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

Reply to “Comment on ‘Association between quantum paradoxes based on weak values and a realistic interpretation of quantum measurements' ”

Alice M. Aredes, Pablo L. Saldanha

Published Jun 2, 2025• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

Seoane et al. [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 111, 066201 (2025)] criticized our work [Phys. Rev. A 109, 022238 (2024)], saying that our argument that realistic interpretations of weak values lead to inconsistencies is not valid for all weak values and quantum theories. This is true. We never intended that the arguments we presented would be valid for all weak values. We believe it is clearly stated in our work that we were dealing only with the weak values related to the quantum paradoxes cited in our paper. Seoane et al. also said in their Comment that the ``general argument'' we present in our paper is formally incorrect. However, this criticism is related to the interpretation they give to the expression ``equivalent,'' which is different from the one we use. In this sense, the presented criticisms are a matter of semantics, not of physics.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.111.066202

Related papers

Comment on "Association between quantum paradoxes based on weak values and a realistic interpretation of quantum measurements"

Juan José Seoane, Xabier Oianguren-Asua, Albert Solé +1 more

In their paper (arXiv:2402.09879), Aredes and Saldanha analyze several paradoxes related to weak values and present a "general argument" that aims to show that "realistic interpretations ...of weak values lead to inconsistencies". Although we agree with the identified inconsistencies for the specific weak values analyzed there, in this Comment we demonstrate that the origin of these inconsistencies is not their general argument, which is formally incorrect. We use Bohmian mechanics as a counterexample to confirm that their conclusions are not valid for all weak values and quantum theories. In particular, we show that weak values postselected in position can in fact be interpreted within Bohmian mechanics as properties of quantum systems, detached from any measuring devices, in a consistent and meaningful way.

quant-pharXiv:2603.18713•Physical Review A•Mar 20, 2026•3 citations

Reply to "Comment on ‘Association between quantum paradoxes based on weak values and a realistic interpretation of quantum measurements’"

Anonymous

Physical Review A•May 12, 2025•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Null weak values and the past of a quantum particle”’

Quentin Duprey, A. Matzkin

We discuss the preceding Comment [D. Sokolovski, preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 97, 046102 (2018)] and conclude that the arguments given there against the relevance of null weak values as representing the absence of a system property are not compelling. We give an example in which the transition matrix elements that make the projector weak values vanish are the same ones that suppress detector clicks in strong measurements. Whether weak values are taken to account for the past of a quantum system or not depend on general interpretational commitments of the quantum formalism itself rather than on peculiarities of the weak measurements framework.

arXiv:1712.09387•Physical Review A•Apr 13, 2018•15 citations

Association between quantum paradoxes based on weak values and a realistic interpretation of quantum measurements

Alice M. Aredes, Pablo L. Saldanha

Many quantum paradoxes based on a realistic view of weak values were discussed in the last decades. They lead to astonishing conclusions such as the measurement of a spin component of a spin-1/2 particle resulting in $100\ensuremath{\hbar}$, the separation of a photon from its polarization, and the possibility of having three particles in two boxes without any two particles being in the same box, among others. Here, we show that the realistic view of the weak values present in these (and other) works is equivalent to a realistic (and highly controversial) view of quantum measurements, where a measurement reveals the underlying reality of the measured quantity. We discuss that all quantum paradoxes based on weak values simply disappear if we deny these realistic views of quantum measurements and weak values. Our work thus aims to demonstrate the strong assumptions and the corresponding problems present in the interpretation of these quantum paradoxes.

arXiv:2402.09879•Physical Review A•Feb 26, 2024•8 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:1310.1319•Oct 4, 2013•1 citation

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 A•Sep 1, 1999•2 citations
Seoane et al. [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 111, 066201 (2025)] criticized our work [Phys. Rev. A 109, 022238 (2024)], saying that our argument that realistic interpretations of weak values lead to inconsistencies is not valid for all weak values and quantum theories. This is true. We never intended that the arguments we presented would be valid for all weak values. We believe it is clearly stated in our work that we were dealing only with the weak values related to the quantum paradoxes cited in our paper. Seoane et al. also said in their Comment that the general argument'' we present in our paper is formally incorrect. However, this criticism is related to the interpretation they give to the expression equivalent,'' which is different from the one we use. In this sense, the presented criticisms are a matter of semantics, not of physics.
In their paper (arXiv:2402.09879), Aredes and Saldanha analyze several paradoxes related to weak values and present a "general argument" that aims to show that "realistic interpretations ...of weak values lead to inconsistencies". Although we agree with the identified inconsistencies for the specific weak values analyzed there, in this Comment we demonstrate that the origin of these inconsistencies is not their general argument, which is formally incorrect. We use Bohmian mechanics as a counterexample to confirm that their conclusions are not valid for all weak values and quantum theories. In particular, we show that weak values postselected in position can in fact be interpreted within Bohmian mechanics as properties of quantum systems, detached from any measuring devices, in a consistent and meaningful way.
We discuss the preceding Comment [D. Sokolovski, preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 97, 046102 (2018)] and conclude that the arguments given there against the relevance of null weak values as representing the absence of a system property are not compelling. We give an example in which the transition matrix elements that make the projector weak values vanish are the same ones that suppress detector clicks in strong measurements. Whether weak values are taken to account for the past of a quantum system or not depend on general interpretational commitments of the quantum formalism itself rather than on peculiarities of the weak measurements framework.
Many quantum paradoxes based on a realistic view of weak values were discussed in the last decades. They lead to astonishing conclusions such as the measurement of a spin component of a spin-1/2 particle resulting in $100\ensuremath{\hbar}$, the separation of a photon from its polarization, and the possibility of having three particles in two boxes without any two particles being in the same box, among others. Here, we show that the realistic view of the weak values present in these (and other) works is equivalent to a realistic (and highly controversial) view of quantum measurements, where a measurement reveals the underlying reality of the measured quantity. We discuss that all quantum paradoxes based on weak values simply disappear if we deny these realistic views of quantum measurements and weak values. Our work thus aims to demonstrate the strong assumptions and the corresponding problems present in the interpretation of these quantum paradoxes.