Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical

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

Lev Vaidman A

Published Sep 19, 2017• 22 citations

Abstract

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.

DOI: 10.1088/1751-8121/aa8d24

Related papers

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 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 ‘Past of a quantum particle revisited’ ”

Berthold‐Georg Englert, Kelvin Horia, Jibo Dai +2 more

We stand by our findings in Phys. Rev. A 96, 022126 (2017). In addition to refuting the invalid objections raised by Peleg and Vaidman, we report a retrocausation problem inherent in Vaidman's definition of the past of a quantum particle.

arXiv:1901.05673Physical Review AFeb 27, 201917 citations

Comment on “Particle path through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer”

Lev Vaidman A

Griffiths [Phys. Rev. A 94, 032115 (2016)] analyzed, in the framework of a consistent histories interpretation, the controversy regarding the approach to the past of a quantum particle introduced by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013)]. I argue that Griffith's criticism of my approach using an analysis of experiments with weak probes is unfounded.

Physical Review AJun 28, 201736 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘One-state vector formalism for the evolution of a quantum state through nested Mach-Zehnder interferometers’ ”

Karol Bartkiewicz, Antonín Černoch, Dalibor Javůrek +3 more

In our recent paper [Phys. Rev. A 91, 012103 (2015)] we have provided an alternative description of a highly debated experiment by Danan et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 240402 (2013)]. The former paper has been recently commented on by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 93, 036103 (2016)]. In this Reply we demonstrate that the comments are either invalid or, where valid, do not affect the results of our original paper.

Physical Review AMar 31, 20167 citations

Particle path(s) through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer: Reply to Griffiths

Lev Vaidman A

Griffiths [Phys. Rev. A 94, 032115 (2016)] analyzed, in the framework of consistent histories interpretation, the controversy regarding the approach to the past of a quantum particle introduced by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013)]. I argue that Griffith's criticism of my approach using analysis of experiments with weak probes is unfounded.

arXiv:1610.07734Oct 25, 20162 citations