common sense. In our analysis, ``the particle's path'' has operational meaning as acquired by a path-discriminating measurement. For a quantum-mechanical experimental demonstration of the case, one should perform a single-photon version of the experiment by Danan et al. [A. Danan, D. Farfurnik, S. Bar-Ad, and L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 240402 (2013)] with unambiguous path discrimination. We present a detailed proposal for such an experiment.

arXiv:1704.03722•Physical Review A•Aug 21, 2017•53 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:1610.07734•Oct 25, 2016•2 citations
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.
We analyze Vaidman's three-path interferometer with weak path marking [L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013)] and find that common sense yields correct statements about the particle's path through the interferometer. This disagrees with the original claim that the particles have discontinuous trajectories at odds with common sense. In our analysis, ``the particle's path'' has operational meaning as acquired by a path-discriminating measurement. For a quantum-mechanical experimental demonstration of the case, one should perform a single-photon version of the experiment by Danan et al. [A. Danan, D. Farfurnik, S. Bar-Ad, and L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 240402 (2013)] with unambiguous path discrimination. We present a detailed proposal for such an experiment.