Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userReply to Comment on `Past of a quantum particle revisited
113
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Berthold-Georg Englert
Publication date
2019
fields
Physics
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic 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 Vaidmans definition of the past of a quantum particle.
rate research
Read More
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 communication put forward in [3]
In this Reply we propose a modified security proof of the Quantum Dense Key Distribution protocol detecting also the eavesdropping attack proposed by Wojcik in his Comment.
In reply to Vaidmans 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 wrong.
This reply contains a brief response to the comment by R. Howl, D. Ratzel, and I. Fuentes [arXiv:1811.10306]
A corresponding comment, raised by Kao and Hwang, claims that the reconstructor Bob1 is unable to obtain the expected secret information in (t, n) Threshold d-level Quantum Secret Sharing (TDQSS)[Scientific Reports, Vol. 7, No. 1 (2017), pp.6366] . In this reply, we show the TDQSS scheme can obtain the dealers secret information in the condition of adding a step on disentanglement.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
