Related papers: Response to arXiv:1005.2615
In this note we answer the two questions raised by Y.Y Li and L. Nguyen in their note [LN2] below.
I comment on a recent preprint "Neutrino Velocity Anomalies: A Resolution without a Revolution" that appeared recently as arXiv:1110.0989 [hep-ph]
This is our response to the comment arXiv:2504.13683 posted by Chat\'e and Solon in reference to our preprint arXiv:2503.17064
The results in the recently posted manuscript arXiv:math/0405153v3 are incorrect. The correct version of the aimed results is not original. The preprint contains material from references that are not properly quoted.
In a previous comment (arXiv:0806.1341v1) we criticized purely technical aspects of arXiv:0712.1645 but pointed out that many other inconsistencies were readily apparent. In view of the imminent posting of another version of…
We reply to misleading claims made in a comment to our work by Birse and McGovern in arXiv:1708.09341.
We respond to Comment on our recent letter (Phys.Rev.Lett.99:092501,2007) by Dean et al (arXiv:0709.0449).
Comment on ``On Random Scan Gibbs Samplers'' [arXiv:0808.3852]
XENON100 is the current phase of the XENON dark matter program, which aims for the direct detection of WIMPs with liquid xenon time-projection chambers. We present the status of the experiment after 224.6 live days taken in 2011 and 2012…
Response to Comment by A. Bussmann-Holder (arXiv:0909.3603)
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.
The content of this paper is now available as part of arXiv:0802.2019
In this Reply we argue that the conclusions derived in Ref. arXiv:1301.1241 are questionable.
In the recently posted arXiv:2312.04495v3 [1], its authors used a computer code written by me supplied to them by the authors of Ref. [2], and claimed that the results that they obtained invalidate the results and conclusions presented in…
It is shown that criticism of my paper arXiv:0801.0656 Phys. Rev. Lett, vol. 101, 163202 (2008) by the authors of Comment arXiv:0810.3243v1 is wrong and that their main arguments are in contradiction with established concepts of statistical…
Highlights of Quark Matter 95 are discussed.
The various versions of cond-mat/0312353 discuss results obtained by me&coworkers in the last decade. I have received requests to comment on the paper and the comments are collected here, including some that I tried to point in the course…
This is a supplement to the paper arXiv:q-bio/0701050, containing the text of correspondence sent to Nature in 1990.
This results in this paper have been merged with the result in arXiv:1003.0167. The authors would like to withdraw this version. Please see arXiv:1008.5356 for the merged version.
In this short note we summarize the main results of our paper [hep-ph/0510055] and reply to a recent comment [hep-ph/0511174] on that paper.