Reply to comments on "Weak value amplification is suboptimal for estimation and detection"

Christopher Ferrie,Joshua Combes
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1402.2954
2014-02-13
Abstract:Kedem's Comment [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1402.1352" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.1352">arXiv:1402.1352</a>] on our Letter [PRL 112, 040406 (2014)] contains only the criticism that we did not consider complex weak values. We point out follow-up work which uses the same analysis as in our Letter, includes any type of weak values and draws the same conclusion. Vaidman's Comment [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1402.0199" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.0199">arXiv:1402.0199</a>] on our Letter can be deconstructed in to two distinct logical fallacies.
Quantum Physics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?