Reply to Gao’s ”Comment on ”How to protect the interpretation of the wave function against protective measurements”

Jos Uffink

Published Aug 24, 2012• 2 citations

Abstract

Shan Gao (Gao 2011) recently presented a critical reconsideration of a paper I wote (Uffink 1999) on the subject of protective measurement. Here, I take the occasion to reply to his objections.

Related papers

Comment on "How to protect the interpretation of the wave function against protective measurements" by Jos Uffink

Shan Gao

It is shown that Uffink's attempt to protect the interpretation of the wave function against protective measurements fails due to several errors in his arguments.

Dec 10, 20116 citations

On the measurement process in Bohmian mechanics (reply to Gao)

Dustin Lazarovici

This note clarifies several details about the description of the measurement process in Bohmian mechanics and responds to a recent preprint by Shan Gao, wrongly claiming a contradiction in the theory.

Feb 1, 20190 citations

Reply to Gao's “On Uffink's criticism of protective measurements”

Jos Uffink

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern PhysicsAug 20, 20139 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 ‘Association between quantum paradoxes based on weak values and a realistic interpretation of quantum measurements’"

Anonymous

Physical Review AMay 12, 20250 citations

Comment on “Protective measurement of the wave function of a single squeezed harmonic-oscillator state”

Yakir Aharonov, Lev Vaidman A

Alter and Yamamoto [Phys. Rev. A 53, R2911 (1996)] claimed to consider ``protective measurements'' that we have recently introduced. We show that the measurements discussed by Alter and Yamamoto are not the protective measurements we proposed. Therefore, their results are irrelevant to the nature of protective measurements.

arXiv:quant-ph/9612045Physical Review AJul 1, 19977 citations