Reply to "Comment on `Past of a quantum particle revisited' "
Quantum Physics
2019-03-06 v1
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.
Cite
@article{arxiv.1901.05673,
title = {Reply to "Comment on `Past of a quantum particle revisited' "},
author = {Berthold-Georg Englert and Kelvin Horia and Jibo Dai and Yink Loong Len and Hui Khoon Ng},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.05673},
year = {2019}
}
Comments
3 pages, 2 figures; this is our Reply to the Comment in arXiv:1805.12171v1