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

Reply to “Comment to ‘The laws of physics do not prohibit counterfactual communication’ ”

Salih H, Hance JR, McCutcheon W, Rarity J

Published Jan 1, 2025• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Related papers

Reply to "Comment to 'The laws of physics do not prohibit counterfactual communication'"

H Salih, Jonte R. Hance, W McCutcheon +1 more

•Jun 10, 2025•0 citations

Reply to “Comments on Bouda and Djama's ‘Quantum Newton's Law’”

A. Bouda, T. Djama

arXiv:quant-ph/0206149•Physics Letters A•Apr 1, 2002•12 citations

Reply to Comments on 'On Far-Field Quantum States in Optical Communication'

Horace P. Yuen

IEEE Transactions on Information Theory•Nov 1, 1980•0 citations

Comment on ‘‘ ‘Counterrevolutionary’ physics’’[Am. J. Phys. 5 4, 776 (1986)]

Jay M. Pasachoff

American Journal of Physics•Feb 1, 1987•0 citations

Reply to “Comment to ‘The laws of physics do not prohibit counterfactual communication’ ”

Hatim Salih, Jonte R. Hance, Will McCutcheon +1 more

In his Comment on our recent paper “The laws of physics do not prohibit counterfactual communication”, npj Quantum Information (2022) 8:60, Popescu argues that the claims of the paper are invalid. Here, we refute his argument, showing that it is based on ignoring the specifics of what we set out to prove (that counterfactual communication is possible for post-selected particles, and more specifically in these cases is not prohibited by the weak trace or consistent histories criteria for particle path), followed by an unwarranted simplification of the protocol. Moreover, the Comment’s excursion into interpretation is misplaced. Our communication protocol is a precisely defined one that allows two remote parties, albeit rarely, to communicate an arbitrarily long binary message, with arbitrarily high accuracy. This is not a matter of interpretation—as the concrete example given in our paper in question illustrates. As for our overarching claim that no particles are exchanged in the course of this communication, we have already demonstrated this both theoretically and experimentally, in the postselected case we consider, as per the weak trace and consistent histories criteria for path of a quantum particle.

arXiv:2507.19563•npj Quantum Information•Jun 10, 2025•2 citations

Reply to "Testing the reality of the quantum state"

Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett, Terry Rudolph

Nature Physics•Feb 28, 2014•0 citations
In his Comment on our recent paper “The laws of physics do not prohibit counterfactual communication”, npj Quantum Information (2022) 8:60, Popescu argues that the claims of the paper are invalid. Here, we refute his argument, showing that it is based on ignoring the specifics of what we set out to prove (that counterfactual communication is possible for post-selected particles, and more specifically in these cases is not prohibited by the weak trace or consistent histories criteria for particle path), followed by an unwarranted simplification of the protocol. Moreover, the Comment’s excursion into interpretation is misplaced. Our communication protocol is a precisely defined one that allows two remote parties, albeit rarely, to communicate an arbitrarily long binary message, with arbitrarily high accuracy. This is not a matter of interpretation—as the concrete example given in our paper in question illustrates. As for our overarching claim that no particles are exchanged in the course of this communication, we have already demonstrated this both theoretically and experimentally, in the postselected case we consider, as per the weak trace and consistent histories criteria for path of a quantum particle.