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

Reply to “Comment on ‘Validity of Feynman’s prescription of disregarding the Pauli principle in intermediate states’ ”

Francisco Antônio Bezerra Coutinho, Yukihisa Nogami, Lauro Tomio

Published Jun 8, 2000• 4 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In a recent paper, we raised a question on the validity of Feynman's prescription of disregarding the Pauli principle in intermediate states of perturbation theory. In the preceding Comment, Cavalcanti correctly pointed out that Feynman's prescription is consistent with the exact solution of the model that we used. This means that the Pauli principle does not necessarily apply to intermediate states. We discuss implications of this puzzling aspect.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.62.016102

Related papers

Comment on “Validity of Feynman’s prescription of disregarding the Pauli principle in intermediate states”

R. M. Cavalcanti

In a recent paper, Coutinho, Nogami, and Tomio [Phys. Rev. A 59, 2624 (1999)] presented an example in which, they claim, Feynman's prescription of disregarding the Pauli principle in intermediate states of perturbation theory fails. We show that, contrary to their claim, Feynman's prescription is consistent with the exact solution of their example.

arXiv:quant-ph/9908088•Physical Review A•Jun 8, 2000•3 citations

Validity of Feynman’s prescription of disregarding the Pauli principle in intermediate states

Francisco Antônio Bezerra Coutinho, Yukihisa Nogami, Lauro Tomio

Regarding the Pauli principle in quantum field theory and in many-body quantum mechanics, Feynman advocated that Pauli's exclusion principle can be completely ignored in intermediate states of perturbation theory. He observed that all virtual processes (of the same order) that violate the Pauli principle cancel out. Feynman accordingly introduced a prescription, which is to disregard the Pauli principle in all intermediate processes. This ingenious trick is of crucial importance in the Feynman diagram technique. We show, however, an example in which Feynman's prescription fails. This casts doubts on the general validity of Feynman's prescription.

arXiv:quant-ph/9812073•Physical Review A•Apr 1, 1999•11 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Consistent histories and quantum reasoning’ ”

Robert B. Griffiths

The argument presented in the preceding Comment is not consistent with the principles of reasoning employed in the consistent histories interpretation of quantum theory, and hence tells us nothing about locality or nonlocality from the perspective of that interpretation.

Physical Review A•Oct 1, 1998•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Coherent-state path integrals in the continuum’”

G. Kordas, S. I. Mistakidis, A. I. Karanikas

In this Reply we briefly clarify the main points of our method to construct coherent-state path integrals in the continuum and we reply to the critique raised by in the preceding Comment by Kochetov [Phys. Rev. A 99, 026101 (2019)]. By using definite examples, we prove that our approach is capable of resolving the inconsistencies accompanying the standard coherent-state path-integral representation of interacting systems.

Physical Review A•Feb 13, 2019•3 citations

Reply to the comment on "Quantum principle of relativity"

Andrzej Dragan, ARTUR K. EKERT

We discuss critical remarks raised by Horodecki towards our work on the connection between superluminal extension of special relativity and fundamental aspects of quantum theory.

arXiv:2309.00020•Aug 31, 2023•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Perturbative operator approach to high-precision light-pulse atom interferometry' ”

Christian Ufrecht, Enno Giese

Recently, we introduced [C. Ufrecht and E. Giese, Phys. Rev. A 101, 053615 (2020)] a technique to calculate the phase of light-pulse atom interferometers caused by the presence of perturbation potentials and underlined its power by an illustrative example. In the preceding Comment [B. Dubetsky, Phys. Rev. A 102, 027301 (2020)], it was pointed out that other, less idealized situations could have been calculated as well. Our Reply emphasizes that our method is correct, the results from our example can be trivially generalized to other perturbations, and intricate effects of local environments can be even more prominent but also treated by our technique.

Physical Review A•Aug 20, 2020•1 citation
In a recent paper, we raised a question on the validity of Feynman's prescription of disregarding the Pauli principle in intermediate states of perturbation theory. In the preceding Comment, Cavalcanti correctly pointed out that Feynman's prescription is consistent with the exact solution of the model that we used. This means that the Pauli principle does not necessarily apply to intermediate states. We discuss implications of this puzzling aspect.
Regarding the Pauli principle in quantum field theory and in many-body quantum mechanics, Feynman advocated that Pauli's exclusion principle can be completely ignored in intermediate states of perturbation theory. He observed that all virtual processes (of the same order) that violate the Pauli principle cancel out. Feynman accordingly introduced a prescription, which is to disregard the Pauli principle in all intermediate processes. This ingenious trick is of crucial importance in the Feynman diagram technique. We show, however, an example in which Feynman's prescription fails. This casts doubts on the general validity of Feynman's prescription.
Recently, we introduced [C. Ufrecht and E. Giese, Phys. Rev. A 101, 053615 (2020)] a technique to calculate the phase of light-pulse atom interferometers caused by the presence of perturbation potentials and underlined its power by an illustrative example. In the preceding Comment [B. Dubetsky, Phys. Rev. A 102, 027301 (2020)], it was pointed out that other, less idealized situations could have been calculated as well. Our Reply emphasizes that our method is correct, the results from our example can be trivially generalized to other perturbations, and intricate effects of local environments can be even more prominent but also treated by our technique.