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 ‘Single-particle entanglement’ ”

S. J. van Enk

Published Aug 21, 2006• 33 citations
Publisher

Abstract

I try to rebut Drezet's arguments [Phys. Rev. A. 74, 026301 (2006)]) against the state $\ensuremath{\mid}0⟩\ensuremath{\mid}1⟩+\ensuremath{\mid}1⟩\ensuremath{\mid}0⟩$ being entangled by agreeing with them. I also address some old arguments repeated by Drezet.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.74.026302

Related papers

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 A•Nov 1, 1997•3 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Counterfactual entanglement and nonlocal correlations in separable states’ ”

Oliver Cohen

Two objections have been raised to the arguments presented by Cohen [Phys. Rev. A 60, 80 (1999)]. It is pointed out that neither objection has anything to do with the main subject matter of that paper, and shown that both objections are based on misunderstandings of the examples to which they relate.

arXiv:quant-ph/0008080•Physical Review A•Dec 4, 2000•2 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Entanglement and chaos in the kicked top' ”

M. Lombardi, A. Matzkin

We reply to the preceding Comment that attempts to clarify the connection between chaos and entanglement exposed in our previous paper [Phys. Rev. E 83, 016207 (2011)PRESCM1539-375510.1103/PhysRevE.83.016207]. We present additional computations that show the argument exposed in the Comment to explain the entangling power of some regular states is not important in the present case. More fundamentally we argue that the example chosen in the Comment is not the most significant in order to understand why specific regular dynamics can entangle as efficiently as when the corresponding classical dynamics is chaotic.

Physical Review E•Sep 23, 2015•7 citations

Comment on “Single-particle entanglement”

Aurélien Drezet

We show that contrarily to what it is claimed in Phys. Rev. A 72, 064306 (2005) entanglement is not necessary for explaining experimental results associated with the ``single particle-vacuum'' state $\ensuremath{\mid}\ensuremath{\psi}⟩\ensuremath{\sim}\ensuremath{\mid}0{⟩}_{A}\ensuremath{\mid}1{⟩}_{B}+\ensuremath{\mid}1{⟩}_{A}\ensuremath{\mid}0{⟩}_{B}$.

Physical Review A•Aug 21, 2006•30 citations

Reply to ‘Comment on ‘Single-mode excited entangled coherent states’’

Lan Xu, Le‐Man Kuang

We agree with the correction made by Yuan and Hu (Comment on 'Single-mode excited entangled coherent states') on entanglement analysis of single-mode excited entangled coherent states proposed in our previous paper (Xu and Kuang (2006) J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39 L191 ). We re-examine the numerical computation of the concurrence in our paper.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Dec 7, 2009•1 citation

Reply to “Comment on ‘Fermionic entanglement ambiguity in noninertial frames’ ”

Miguel Montero, Eduardo Martín-Martínez

We show that, contrary to the claims of the preceding Comment [Br\'adler and J\'auregui, Phys. Rev. A 85, 016301 (2012)], our original work [Phys. Rev. A 83, 062323 (2011)] is devoid of flaws or mistakes. We show that the criticism comes from a misunderstanding of part of our work.

arXiv:1108.6074•Physical Review A•Jan 17, 2012•24 citations
I try to rebut Drezet's arguments [Phys. Rev. A. 74, 026301 (2006)]) against the state \ensuremath∣0⟩\ensuremath∣1⟩+\ensuremath∣1⟩\ensuremath∣0⟩\ensuremath{\mid}0⟩\ensuremath{\mid}1⟩+\ensuremath{\mid}1⟩\ensuremath{\mid}0⟩\ensuremath∣0⟩\ensuremath∣1⟩+\ensuremath∣1⟩\ensuremath∣0⟩ being entangled by agreeing with them. I also address some old arguments repeated by Drezet.
We reply to the preceding Comment that attempts to clarify the connection between chaos and entanglement exposed in our previous paper [Phys. Rev. E 83, 016207 (2011)PRESCM1539-375510.1103/PhysRevE.83.016207]. We present additional computations that show the argument exposed in the Comment to explain the entangling power of some regular states is not important in the present case. More fundamentally we argue that the example chosen in the Comment is not the most significant in order to understand why specific regular dynamics can entangle as efficiently as when the corresponding classical dynamics is chaotic.