Related papers: Answer on the comment by S. G. Karshenboim, V. G. …

The results for the total multi-photon decay rates of the 3p and 4s levels of hydrogen, presented by D. Solovyev and L. Labzowsky within the cascade approximation, are revisited. The corrected results for certain decay channels differ from…

A rigorous QED theory of the multiphoton decay of excited states in hydrogen atom is presented. The "two-photon" approximation is formulated which is limited by the one-photon and two-photon transitions including cascades transitions with…

The work is a comments on the article of V. G. Pal'chikov, Yu. L. Sokolov, and V. P. Yakovlev, devoted to the measurement of the Lamb shift in the hydrogen atom and published in Physica Scripta, 55 (1997) 33-40.

Context: In the seminal works of Zeldovich et al. (1968) and Peebles (1968), a procedure was outlined to obtain the equation of evolution of the hydrogen fraction without an explicit use of the radiative transfer equation. This procedure is…

It is shown that the title Comment by W. Szczepanik, M. Dulak, and T. A. Wesolowski [Int. J. Quantum Chem. 106 (2006)] is unsatisfactory.

Here we reply to the comment by A. F. Volkov, F. S. Bergeret, and K. B. Efetov.

The recent paper by V. G. Kogan and J. Schmalian Phys. Rev. B 83, 054515 (2011) argues that the widely used two-component Ginzburg-Landau (GL) models are not correct, and further concludes that in the regime which is described by a GL…

This Comment points out a number of errors in the recent paper by Zarechnaya, Dubrovinskaia, Dubrovinsky, et al. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 185501 (2009)). Results and conclusions presented by Zarechnaya et al. (2009) are either incorrect or…

Both the Kelvin wave and the Kolmogorov turbulence interpretations presented in the PRL, [v. 103, 084501 (2009) by J. Yepez, G. Vahala, L.Vahala and M. Soe, arXiv:0905.0159] are misleading, and much more theoretical analysis needs to be…

It is shown that the criticism of Voitkiv [Phys. Rev. A 74, 027403 (2006)] is based on one assumption, which is false for an ionized electron, initially bound by the Coulomb potential, in a strong circularly polarized laser field. A certain…

We show that the remarks of V.\ Petrov in the preceding Comment are misdirected in the region of very small momentum transfers relevant to the study of Coulomb-nuclear interference in proton-proton scattering, and clarify the connection…

Reply to the Comment by S.V. Kravchenko, A.A. Shashkin, and V.T. Dolgopolov [cond-mat/0106056]

Here we give our reply to the comment by Sibirtsev et al on our paper ``Mass and K-Lambda Coupling of the N*(1535)".

We apply the convergent close-coupling (CCC) formalism to the problem of two-photon double ionization of helium. The electron-photon interaction is treated perturbatively whereas the electron-electron interaction is included in full. The…

The authors of preprint arXiv:2009.00286 and paper Appl. Phys. Lett. 117, 130501 (2020), Y. Sivan and Y. Dubi, made several wrong and inconsistent comments on our papers [J. Phys. Chem. C 117, 16616-16631 (2013), ACS Photonics 4 (11),…

We reply to the comments on our paper "Quantum Confinement in Hydrogen Bond" (Int. J. Quantum Chem. 115 (2015) 765 DOI: 10.1002/qua.24894) made by Matthias Heger and Martin A. Suhm.

The differences in potential models used in our work and in the original paper of the authors of the Comment are discussed. The neglecting of simple rules of reaction calculations is shown as a possible origin of the defect in the…

A reply to the comment by V. R. Shaginyan et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 279701 (2011), arXiv:1206.5372] on our article [Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 137002 (2011), arXiv:1012.0303].

We discuss the claims of the comment at arXiv.org:physics/0609234. We show that A.V. Kildishev et al. misread our method of extracting of optical constants of nanostructured films. The theoretical calculations performed in the comment…

The reply by Oughstun et al. [J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 28, 468-469 (2011)] to our comment [J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 28, 450-452 (2011)] on their recently published paper [J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 27, 1664-1670 (2010)] is shown to make no response to the main…