Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Zero angular momentum turns’ ’’

Eugen Merzbacher

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.

Robert F. Snider

It is stressed that the defined states and their relationship deal exclusively with the quantum mechanics of directions and angular momentum. In particular, they have nothing to do with the possibility of factoring three dimensional motion into magnitude and directional components. A magnitude independent derivation of the previously obtained result is given.

John V. Kline

Jim Williams, Luka Pravica, Sergey N. Samarin

The Comments by Bartschat and Zatsarinny and by Bostock et al. on our paper [Phys Rev A 85, 022701 (2011)] are addressed. We clarify our original statement and point out that we only suggested that theory should include topological phase and did not say how to include it.