Physical Review A

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

Lev Vaidman A

Published Oct 29, 2013• 47 citations

Abstract

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.

DOI: 10.1103/physreva.88.046103

Related papers

Reply to the Comment "Past of a quantum particle and weak measurement"

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 teaches us that the naive common sense argument frequently used in the literature including the Comment has to be abandoned.

arXiv:1310.1319Oct 4, 20131 citation

Reply to the comment on ‘Two-state vector formalism and quantum interference’

F. A. Hashmi, Fu Li, Shi-Yao Zhu +1 more

Abstract In the preceding comment it is claimed that we are mistaken in the analysis of the theory of the ‘past of a quantum particle’ proposed by the author of the comment. We show that the claim is unfounded. Moreover we show that the arguments presented in the comment are not consistent with the already proposed theory.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSep 19, 201713 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Consistent histories and quantum reasoning’ ”

Robert B. Griffiths

The argument presented in the preceding Comment is not consistent with the principles of reasoning employed in the consistent histories interpretation of quantum theory, and hence tells us nothing about locality or nonlocality from the perspective of that interpretation.

Physical Review AOct 1, 19980 citations

Reply to L.Vaidman's comment on "Asking photons where they have been in plain language"

D. Sokolovski

Vaidman's analysis of the photon's past is based on incorrect interpretation of quantum probability amplitudes. The confusion stems from his original work [{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{60}, 1351 (1988)], which missed the connection between the amplitudes and the "weak values" introduced therein.

arXiv:1704.02172Apr 7, 20174 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Particle path through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer' ”

Robert B. Griffiths

While much of the technical analysis in the preceding Comment is correct, in the end it confirms the conclusion reached in my previous work [Phys. Rev. A 94, 032115 (2016)]: A consistent histories analysis provides no support for the claim of counterfactual quantum communication put forward by Salih et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 170502 (2013)].

arXiv:1712.01895Physical Review AFeb 9, 201812 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