arXiv:quant-ph/9801062

Comment on ``Quantum Entanglement and the Nonexistence of Superluminal Signals''

Vladimir S. Mashkevich

Published Jan 27, 1998• 1 citation

Abstract

We argue that the claim given in quant-ph/9801014 is untenable. The fallacy in the proof is a misinterpretation of the no-cloning theorem, which does not allow quantum jumps, specifically measurements.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/9801062

Related papers

Another Comment on ``Quantum Entanglement and Nonexistence of Superluminal Signals''

Vladimir S. Mashkevich

We argue that the claim given in quant-ph/9801014 remains untenable in the revised version. The fallacy in the proof is a misinterpretation of the no-cloning and teleportation theorems, which do not involve time and reference frames.

arXiv:quant-ph/9803027Mar 12, 19980 citations

No-cloning and superluminal signaling

S. J. van Enk

The argument given by M.D. Westmoreland and B. Schumacher in quant-ph/9801014 leading to the purported conclusion that superluminal signaling violates the no-cloning theorem is shown to be incorrect.

Mar 13, 19983 citations

No-cloning and superluminal signaling

S. J. van Enk

The argument given by M.D. Westmoreland and B. Schumacher in quant-ph/9801014 leading to the purported conclusion that superluminal signaling violates the no-cloning theorem is shown to be incorrect.

arXiv:quant-ph/9803030Mar 13, 19981 citation

Comment on "How the No-Cloning Theorem Got its Name"

Alexander Yu. Vlasov

A review by A. Peres [quant-ph/0205076] appears recently. It is difficult to add something to such kind of fundamental themes, but here is briefly presented some ideas about challenges of the no-cloning theorem and imaginary modifications of quantum mechanics, that could make precise cloning possible.

arXiv:quant-ph/0205195May 31, 20020 citations

Quantum Entanglement and the Nonexistence of Superluminal Signals

Michael D. Westmoreland, Benjamin W. Schumacher

This paper shows that ordinary quantum mechanics is not consistent with the superluminal transmission of classical information.

arXiv:quant-ph/9801014Jan 8, 19984 citations

Comment on ''Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Is Incorrect''

Markus Bier

It is shown that ''Theorem 1'' of the article ''Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Is Incorrect'' by G.-L. Li and V.O.K. Li (see quant-ph/0509089) is false. Therefore the assertion expressed in the title of that article is untenable.

arXiv:quant-ph/0509130Sep 20, 20050 citations