arXiv:quant-ph/0505027 · Physical Review A

Reply to “Comment on ‘Linear optics implementation of weak values in Hardy’s paradox’ ”

Sebastian E. Ahnert, Mike C. Payne

Published Jul 11, 2005• 5 citations

Abstract

The comment by Lundeen et al. contains two criticisms of our proposal. While we agree that the state-preparation procedure could be replaced by a simpler setup as proposed by the authors of the comment, we do not agree with the authors on their second, and more important point regarding two-particle weak measurements. We believe this to be the result of a misunderstanding of our original paper [S. E. Ahnert and M. C. Payne, Phys. Rev. A 70, 042102 (2004)].

DOI: 10.1103/physreva.72.016102

Related papers

Comment on “Linear optics implementation of weak values in Hardy’s paradox”

Jeff S. Lundeen, Kevin J. Resch, Aephraim M. Steinberg

A recent experimental proposal [S.E. Ahnert and M.C. Payne, Phys. Rev. A 70, 042102 (2004)] outlines a method to measure the weak value predictions of Aharonov in Hardy's paradox. This proposal contains flaws in the state preparation method and the procedure for carrying out the requisite weak measurements. We identify previously published solutions to some of the flaws.

arXiv:quant-ph/0504122Physical Review AJul 11, 20058 citations

Linear optics implementation of weak values in Hardy’s paradox

Sebastian E. Ahnert, Mike C. Payne

We propose an experimental setup for the implementation of weak measurements in the context of the gedanken experiment known as Hardy's paradox. As Aharonov et al. [Y. Aharonov, A. Botero, S. Popescu, B. Reznik, and J. Tollaksen, Phys. Lett. A301, 130 (2002)] showed, these weak values form a language with which the paradox can be resolved. Our analysis shows that this language is indeed consistent and experimentally testable. It also reveals exactly how a combination of weak values can give rise to an apparently paradoxical result.

arXiv:quant-ph/0408153Physical Review AOct 20, 200423 citations

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

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.

Physical Review AJun 2, 20251 citation

What Weak Measurements and Weak Values Really Mean: Reply to Kastner

Eliahu Cohen

Despite their important applications in metrology and in spite of numerous experimental demonstrations, weak measurements are still confusing for part of the community. This sometimes leads to unjustified criticism. Recent papers have experimentally clarified the meaning and practical significance of weak measurements, yet in Kastner (Found Phys 47:697-707, 2017), Kastner seems to take us many years backwards in the the debate, casting doubt on the very term "weak value" and the meaning of weak measurements. Kastner appears to ignore both the basics and frontiers of weak measurements and misinterprets the weak measurement process and its outcomes. In addition, she accuses the authors of Aharonov et al. (Ann Phys 355:258-268, 2015) in statements completely opposite to the ones they have actually made. There are many points of disagreement between Kastner and us, but in this short reply I will leave aside the ontology (which is indeed interpretational and far more complex than that described by Kastner) and focus mainly on the injustice in her criticism. I shall add some general comments regarding the broader theory of weak measurements and the two-state-vector formalism, as well as supporting experimental results. Finally, I will point out some recent promising results, which can be proven by (strong) projective measurements, without the need of employing weak measurements.

arXiv:1704.00958Foundations of PhysicsJun 16, 201712 citations

Reply to ``Comment on `Weakly bound states of the He-He-Ca triatomic system' ''

Qingdong Gou, Yong Li

There are three points in the preceding Comment. We agree with the first point, and we point out that the second and third points are due to a misunderstanding.Received 10 June 2012DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.016502©2012 American Physical Society

Physical Review AJul 25, 20122 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Weak values and the past of a quantum particle' ”

Jonte R. Hance, JG Rarity, J Ladyman

We here reply to a recent comment by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 048001 (2023)] on our paper [Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023048 (2023)]. In his Comment, Vaidman first admits that he is just defining (assuming) the weak trace gives the presence of a particle—however, in this case, he should use a term other than presence, as this already has a separate, intuitive meaning other than “where a weak trace is.” Despite this admission, Vaidman then goes on to argue for this definition by appeal to ideas around an objectively existing idea of presence. We show these appeals rely on their own conclusion—that there is always a matter of fact about the location of a quantum particle.

Nov 8, 20230 citations