Related papers: Reply to Comment [arXiv:0809.2310] on Universal Ch…

Electron-positron pair creation in supercritical electric fields limits the net charge of any static, spherical object, such as superheavy nuclei, strangelets, and Q-balls, or compact stars like neutron stars, quark stars, and black holes.…

This is a Reply to the Comment [arXiv:0807.0699] on our paper [PRL 100:232002 (2008)].

This is an addendum to the Reply Comment [Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 139602 (2009), arXiv:0811.0518] to Comment [Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 139601 (2009), arXiv:0810.4791] on Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 116101 (2008), arXiv:0804.1898].

In Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 101802 (2002); erratum, ibid. 89, 229902(E) (2002), Bernabeu, Papavassiliou, and Vidal claim that they can extract a gauge-independent neutrino charge radius (NCR) which is, therefore, a physical observable. We show…

Comment on cond-mat/0205390; PRL 90, 026805 (2003)

Upper limits for the mass-radius ratio and total charge are derived for stable charged general relativistic matter distributions. For charged compact objects the mass-radius ratio exceeds the value 4/9 corresponding to neutral stars.…

This is a reply to the comment from Patrick Bruno (arXiv:1211.4792) on our paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 163001 (2012)).

We clarify the relationship between the conclusions of the previous Comment of A. Helfer [1] and that of our Brief Report [arXiv:0906.5315]

Comment on ``Relating atomic-scale electronic phenomena to wave-like quasiparticle states in superconducting Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$''

This Reply to preceding Comment of arXiv:1909.09867 shows why the statements in the Comment are misleading. We point out that our physical picture and theirs are fundamentally different, therefore the claim of using their correlation to…

This is a comment on Chen et al Letter PRL,100, 232002 (2008).

We reply to P. Forg\'acs, T. Herpay, and P. Kov\'acs (arXiv: 1202.6289).

Brief response to a Reply [arXiv:1005.2615] on our Comments [arXiv:1005.0838] on XENON100 recent results [arXiv:1005.0380].

This is a reply to the Comment on 'Spin Decoherence in Superconducting Atom Chips' [arXiv:quant-ph/0610095 (2006)].

This is the Reply to the revised Comment [Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 139601; arXiv:0810.4791] by Joachim Krug on our paper: C. Escudero, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 116101 (2008); arXiv:0804.1898.

A Reply to the Comment by C. Ciuti and P. Nataf [arXiv:1112.0986v1] on our Letter "Superradiant Phase Transitions and the Standard Description of Circuit QED" [Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 113602 (2011)].

We reply to the comment arXiv:quant-ph/0702060 on our letter arXiv:quant-ph/0603120 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 100402 (2006)]

A comment on ``Comment on ``Standard Model Mass Spectrum and Interactions In The Holomorphic Unified Field Theory""

Comment on the article by S. Gandolfi et al. Phys.Rev.Letters 118 (2017), 232501; arXiv:1612.01502 [nucl-th]

A new formula for the nuclear charge radius is proposed, dependent on the mass number (A) and neutron excess (N-Z) in the nucleus. It is simple and it reproduces all the experimentally available mean square radii and their isotopic shifts…