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:2309.07599 · Physical Review Research

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

Jonte R. Hance, John Rarity, James Ladyman

Published Nov 8, 2023• 4 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.1103/physrevresearch.5.048002

Related papers

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 “Weak values and the past of a quantum particle”

Lev Vaidman A

In a recent paper, Hance et al. [Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023048 (2023)] criticized recent proposals connecting weak values and the past of a quantum particle. I argue that their conclusion follows from a conceptual error in understanding the approach to the past of the particle they discuss.

arXiv:2305.13828•Physical Review Research•Nov 8, 2023•6 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:1901.05673•Physical Review A•Feb 27, 2019•17 citations

Reply to L.Vaidman's comment on "Asking photons where they have been in plain language"

D. Sokolovski

Vaidman's analysis of the photon's past is based on incorrect interpretation of quantum probability amplitudes. The confusion stems from his original work [{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{60}, 1351 (1988)], which missed the connection between the amplitudes and the "weak values" introduced therein.

arXiv:1704.02172•Apr 7, 2017•4 citations

Comment on “Null weak values and the past of a quantum particle”

D. Sokolovski

In a recent paper [Phys. Rev. A 95, 032110 (2017)], Duprey and Matzkin investigated the meaning of vanishing weak values and their role in the retrodiction of the past of a preselected and postselected quantum system in the presence of interference. Here we argue that any proposition regarding the weak values should be understood as a statement about the probability amplitudes. With this in mind, we revisit some of the conclusions reached in Duprey and Matzkin's work.

arXiv:1709.02170•Physical Review A•Apr 13, 2018•20 citations

Weak measurement criteria for the past of a quantum particle

B. E. Y. Svensson

Vaidman, Phys.Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013), has proposed a weak value criterion for the past of a quantum particle, and applied it to photons in a particular setup of nested Mach-Zehnder interferometers. From his analysis, he draws some astonishing conclusions regarding which arms of the setup the photons populate. I argue that the weak values Vaidman employs as weak tracers in his analysis cannot be used in this case and that, consequently, the conclusions he draws cannot be upheld. The reason is that weak values are defined as a limit which in this case turns out to be discontinuous. I propose instead a weak mean value criterion which avoids these shortcomings.

arXiv:1407.4613•Jul 17, 2014•1 citation
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.
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.
Vaidman, Phys.Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013), has proposed a weak value criterion for the past of a quantum particle, and applied it to photons in a particular setup of nested Mach-Zehnder interferometers. From his analysis, he draws some astonishing conclusions regarding which arms of the setup the photons populate. I argue that the weak values Vaidman employs as weak tracers in his analysis cannot be used in this case and that, consequently, the conclusions he draws cannot be upheld. The reason is that weak values are defined as a limit which in this case turns out to be discontinuous. I propose instead a weak mean value criterion which avoids these shortcomings.