European Journal of Physics

Reply to ‘Comment on “Overcoming misconceptions in quantum mechanics with the time evolution operator”’

L. M. Arévalo Aguilar, P. C. Garcia Quijas

Published Apr 22, 2013• 4 citations

Abstract

We contend that the statement attributing to us the implication that the wave functions ?I(x, t) and ?II(x, t) are different cannot not be logically supported. On the contrary, throughout our paper ?Overcoming misconceptions in quantum mechanics with the time evolution operator? (Garcia Quijas and Ar?valo Aguilar 2007 Eur. J. Phys. 28 147) we constructed an argument to give support to the statement that the two wave functions ?I(x, t) and ?II(x, t) are the same. In other words, in our paper we really did appreciate that methods I and II lead to identical results.

DOI: 10.1088/0143-0807/34/4/l77

Related papers

Comment on ‘Overcoming misconceptions in quantum mechanics with the time evolution operator’

F. Masafumi Toyama, Yukihisa Nogami

In their paper ‘Overcoming misconceptions in quantum mechanics with the time evolution operator’, García Quijas and Arévalo Aguilar (2007 Eur. J. Phys. 28 147) examined the time-dependent wave function of a particle in the one-dimensional harmonic oscillator potential using two different methods. The two wave functions that the authors obtained through the methods have different analytical expressions. The authors showed numerically that the two wave functions lead to the same probability density. When the real parts of the wave functions are compared, however, they are different in their details. That was puzzling because both wave functions are supposed to be solutions of the same time-dependent Schrödinger equation with the same initial condition. We point out that the two wave functions are actually identical. We show this analytically.

European Journal of PhysicsApr 22, 20137 citations

Reply to Comment on ``Time-dependent quasi-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the unitary quantum evolution''

Miloslav Znojil

In his fresh "Comment" (arXiv:0711.0137v1), A. Mostafazadeh reacts on my very recent letter (arXiv:0710.5653v1) where I tried to clarify certain misunderstandings which occurred in A. M., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007) [arXiv:0706.1872v2, "Paper"]. As long as the "Comment" offers a new support of the original assertions made in the "Paper", I feel obliged to re-clarify the matter by extending my argumentation. I insist that it is possible to escape the main conclusion of the "Paper", indeed. In particular, I point out a gap in the new calculations in "Comment", add a few remarks on the notation and reconfirm that the unitarity of the time-evolution DOES NOT require the time-independence of the metric operator.

arXiv:0711.0514Nov 5, 20076 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Classical interventions in quantum systems. II. Relativistic Invariance’ ”

Asher Peres

Contrary to the claim in the preceding Comment, the operators that describe the complete time evolution of a quantum system have a covariant transformation law, even though they are built from expressions that belong to separate subsystems and do not obey Lorentz transformations. The reason is that these are open subsystems, and different parts of the universe are excluded in their description. However, the complete system still obeys Lorentz covariance.

Physical Review ANov 9, 20012 citations

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Why quantum mechanics cannot be formulated as a Markov process’’’

Daniel T. Gillespie

In reply to the preceding Comment on an article by D. T. Gillespie [Phys. Rev. A 49, 1607 (1994)], it is emphasized that the most plausible interpretation of the singly conditioned probability function implies that the evolution of the two-state quantum system being considered cannot be characterized as a Markov process on those states over any time interval. And it is pointed out that an alternative interpretation that is offered in the Comment appears to be in conflict with quantum mechanics.

Physical Review AAug 1, 19965 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Solution of the Schrödinger equation for the time-dependent linear potential’ ”

I. Guedes

In this reply I discuss further the misconception in my paper [Phys. Rev. A 63, 034102 (2001)] related to the solution of the Schr\"odinger equation for a particle in a time-dependent linear potential.

Physical Review AJul 8, 200318 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