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

Physical Review A

Comment on ‘‘Test of local causality with very short light pulses’’

Morton H. Rubin

Published Feb 1, 1990• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

It is shown in this Comment that the claim of Svozil that his paper [Phys. Rev. A 39, 2222 (1989)] demonstrates that nonvanishing spacelike and timelike contributions to the Feynman propagator do not lead to a violation of microscopic causality as claimed in the work of Hegerfeldt [Phys. Rev. D 10, 3320 (1974); Phys Rev. Lett. 54, 2395 (1985)] and Rubin [Phys. Rev. D 35, 3836 (1987)] is incorrect, and that his calculation is irrelevant to the issues discussed by these authors.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.41.1728

Related papers

Test of local causality with very short light pulses

Karl Svozil

It is explicitly shown that the nonvanishing spacelike or timelike contributions to the Feynman propagator of quantum-field theory do not reflect any violation of local causality, such as propagation faster than light. An experiment is proposed to test the causality of quantum-field theory by measuring the broadening of a very short light pulse. For these pulses theory predicts a nondissipative behavior, with the pulse broadening only stemming from preparation and measurement uncertainties.

Physical Review A•Feb 1, 1989•4 citations

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Test of local causality with very short light pulses’ ’’

Karl Svozil

A clarification concerning the solution of the initial-value problem for the propagation of light pulses in dispersive media is given. In a proper interpretation, this solution corresponds to two single pulses traveling in opposite directions. Furthermore, a critical review of important research related to Rubin's arguments but not mentioned by him in the preceding Comment [Phys. Rev. A 41, 1727 (1990)] is presented.

Physical Review A•Feb 1, 1990•1 citation

Comment on “Two-Photon Franson-Type Experiment and Local Realism”

Luiz Carlos Ryff

A Comment on the Letter by Sven Aerts et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2872 (1999). The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.Received 20 March 2000DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.1908©2001 American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Feb 26, 2001•4 citations

Comment on “Röntgen Quantum Phase Shift: A Semiclassical Local Electrodynamical Effect?”

Gianfranco Spavieri, Miguel Rodriguez

A Comment on the Letter by S. A. R. Horsley and M. Babiker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010405 (2005). The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.Received 17 August 2006DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.258901©2006 American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Dec 19, 2006•3 citations

Comment on “Loophole-Free Bell Test for Continuous Variables via Wave and Particle Correlations”

Daniel Cavalcanti, Valerio Scarani

The inequalities proposed in [Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 170404 (2010)] are not Bell's inequalities in the usual sense: there are local classical models that violate these inequalities. Thus, their violation demonstrates nonlocality only under assumptions about the physical implementation and moreover they cannot be used as a device-independent test of nonlocality.

arXiv:1010.5358•Physical Review Letters•May 20, 2011•7 citations

Comment on “Nature of Quantum Localization in Atomic Momentum Transfer Experiments”

S. Meneghini, P. J. Bardroff, E. Mayr +1 more

A Comment on the Letter by Miroslaw Latka and Bruce J. West. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4202 (1995). The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.Received 20 December 1995DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.1195©1997 American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Feb 10, 1997•7 citations
It is shown in this Comment that the claim of Svozil that his paper [Phys. Rev. A 39, 2222 (1989)] demonstrates that nonvanishing spacelike and timelike contributions to the Feynman propagator do not lead to a violation of microscopic causality as claimed in the work of Hegerfeldt [Phys. Rev. D 10, 3320 (1974); Phys Rev. Lett. 54, 2395 (1985)] and Rubin [Phys. Rev. D 35, 3836 (1987)] is incorrect, and that his calculation is irrelevant to the issues discussed by these authors.