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

This is a reply to cond-mat/0010033 by Newman and Stein, which is a comment on on our paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3017 (2000), cond-mat/0002134.

After our publication of the observed first indication for neutrinoless double beta decay in [KK-Evid01], a number of papers have been published [KK-Sar_Evid01,KK2-Sar_Evid01,KK3-Sar_Evid01,Ma02-Ev,Barg02-Ev,Ueh02-Ev,Mi…

I comment on a recent preprint "Neutrino Velocity Anomalies: A Resolution without a Revolution" that appeared recently as arXiv:1110.0989 [hep-ph]

We refute in this Reply the criticisms made by M. Abdel-Aty [Phys. Rev. A 70, 047801 (2004)]. We show that none of them are founded and we demonstrate very explicitly what is wrong in the arguments developed by this author.

The paper has been withdrawn by the authors. The contents of the paper will be used in a future communication which will contain major addition and shift of focus.

This is no longer available.

We exhibit a 3-manifold which admits no tight contact structure.

No abstract; review only

I reply to Professor Peter van Nieuwenhuizen in connection with hep-th/0408137

Fernandez Comment [1] on our pseudo-perturbative shifted-l expansion technique [2,3] is either unfounded or ambiguous.

A reply to the above mentioned commentary by M.M. Block and F. Halzen on our quoted work is presented. We answer to each point raised by these authors and argument that our data reductions, strategies and methodology are adequate to the…

The claim of preprint hep-ph/0605114 that there is "no neutrino spin light because of photon dispersion in medium" is wrong.

This is a reply to a Comment on 'A test-tube model for rainfall', {\it Europhys. Lett.}, {\bf 106}, 40001, (2014).

I reply to the four points raised by S. A. Hayward, R. Di Criscienzo, M. Nadalini, L. Vanzo, S. Zerbini (arXiv:0909.2956v1) against my comment (arXiv:0907.2020v1) to their previous article. I maintain my position on the wrongness of their…

Rely to the comment by Doering et al. in Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 259401 (2019)

This paper was withdrawn by the authors.

This is our response to the comment arXiv:2504.13683 posted by Chat\'e and Solon in reference to our preprint arXiv:2503.17064

This paper has been withdrawn by the author.

This paper has been withdrawn

This paper has been withdrawn by the authors, due Eqn. 8 is not a corollary of ref. 3 and does not hold generally.