Abstract
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.
Reply to "Comment on `Past of a quantum particle revisited' "
Related papers
Ranked by semantic similarity — how closely each paper's abstract matches this one (100% = near-identical topic).
- Comment on "Past of a quantum particle revisited" (2018)77% match
- Reply to "Comment on `Weak values and the past of a quantum particle' '' (2023)74% match
- Reply to Comment [axXiv:1610.07734] by L. Vaidman on "Particle path through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer" [R. B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. A 94 (2016) 032115] (2017)71% match
- The Quantum Eraser Non-Paradox: a comment on arXiv:2111.09347v1 (2021)70% match
- Comment on "Weak values and the past of a quantum particle" (2023)70% match
- Reply to "Comment on 'Modified quantum-speed-limit bounds for open quantum dynamics in quantum channels'" (2018)68% match
- Reply to the comment on "Quantum principle of relativity" (2023)68% match
- Response to Comment on Non-representative Quantum Mechanical Weak Values by Ben-Israel and Vaidman (2016)68% match