اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدReply to Comment on `Past of a quantum particle revisited
113
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
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.
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 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] . I
n this reply, we show the TDQSS scheme can obtain the dealers secret information in the condition of adding a step on disentanglement.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
