Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical

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

F. A. Hashmi, Fu Li, Shi-Yao Zhu, Muhammad Suhail Zubairy

Published Sep 19, 2017• 13 citations

Abstract

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.

DOI: 10.1088/1751-8121/aa8d23

Related papers

Comment on ‘Two-state vector formalism and quantum interference’

Lev Vaidman A

Abstract Hashmi et al (2016 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor . 49 345302) claimed that the approach to the past of a quantum particle introduced by Vaidman (2013 Phys. Rev . A 87 052104) has difficulties in certain examples and that it can even be refuted. Here I reply to their criticism showing that the approach provides a good explanation for all the examples they considered. It is fully consistent with standard quantum mechanics and provides a useful tool for analyzing interference experiments.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSep 19, 201722 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 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

Past of a particle inside an interferometer: the two-state vector approach

Lev Vaidman A

Hashmi et al. [J. Phys. A 49, 345302 (2016)] claimed that the approach to the past of a quantum particle introduced by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013)] has difficulties in certain examples and that it even can be refuted. Here I reply to their criticism showing that the approach provides a good explanation of all examples they considered. It is fully consistent with standard quantum mechanics and provides a useful tool for analyzing interference experiments.

arXiv:1610.04781Oct 15, 20162 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 “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