Reply to “Comment on ‘Weak values and the past of a quantum particle' ”

Abstract

We here reply to a recent comment by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 048001 (2023)10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.048001] on our paper [Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023048 (2023)2643-156410.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.023048]. In his Comment, Vaidman first admits that he is just defining (assuming) the weak trace gives the presence of a particle—however, in this case, he should use a term other than presence, as this already has a separate, intuitive meaning other than “where a weak trace is.” Despite this admission, Vaidman then goes on to argue for this definition by appeal to ideas around an objectively existing idea of presence. We show these appeals rely on their own conclusion—that there is always a matter of fact about the location of a quantum particle.