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

Comment on “Single-particle entanglement”

Aurélien Drezet

Published Aug 21, 2006• 30 citations
Publisher

Abstract

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 $\ensuremath{\mid}\ensuremath{\psi}⟩\ensuremath{\sim}\ensuremath{\mid}0{⟩}_{A}\ensuremath{\mid}1{⟩}_{B}+\ensuremath{\mid}1{⟩}_{A}\ensuremath{\mid}0{⟩}_{B}$.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.74.026301

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 A•Aug 21, 2006•33 citations

Comment on `Experimental Entanglement Swapping: Entangling Photons That Never Interacted'

Pieter Kok, Samuel L. Braunstein

We comment on the experimental realisation of entanglement swapping by Pan et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3891 (1998)].

arXiv:quant-ph/9907016•Jul 5, 1999•0 citations

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

Comment on ‘‘Why quantum dynamics can be formulated as a Markov process’’

Daniel T. Gillespie

In a paper with the title given above, Garbaczewski and Olkiewicz [Phys. Rev. A 51, 3445 (1995)] claim that a contrarily entitled paper of Gillespie [Phys. Rev. A 49, 1607 (1994)] is misleading because it is based on an allegedly overly restrictive assumption. In the discussion given here of that claim, the impugned assumption, and some foundational aspects of Markovian and non-Markovian stochastic processes, it is concluded that the thesis of the later title has not been established.

Physical Review A•Jun 1, 1996•4 citations

Single-particle entanglement

S. J. van Enk

I give a simple argument that demonstrates that the state $\ensuremath{\mid}0⟩\ensuremath{\mid}1⟩+\ensuremath{\mid}1⟩\ensuremath{\mid}0⟩$, with $\ensuremath{\mid}0⟩$ denoting a state with 0 particles (or photons) and $\ensuremath{\mid}1⟩$ a one-particle state, is entangled in spite of recent claims to the contrary. I also discuss viewpoints on the old controversy about whether the above state can be said to display single-particle or single-photon nonlocality.

arXiv:quant-ph/0507189•Physical Review A•Dec 29, 2005•212 citations

Reply to 'Comment on Universal out-of-equilibrium transport in Kondo-correlated quantum dots'

Enrique Muñoz, C. J. Bolech, Stefan Kirchner

A recent comment on our work (Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 110, 016601 (2013)) by A.A.Aligia claims that we "made mistakes in the evaluation of the lesser quantities". It is further claimed that the distribution function of the single-particle selfenergy of the interacting region in the Fermi liquid regime, e.g. at small bias voltage, low temperature, and small frequency, is continuous. These claims are based on a comparison of the particle-hole symmetric case with results obtained from the approach of A.A.Aligia. We disagree with these claims and show that the discrepancies that the comment alludes to originate from a violation of Ward identities by the method employed in the comment. A comparison of our approach with the numerical renormalization group shows perfect agreement for the symmetric case.

arXiv:1308.0638•Aug 2, 2013•0 citations
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∣\ensuremathψ⟩\ensuremath∼\ensuremath∣0⟩A\ensuremath∣1⟩B+\ensuremath∣1⟩A\ensuremath∣0⟩B\ensuremath{\mid}\ensuremath{\psi}⟩\ensuremath{\sim}\ensuremath{\mid}0{⟩}_{A}\ensuremath{\mid}1{⟩}_{B}+\ensuremath{\mid}1{⟩}_{A}\ensuremath{\mid}0{⟩}_{B}\ensuremath∣\ensuremathψ⟩\ensuremath∼\ensuremath∣0⟩A​\ensuremath∣1⟩B​+\ensuremath∣1⟩A​\ensuremath∣0⟩B​.
I give a simple argument that demonstrates that the state $\ensuremath{\mid}0⟩\ensuremath{\mid}1⟩+\ensuremath{\mid}1⟩\ensuremath{\mid}0⟩$, with $\ensuremath{\mid}0⟩$ denoting a state with 0 particles (or photons) and $\ensuremath{\mid}1⟩$ a one-particle state, is entangled in spite of recent claims to the contrary. I also discuss viewpoints on the old controversy about whether the above state can be said to display single-particle or single-photon nonlocality.
A recent comment on our work (Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 110, 016601 (2013)) by A.A.Aligia claims that we "made mistakes in the evaluation of the lesser quantities". It is further claimed that the distribution function of the single-particle selfenergy of the interacting region in the Fermi liquid regime, e.g. at small bias voltage, low temperature, and small frequency, is continuous. These claims are based on a comparison of the particle-hole symmetric case with results obtained from the approach of A.A.Aligia. We disagree with these claims and show that the discrepancies that the comment alludes to originate from a violation of Ward identities by the method employed in the comment. A comparison of our approach with the numerical renormalization group shows perfect agreement for the symmetric case.