Quick Navigation

Topics

Open Quantum Systems Decoherence Quantum Simulation Quantum State Preparation Representation Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations

Response to a comment on "Vindication of entanglement-based witnesses in hybrid quantum systems"

arXiv
Authors: Chiara Marletto, Emanuele Marconato

Year

2021

Paper ID

40122

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

83

Citations

N/A

Abstract

In a recent paper, we vindicated a general entanglement-based witness of non-classicality in hybrid quantum systems. Our vindication refutes a counterexample to the witness, proposed by Hall and Reginatto. These authors recently commented further, claiming to expose "a huge number of errors and misconceptions" in it. However, their comment contains no refutation of our arguments, nor does it expose any error or misconception in them. But it does include a number of misconceptions about the witness of non-classicality. Here we respond to those.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Simulation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2021 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • In a recent paper, we vindicated a general entanglement-based witness of non-classicality in hybrid quantum systems.

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 #40122 #78846 Analog quantum simulation of Sh... #78810 Secure Quantum Handshakes: Quan... #78802 Quantum Co-Design of Inhomogene... #78801 Constructing Large and Structur...

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.