Phys. Rev. A 57, 2254–2255 (1998)Reply to “Validity of the Aharonov Bergmann-Lebowitz rule”Received 26 September 1997; published in the issue dated March 1998 It is argued that the proofs [W. D. Sharp and N. Shanks, Philos. Sci. 60, 488 (1993); O. Cohen, Phys. Rev. A 51, 4373 (1995); D. J. Miller, Phys. Lett. A 222, 31 (1996)] of the general nonvalidity of the counterfactual interpretation of the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz rule [Y. Aharonov, P. G. Bergmann, and J. L. Lebowitz, Phys. Rev. 134, B1410 (1964)] are perfectly valid, and that Vaidman’s rejection of these proofs [L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. A (Comment for which this paper is the Reply)] is unsustainable. It is demonstrated that Vaidman’s proposed formulation of “counterfactual probability,” on which his rejection of these proofs depends, is problematic and inconsistent in several respects. © 1998 The American Physical Society URL:
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.57.2254
DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevA.57.2254
PACS:
03.65.Bz
See AlsoOriginal Article: O. Cohen, Pre- and postselected quantum systems, counterfactual measurements, and consistent histories, Phys. Rev. A 51, 4373 (1995). |
|
About | Terms and Conditions | Subscriptions | Search | Help
Use of the American Physical Society websites and journals implies that the user has read and agrees to our Terms and Conditions and any applicable Subscription Agreement. Physical Review®, Physical Review Letters®, Reviews of Modern Physics®, and Physical Review Special Topics® are trademarks of the American Physical Society.