Physical Review A

Reply to “Comment on ‘Limits of the measurability of the local quantum electromagnetic field amplitude’ ”

G. Compagno, Franco Persico

Published Nov 1, 1999• 9 citations

Abstract

We argue that the criticism by Hnizdo [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 60, 4212 (1999)] of the results obtained by Compagno and Persico [Phys. Rev. A 57, 1595 (1998)] on the theory of measurement of the amplitude of the quantum electromagnetic field is unfounded. By a simple and direct approach we show that the quantities evaluated by Hnizdo in his Comment are incorrect and we present the correct results.

DOI: 10.1103/physreva.60.4196

Related papers

Comment on “Limits of the measurability of the local quantum electromagnetic-field amplitude”

Vladimir Hnizdo

It is argued that the findings of a recent reanalysis by Compagno and Persico [Phys. Rev. A 57, 1595 (1998)] of the Bohr-Rosenfeld procedure for the measurement of a single space-time-averaged component of the electromagnetic field are incorrect when the field measurement time is shorter than that required for light to traverse the measurement's test body. To this end, the time-averaged ``self-force'' on the test body, assumed for simplicity to be of a spherical shape, is evaluated in terms of a one-dimensional quadrature for the general trajectory allowed for the test body by Compagno and Persico, and in closed form for the limiting steplike trajectory used by Bohr and Rosenfeld.

arXiv:quant-ph/0210074Physical Review ANov 1, 199911 citations

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Phase properties of the quantized single-mode electromagnetic field’’

David Thomas Pegg, Stephen Mark Barnett

We assess the objections raised by Ma and Rhodes [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 43, 2576 (1991)]. These objections seem to arise from a misinterpretation of our theory and a confusion between states of precise phase and states of precise field.

Physical Review AMar 1, 199112 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Consistency, amplitudes, and probabilities in quantum theory’ ”

Ariel Caticha

I reply to Finkelstein’s comment [preceding paper, Phys. Rev. A 60, 1723 (1999)] and remark on the meanings conveyed by the word “amplitude.”Received 23 December 1998DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.60.1725©1999 American Physical Society

Physical Review AAug 1, 19990 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Nonlocality counterfactuals, and quantum mechanics’ ”

William George Unruh

Stapp [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 60, 2595 (1999)] has argued that my criticism of his nonlocality proof is wrong. I point out that counterfactual arguments are fraught with dangers, and that any such claim should use them in a conservative manner. A reanalysis of his claims continues to lead me to the conclusion that the nonlocality of quantum mechanics remains unproven.

Physical Review ASep 1, 19992 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Relevance of Bell’s theorem as a signature of nonlocality: Case of classical angular momentum distributions’ ”

A. Matzkin

In this Reply, we show that the main argument of the criticism given in the preceding Comment is inconsistent with the assumption lying at the basis of the model introduced in the original paper [A. Matzkin, Phys. Rev. A 77, 062110 (2008)]. We further clarify some issues concerning the interplay between noncommuting measurements and conservation laws in order to reply to the additional criticism contained in the comment.

Physical Review AApr 10, 20090 citations

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Computational approach to the quantum Zeno effect: Position measurements’ ’’

H. Fearn, Willis E. Lamb

This is a Reply to the preceding Comment by Home and Whitaker [Phys. Rev. A 48, 2502 (1993)]. Our aim is to indicate how we apply basic quantum mechanics to quantum measurement theory. We discuss the work of Misra and Sudarshan [J. Math. Phys. 18, 576 (1977)] and defend our own work on the quantum Zeno effect.

Physical Review ASep 1, 19936 citations