Physical Review A

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

Karl Svozil

Published Feb 1, 1990• 1 citation

Abstract

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.

DOI: 10.1103/physreva.41.1729

Related papers

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

Morton H. Rubin

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.

Physical Review AFeb 1, 19900 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 AAug 20, 20201 citation

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Solutions of the telegrapher’s equation in the presence of traps’ ’’

Jaume Masoliver A, Josep M. Porrà, George H. Weiss

This reply adds a number of details to remarks by Foong and Kanno [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 46, 5296 (1992)] on our paper [Phys. Rev. A 45, 2222 (1992)] regarding the discontinuities observed in the curves generated in that paper.

Physical Review AOct 1, 19922 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

Electromagnetic Formalism of the Propagation and Amplification of Light

Francisco Javier Fraile-Pelaez, Andrés Macho

In this work, we present a simplified but comprehensive derivation of all the key concepts and main results concerning light pulse propagation in dielectric media, including a brief extension to the case of active media and laser oscillation. Clarifications of the concepts of slow light and "superluminality" are provided, and a detailed discussion on the concept of transform-limited pulses is also included in the Appendix.

arXiv:1907.06504Jul 15, 20191 citation

Reply to “Comment on ‘Entangled entanglement’ ”

Günther Krenn, Anton Zeilinger

Expounding an argument that we have stated in Sec. IV of our paper [Phys. Rev. A 54, 1793 (1996)], we demonstrate that according to our understanding Schafir's conclusion [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 56, 4335 (1997)] is based upon a premise that is not tenable.

Physical Review ANov 1, 19973 citations