Physical Review A

Reply to “Comment on ‘Entangled entanglement’ ”

Günther Krenn, Anton Zeilinger

Published Nov 1, 1997• 3 citations

Abstract

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.

DOI: 10.1103/physreva.56.4336

Related papers

Reply to “Comment on ‘Single-particle entanglement’ ”

S. J. van Enk

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.

Physical Review AAug 21, 200633 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

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/0008080Physical Review ADec 4, 20002 citations

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:1108.6074Physical Review AJan 17, 201224 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Past of a quantum particle’ ”

Lev Vaidman A

Misinterpretation in the preceding Comment of my recent analysis of the past of a photon is corrected. There is nothing in this analysis which is ``contrary to the usual quantum expectations'' but, nevertheless, it does provide ``further understanding and interpretation of the system considered.'' In particular, it indicates that the common sense argument used in the Comment should be abandoned.

Physical Review AOct 29, 201347 citations

Reply to “Comment on: ‘Entanglement purification via controlled–controlled-NOT operations’ [Phys. Lett. A 271 (2000) 44]” [Phys. Lett. A 372 (2008) 3136]

Xun‐Li Feng, Shangqing Gong, Zhizhan Xu

Physics Letters AFeb 15, 20083 citations