Quick Navigation

Topics

Open Quantum Systems Decoherence

Reply to Comment on "Null weak values and the past of a quantum particle" by D. Sokolovski

arXiv
Authors: Q. Duprey, A. Matzkin

Year

2017

Paper ID

39280

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

93

Citations

N/A

Abstract

We discuss the preceding Comment and conclude that the arguments given there against the relevance of null weak values as representing the absence of a system property are not compelling. We give an example in which the transition matrix elements that make the projector weak values vanish are the same ones that suppress detector clicks in strong measurements. Whether weak values are taken to account for the past of a quantum system or not depend on general interpretional commitments of the quantum formalism itself rather than on peculiarities of the weak measurements framework.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Open Quantum Systems & Decoherence research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2017 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • We discuss the preceding Comment and conclude that the arguments given there against the relevance of null weak values as representing the absence of a system property are not...

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #39280 #68456 Analytic Properties of the Jost... #68455 Mediative Fuzzy Logic: From Typ... #68453 Weak wave turbulence as a precu... #68449 Scale-Invariant Open Quantum Sy...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.