arXiv:2205.01020

Reply to arXiv:2203.14555

Margaret Hawton

Published May 2, 2022• 1 citation

Abstract

This comment refutes the claim made by A. Jadczyk and A.M. Schlichtinger in arXiv:2203.14555 that the photon position operator with commuting components proposed in 1999 does not have the properties required for a photon position operator.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2205.01020

Related papers

A Comment on the "Photon position operator with commuting components" by Margaret Hawton

Arkadiusz Jadczyk, Agnieszka Matylda Schlichtinger

We show that the position operator with commuting components proposed by M. Hawton [M. Hawton, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 59}, 954 (1999)] and developed in subsequent papers, including the recent ones, does not have the properties required for a photon position operator. Depending on the exact interpretation of the results it either concerns a triplet of massless spin zero particles rather than the photon, or does not have the required covariance properties under space rotations.

arXiv:2203.14555Mar 28, 20221 citation

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

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 '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

Reply to Comment on ‘Quantum principle of relativity’

Andrzej Dragan, ARTUR K. EKERT

We refute criticisms by Del Santo and Horvat towards our paper "Quantum principle of relativity": most of their counterarguments can be dismissed, and the rest provides further evidence to our claims.

New Journal of PhysicsAug 1, 20237 citations

Reply to Comment on ‘Quantum principle of relativity’

Andrzej Dragan, ARTUR K. EKERT

New Journal of PhysicsSep 1, 20228 citations