Reply to "Comment on `Past of a quantum particle revisited' "

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.

arXiv comment3 pages, 2 figures; this is our Reply to the Comment in arXiv:1805.12171v1

References in corpus (2)

• Past of a quantum particle: Common sense prevails
• Comment on "Past of a quantum particle revisited"

Cited by in corpus (6)

• Analysis of counterfactuality of counterfactual communication protocols
• Three approaches for analyzing the counterfactuality of counterfactual protocols
• Separating a particle's mass from its momentum
• Time-symmetry and topology of the Aharonov-Bohm effect
• Do neutrons disagree with photons about where they have been inside an interferometer?
• Reply to Comment on "Multitime Quantum Communication: Interesting But Not Counterfactual" by L. Vaidman