Reply to "Comment on `Past of a quantum particle revisited' "

Abstract

We stand by our findings in Phys. Rev A. 96, 022126 (2017). In addition to refuting the invalid objections raised by Peleg and Vaidman, we report a retrocausation problem inherent in Vaidman's definition of the past of a quantum particle.

3 pages, 2 figures; this is our Reply to the Comment in arXiv:1805.12171v1