Related papers: Optical precursors in the singular and weak disper…
Two objections have been raised to the arguments presented in O. Cohen, Phys. Rev. A 60, 80 (1999). It is pointed out that neither objection has anything whatsoever to do with the main subject matter of that paper, and shown that both…
This is a comment on the paper arXiv:1410.2840 by Ji and Jin, to appear in the AOAS.
We reply to the comments on our paper Perfect Drain for the Maxwell fish eye lens (NJP 13 (2011) 023038) made by Fei Sun. We believe that Sun comments have several mistakes in theoretical concepts and simulation results.
Comment on the paper Schiavoni et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 094101 (2003).
This Comment identifies errors in the formalism/implementation reported in Ref. 1 and discusses some aspects of that work that were not fully specified in the original publication. This Comment also provides reference numerical results for…
The comment is intended to answer the criticism presented on `Steady-state fluctuations of a genetic feedback loop: an exact solution' [J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 137}, 035104 (2012).] and provides the missing component for the complete analytic…
The recent criticism of Vaidman's propsal for the analysis of the past of a particle in the nested interferometer is refuted. It is shown that the definition of the past of the particle adopted by Englert et al. [Phys. Rev. A 96, 022126…
The authors of preprint arXiv:1810.00565 and paper in Light: Science & Applications (2019), Y. Dubi and Y. Sivan, made several wrong and inconsistent comments on several of our papers. In addition, the paper in Faraday Discuss. 214, 215-233…
The proofs of Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 4.1 in Le\~ao and Ohashi (2013) are incomplete. The reason is a wrong statement in Remark 2.2. The hypotheses and statements of Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 4.1 in Le\~ao and Ohashi (2013) remain…
There are some points in the reply of Horton et al. [http://stacks.iop.org/JPhysA/35/7963] to my comment [quant-ph/0202140] on their paper [quant-ph/0103114] which I cannot let stand without a response. I provide here some clarification of…
This note contains my response to the comment written by J. Franklin on my paper ``Covariant formulation of electrodynamics in isotropic media''.
In our comment we show that some of the very difficult problems have been successfully solved. We have to focus on the resolved problems, since the authors claims: Our hope, however, is that the topics we have presented will provide…
I comment on a recent preprint "A Proposal to Measure Photon-Photon Scattering" that appeared recently as arXiv:1106.0465v1 [hep-ph].
In [JETP Lett. 105(3), 152 (2017)], a clear and comprehensive analysis of the paradoxical results of experiment [Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 240402 (2013)] was carried out on the basis of the classical wave theory of light, which presupposes the…
I calculate the limitations on the widely-used forward-only (uni-directional) propagation assumption by considering the effects of transverse effects (e.g. diffraction). The starting point is the scalar second order wave equation, and…
A comment to the authors' SRF Conference pre-print [1] was submitted by A. Gurevich to the arXiv [2]. In this response, we show that the arguments used in the comment are not valid. [1] arXiv:1309.3239 [2] arXiv:1309.5626
This is a comment on E. D. Greaves et al. paper. We argue that their laboratory experiment cannot be interpreted as measuring the one-way speed of light.
The comment by Lundeen et al. contains two criticisms of our proposal. While we agree that the state-preparation procedure could be replaced by a simpler setup as proposed by the authors of the comment, we do not agree with the authors on…
We refute all claims of the "Comment on "Normalization of quasinormal modes in leaky optical cavities and plasmonic resonators" " by E. A. Muljarov and W. Langbein (arXiv:1602.07278v1). Based entirely on information already contained in our…
We reply to David's comment (hep-lat/9504017) on our paper Phys.Rev.Lett. 74(1995)1920.