Abstract:We analyze Vaidman's three-path interferometer with weak path marking [Phys. Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013)] and find that common sense yields correct statements about the particle's path through the interferometer. This disagrees with the original claim that the particles have discontinuous trajectories at odds with common sense. In our analysis, "the particle's path" has operational meaning as acquired by a path-discriminating measurement. For a quantum-mechanical experimental demonstration of the case, one shoul… Show more
“…1, for a particle detected at exit iii, a variant of Fig. 2 in [2]. The thickness of the blue lines is proportional to the squared amplitudes of the forward wave function, and likewise for the red lines and the backward wave function.…”
mentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Upon this observation, we then proceed with the accounting exercise in Sec. IV B of [2] that culminates in the conclusion that all particles reach exit iii through checkpoint C when → 0.…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In their Comment [1] on Ref. [2], Peleg and Vaidman correctly state that there is a fundamental difference in the way Vaidman answers the question Where was the particle after entering and before leaving the interferometer? and our traditional approach.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…( = 0 in [2]), or to the conditioning on the inconclusive outcome of the unambiguous path discrimination. We observe that the wave function branches associated with the checkpoints A and B inside the inner loop, whether blue or red, do not connect the source S to exit iii.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite being told otherwise, we did examine the traces of a single particle in Ref. [2] and found that all particles in the pre-and postselected ensemble went only through checkpoint C in the limit of ultrafaint traces ( → 0). This is exactly what standard quantum mechanics tells us (see above).…”
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.
“…1, for a particle detected at exit iii, a variant of Fig. 2 in [2]. The thickness of the blue lines is proportional to the squared amplitudes of the forward wave function, and likewise for the red lines and the backward wave function.…”
mentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Upon this observation, we then proceed with the accounting exercise in Sec. IV B of [2] that culminates in the conclusion that all particles reach exit iii through checkpoint C when → 0.…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In their Comment [1] on Ref. [2], Peleg and Vaidman correctly state that there is a fundamental difference in the way Vaidman answers the question Where was the particle after entering and before leaving the interferometer? and our traditional approach.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…( = 0 in [2]), or to the conditioning on the inconclusive outcome of the unambiguous path discrimination. We observe that the wave function branches associated with the checkpoints A and B inside the inner loop, whether blue or red, do not connect the source S to exit iii.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite being told otherwise, we did examine the traces of a single particle in Ref. [2] and found that all particles in the pre-and postselected ensemble went only through checkpoint C in the limit of ultrafaint traces ( → 0). This is exactly what standard quantum mechanics tells us (see above).…”
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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.