Related papers: Second comment to "Invariance of the tunneling met…

In a recent article, Zikic {\it et al.} [Phys. Rev. E {\bf 74}, 011919 (2006)] present first-principles calculations of the DNA nucleotides electrical conductance. They report qualitative and quantitative differences with previous work, in…

I refute the criticisms of hep-ph/0311241 raised in hep-ph/0312151.

This is a comment on [G. Knight and R. Klages, Phys. Rev. E 84, 041135 (2011); also available at arXiv:1107.5293v2 [math-ph]].

The authors of the Comment ascribe us claims never made while moderating their own previous unsubstantiated statements.

The claim in \cite{Al-Badawi:2025ipr} that *"the errors in the foundational components (3) and (5) of Ref. [1] invalidate all subsequent analyses, numerical results, and physical interpretations that depend on them"* is **entirely…

We show that the claims expressed in the Comment arXiv:0810.3244v1 by R.S. Decca et al against our paper, D.A.R. Dalvit and S.K. Lamoreaux, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 101}, 163203 (2008), are wrong and manifestly inconsistent with basic…

We show that the criticism of our paper [Phys. Rev. B 65, 125109 (2002)] by Wang, Millis, and Das Sarma [cond-mat/0206203] is based on a trivial mathematical mistake they have committed.

We look at the covariant techniques and the ideas on constraints and gauge-invariance, which were recently employed in [gr-qc/0702104] to support earlier work by the same authors. That work was criticised in [gr-qc/0503042]. Using very…

We respond to the recent comment [arXiv:1105.1593] on our Letter [G. G. Plunk and T. Tatsuno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 165003 (2011)]. The comment claims that our argument for spectral transfer direction is incomplete. The comment gives an…

We correct an error in [I. Kangasniemi, and J. Onninen, On the heterogeneous distortion inequality. Math. Ann. 384 (2022), no. 3-4, 1275-1308.]

Reply to the comment, cond-mat/0209398 by by N.W. Watkins, S.C. Chapman, and G. Rowlands

We reply to the comments on our previous paper Physical Review A, Vol. 101, 023843 (2020), raised by H. Schuermann and V. Serov in arXiv:2204.05846.

In this Comment, we explain the reason for the discrepancy between two sets of tunneling data obtained on Ni- and Zn-doped Bi2212 single crystals (presented in H. Hancotte et al., Phys. Rev. B 55, R3410 (1997) and A. Mourachkine, to be…

This is a Reply to the Comment by Vaidman in arXiv:2306.16756 on the paper: R. B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062219 (2023)

It is shown that a recent article by Z.-D. Zhang [arXiv:0705.1045] is in error and violates well-known theorems.

A Comment on the Letter by Victor Gurarie and Alexander E. Lobkovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 178301 (2002). The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.

We remark on the validity of the concerns raised in the comment(cond-mat/0304626) by Fal'ko, Lerner, Tsyplyatyev, and Aleiner..

In this paper we give some sharper refinements and generalizations of inequalities related to Shafer's inequality for the arctangent function, stated in Theorems 1, 2 and 4 in [1], by C. Mortici and H.M. Srivastava.

We show that the basic results on the paper referred in the title [J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. v. 35 (2002) 5333-5345], concerning the derivation of the Ermakov invariant from Noether symmetry methods, are not new.

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.