相关论文: Reply to K A Kirkpatrick

The conventional explanation of delayed-choice experiments appears to violate our causal intuition at the quantum level. I reanalyze these experiments using time-reversed and time-symmetric formulations of quantum mechanics. The…

We show that the comment [cond-mat/0408217] by Continentino on our recent paper [PRL 91, 066404 (2003), cond-mat/0212335] reaches incorrect conclusions as the comment wrongly extrapolates from results valid close to a classical phase…

We show that contrary to the claim in Sci. Rep. 7, 15492 (2017), the quantum Fisher information itself is not a valid coherence measure based on the resource theory of coherence because it can increase via an incoherent operation.

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…

This is the written version of a lecture given at KITP in Oct 2014 on Black Holes and quantum complexity. I've included (in boldface) various questions that came up during the lecture and discussions the following day, as well as the…

Several errors in Stapp's interpretation of quantum mechanics and its application to mental causation (Henry P. Stapp, "Quantum theory and the role of mind in nature," e-Print quant-ph/0103043) are pointed out. An interpretation of…

This paper shows that ordinary quantum mechanics is not consistent with the superluminal transmission of classical information.

In this brief reply we point out to some misconceptions in C.Camacho's comment (cond-mat/9701210).

This paper presents an alternative approach to quantum entanglement, one that effectively resolves the logical inconsistencies without leading to logical contradictions. By addressing some of the inconsistencies within quantum mechanics,…

In a recent paper, Nagata [1] claims to derive inconsistencies from quantum mechanics. In this paper, we show that the inconsistencies do not come from quantum mechanics, but from extra assumptions about the reality of observables.

The arguments employed in quant-ph/0111009, to claim that the quantum algorithm in quant-ph/0110136 does not work, are so general that were they true then the adiabatic theorem itself would have been wrong. As a matter of fact, those…

We point out flaws in the work of Vranjes et al. (EPL 99 25001, 20012), and present correct criteria for quantum plasmas.

In this paper, I try once again to cause some good-natured trouble. The issue remains, when will we ever stop burdening the taxpayer with conferences devoted to the quantum foundations? The suspicion is expressed that no end will be in…

We review recent results on twisted noncommutative quantum field theory by embedding it into a general framework for the quantization of systems with a twisted symmetry. We discuss commutation relations in this setting and show that the…

In a comment on our article Time delays in molecular photoionization [1], Baykusheva & W\"orner reproduce canonical scattering theory, and assert that our results are inconsistent with this well-established theory [2]. We absolutely refute…

In the paper, it is argued that the phenomenon known as the quantum pigeonhole principle (namely, three quantum particles are put in two boxes, yet no two particles are in the same box) can be explained not as a violation of Dirichlet's box…

We show that the criticism of our paper [Phys. Rev. B 65, 125109 (2002)] by Wang, Millis, and Das Sarma [cond-mat/0206203] is based on a trivial mathematical mistake they have committed.

I argue that accepting quantum mechanics to be universally true means that you should also believe in parallel universes. I give my assessment of Everett's theory as it celebrates its 50th anniversary.

The comment arXiv:1204.2729v1 is completely wrong. The author makes serious mistakes in calculations and judgement. The errors are made at the level of basic undergraduate statistical mechanics.

We argue that the claim given in quant-ph/9801014 remains untenable in the revised version. The fallacy in the proof is a misinterpretation of the no-cloning and teleportation theorems, which do not involve time and reference frames.