Related papers: Reply to Comment on "Multitime Quantum Communicati…
In a recent paper, Robert Griffiths [Phys. Rev. A 107, 062219 (2023)] analyzed a protocol for transmission of information between two parties introduced by Salih et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 170502 (2013)]. There is a considerable…
In reply to Vaidman's Comment [arXiv:1304.6689], we show that his claim that our Protocol for Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication [PRL 110, 170502 (2013), arXiv:1206.2042] is counterfactual only for one type of information bit is…
The correctness of the consistent histories analysis of weakly interacting probes, related to the path of a particle, is maintained against the criticisms in the Comment, and against the alternative approach described there, which receives…
While much of the technical analysis in the preceding Comment [1] is correct, in the end it confirms the conclusion reached in my previous work [2]: a consistent histories analysis provides no support for the claim of counterfactual quantum…
Griffiths [Phys. Rev. A 94, 032115 (2016)] analyzed, in the framework of consistent histories interpretation, the controversy regarding the approach to the past of a quantum particle introduced by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013)]. I…
This is a reply to the paper by S.C.Benjamin, quant-ph/0008127.
We have reviewed the comment in [3], posted on arXiv.org concerning our recent work in [1]. We reply to the comment in this paper.
I argue that recent "Protocol for Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication" by Salih et al. [PRL 110, 170502 (2013), arXiv:1206.2042] is counterfactual only for one type of the information bit.
Hashmi et al. [J. Phys. A 49, 345302 (2016)] claimed that the approach to the past of a quantum particle introduced by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013)] has difficulties in certain examples and that it even can be refuted. Here I…
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.
Quantum Counterfactual Communication is the recently-proposed idea of using quantum physics to send messages between two parties, without any matter/energy transfer associated with the bits sent. While this has excited massive interest,…
Two objections have been raised to the arguments presented in O. Cohen, Phys. Rev. A 60, 80 (1999). It is pointed out that neither objection has anything whatsoever to do with the main subject matter of that paper, and shown that both…
A Comment on the paper "Conservative Quantum Computing" by M. Ozawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057902 (2002). The author replies in Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 089802 (2003).
Kastner's (Philosophy of Science 70, 2003, pp. 145--163) recent objections to the counterfactual usage of the time-symmetric Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz rule by the author, especially her claims that the resulting time-symmetric quantum…
A response to commenter Ke Lan's comment on our paper published in Nature Communications (2023)14:5782 by J. Yan et al
We show that, contrarily to the claims in [K. Bradler, (2011), arXiv:1108.5553] (and arXiv:1201.1045), the reference [Phys. Rev. A 83, 062323 (2011)] is devoid of flaws or mistakes. We show that the criticism comes from a misunderstanding…
A comment on the letter by M. Machida and T. Koyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 140401 (2005) and also on the preprint by Y. Kawaguchi and T. Ohmi, cond-mat/0411018.
We reply to the comments on our previous paper Physical Review Letters, Vol. 129, 087001 (2022), raised by Th\'eo S\'epulcre, Serge Florens, and Izak Snyman in arXiv:2210.00742.
In his Comment on our recent paper ``The laws of physics do not prohibit counterfactual communication'', \textit{npj Quantum Information} (2022) 8:60, Popescu argues that the claims of the paper are invalid. Here, we refute his argument,…
In [arXiv:2409.00161v1 (2024)] Cavendish et al. raise three criticisms against our time of arrival proposal [L. Maccone and K. Sacha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110402 (2020)]. Here we show that all three criticisms are without merit. One of…