Reply to "Comment on `Weak values and the past of a quantum particle' ''

TL;DR

This paper responds to Vaidman's comment on the interpretation of weak traces in quantum particles, clarifying conceptual distinctions and challenging the notion of an objective particle presence.

Contribution

It clarifies the conceptual issues in defining particle presence via weak traces and critiques the assumption of an objective particle location in quantum mechanics.

Findings

Weak trace definition should not be equated with particle presence

Vaidman's appeal to objective presence relies on circular reasoning

The paper emphasizes the interpretational nuances of quantum particle localization

Abstract

We here reply to a recent comment by Vaidman [\href{https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.048001}{Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 048001 (2023)}] on our paper [\href{https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.023048}{Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023048 (2023)}]. 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.