相关论文: What Maudlin replied to

Reinhard Werner authored a comment on my paper "What Bell Did", disputing the conclusion and argumentation of the paper. This is my reply.

Reply to Bernevig, Giuliano, and Laughlin: cond-mat/0410147

We respond to invalid criticism in the recent Comment by Schneider et al. [arXiv:1407.4127v1]

In their reply arXiv:1408.2230, the authors corrected some inappropriate sentences and clarified misleading descriptions in their original manuscript arXiv:1407.5194v1.

We reply to misleading claims made in a comment to our work by Birse and McGovern in arXiv:1708.09341.

Response to Comment by A. Bussmann-Holder (arXiv:0909.3603)

We respond to the criticisms of a recent paper of Buchert et al. [arXiv:1505.07800]

Lewis has recently argued that Maudlin's contingent absorber experiment remains a significant problem for the Transactional Interpretation (TI). He argues that the only straightforward way to resolve the challenge is by describing the…

The relationship between quantum logic, standard propositional logic, and the (consistent) histories rules for quantum reasoning is discussed. It is shown that Maudlin's claim [Am. J. Phys. 79 (2011) 954] that the histories approach is…

This is a Reply to the Comment by Vaidman in arXiv:2306.16756 on the paper: R. B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062219 (2023)

In arXiv:1707.08641, Tim Maudlin claims to construct a counterexample to the result of Proc. Roy. Soc. A vol. 473, iss. 2202, 2017 (arXiv:1607.07871), in which it was shown that no realist model satisfying a certain notion of time-symmetry…

This is a brief response to a recent posting by Gross.

Vaidman's analysis of the photon's past is based on incorrect interpretation of quantum probability amplitudes. The confusion stems from his original work [{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{60}, 1351 (1988)], which missed the connection…

In a recent paper on wormholes (gr-qc/0503097), the author of that paper demonstrated that he didn't know what he was talking about. In this paper I correct the author's naive erroneous misconceptions.

We offer a brief response to the criticisms put forward by Cusin et al in arXiv:1811.03582 about our work arXiv:1810.13435 and arXiv:1806.01718, emphasising that none of these criticisms are relevant to our main results.

We comment on Z. D. Zhang's Response [arXiv:0812.2330] to our recent Comment [arXiv:0811.3876] addressing the conjectured solution of the three-dimensional Ising model reported in [arXiv:0705.1045].

Stephen Toulmin once observed that `it has never been customary for philosophers to pay much attention to the rhetoric of mathematical debate'. Might the application of Toulmin's layout of arguments to mathematics remedy this oversight?…

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.

This is a reply to Professor Yehia Comments in arXiv:1305.0026

This reply addresses concerns expressed in a comment (arXiv:2508.16689v1) on arXiv:submit/6841332 [physics.gen-ph] 29 Sep 2025 the paper given in the title (arXiv:2501.02022v2), hereafter referred to as the paper.