اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدReply to Comment [axXiv:1610.07734] by L. Vaidman on Particle path through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer [R. B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. A 94 (2016) 032115]
193
0
0.0
(
0
)
تأليف
Robert B. Griffiths
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
The correctness of the consistent histories analysis of weakly interacting probes, related to the path of a particle, is maintained against the criticisms in the Comment, and against the alternative approach described there, which receives no support from standard (textbook) quantum mechanics.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
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 a recent paper, arXiv:1604.04596, Griffiths questioned - based on an informative consistent-histories (CH) argument - the counterfactuality, for one of the bit choices, of Salih et al.s protocol for communicating without sending physical particles
, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 170502 (2013). Here, we first show that for the Mach-Zehnder version used to explain our protocol, no family of consistent histories exists where any history has the photon travelling through the communication channel, thus rendering the question of whether the photon was in the communication channel meaningless from a CH viewpoint. We then show that for the actual Michelson-type protocol, there are consistent-histories families that include histories where the photon travels through the communication channel. We show that the probability of finding the photon in the communication channel is zero - thus proving complete counterfactuality.
Possible paths of a photon passing through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer on its way to a detector are analyzed using the consistent histories formulation of quantum mechanics, and confirmed using a set of weak measurements (but not weak values
). The results disagree with an analysis by Vaidman [ Phys. Rev. A 87 (2013) 052104 ], and agree with a conclusion reached by Li et al. [ Phys. Rev. A 88 (2013) 046102 ]. However, the analysis casts serious doubt on the claim of Salih et al. (whose authorship includes Li et al.) [ Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 170502 ] to have constructed a protocol for counterfactual communication: a channel which can transmit information even though it contains a negligible number of photons.
In this paper, we present a coherent state-vector method which can explain the results of a nested linear Mach-Zehnder Interferometric experiment. Such interferometers are used widely in Quantum Information and Quantum Optics experiments and also in
designing quantum circuits. We have specifically considered the case of an experiment by Danan emph{et al.} (Phys. Rev. Lett. textbf{111}, 240402 (2013)) where the outcome of the experiment was spooky by our intuitive guesses. However we have been able to show by our method that the results of this experiment is indeed expected within the standard formalism of Quantum Mechanics using any classical state of a single-mode radiation field as the input into the nested interferometric set-up of the aforesaid experiment and thereby looking into the power spectrum of the output beam.
The recent paper by V. G. Kogan and J. Schmalian Phys. Rev. B 83, 054515 (2011) argues that the widely used two-component Ginzburg-Landau (GL) models are not correct, and further concludes that in the regime which is described by a GL theory there co
uld be no disparity in the coherence lengths of two superconducting components. This would in particular imply that (in contrast to $U(1)times U(1)$ superconductors), there could be no type-1.5 superconducting regime in U(1) multiband systems for any finite interband coupling strength. We point out that these claims are incorrect and based on an erroneous scheme of reduction of a two-component GL theory. We also attach a separate rejoinder on reply by Kogan and Schmalian. In their reply Phys. Rev. B 86, 016502 (2012) to our comment Phys. Rev. B 86, 016501 (2012) Kogan and Schmalian did not refute or, indeed, discuss the main points of criticism in the comment. Unfortunately they instead advance new incorrect claims regarding two-band and type-1.5 superconductivity. The main purpose of the attached rejoinder is to discuss these new incorrect claims.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
