Related papers: Reply to the Comment by S.E. Sebastian and N. Harr…

This is a reply to the comment from E. Amselem et al. on our paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 150401 (2012), arXiv:1207.0059).

The arguments of Volovik are refuted.

We reply to David's comment (hep-lat/9504017) on our paper Phys.Rev.Lett. 74(1995)1920.

We show that Peliti's Comment [arXiv:0808.2855] fails to appreciate basic physical principles and consequently misrepresents both our work as well as the classical work of Gibbs and Tolman.

This reply to Dr. Smolyakov's comment [2] on our PRL paper [1] was solicited by PRL on Nov. 17, 2021 and submitted to PRL on Nov. 30, 2021. Regretfully, the editors of PRL decided not to publish Dr. Smolyakov's comment; hence, not our reply…

Comments on NC Abelian Higgs model withdrawn. An improved treatment of NC U(2) adjoint models to appear elsewhere.

It is demonstrated that remarks and criticism in work [1] (arXiv:1005.2436 nucl-th) have resulted from inattentive reading of work [2] (Phys. Rev.C 81, 035501 (2010)) or just some misunderstanding and do not influence conclusions of work…

The investigation presented by Doiron, Hache, and Winful [Phys. Rev. A 76, 023823 (2007)] is not valid for the tunneling process as claimed in the paper.

Reply to the Comment of J.J. Alonso and J.F. Fernandez on the paper "'Hole-digging' in ensembles of tunneling molecular magnets" of I.S. Tupitsyn, P.C.E. Stamp and N.V. Prokof'ev (Phys. Rev. B 69, 132406, (2004)).

This paper has been withdrawn by the authors.

This comment has been withdrawn by the authors due to crucial error.

A small comment on the paper with the mentioned title by Carl M. Bender, Dorje C. Brody and Hugh F. Jones.

We respond to the accompanying Comment on our paper, 'Validity of certain soft photon amplitudes'. While we hope the discussion here clarifies the issues, we have found nothing which leads to a change in the original conclusions of our…

Abstract redacted by arXiv administrators.

This is a letter to editor, about a previously published paper and comments.

A response to commenter Ke Lan's comment on our paper published in Nature Communications (2023)14:5782 by J. Yan et al

Withdrawn by authors.

It is shown that the recent Comment [cond-mat/0306019] by Y. Yu on the above article is not substantiated.

Here we respond briefly to a comment on our work in arXiv:cond-mat/0405501.

We respond to `Comments on the U(2) ADHM two-instanton' [Y. Tian, Phys. Lett. B 566 (2003) 183].