Reply to "Comment on `Past of a quantum particle revisited' "

Reply to "Comment on `Past of a quantum particle revisited' "

Phys. Rev. A 99, 026104 (2019) 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.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Englert, Berthold-Georg, Horia, Kelvin, Dai, Jibo, Len, Yink Loong, Ng, Hui Khoon
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: 17-01-2019
Subjects:
Physics - Quantum Physics
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Phys. Rev. A 99, 026104 (2019) 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.
DOI:10.48550/arxiv.1901.05673