Related papers: Further Comment on 'Encoding many channels on the …

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…

We show that Wolf et al.'s 2011 analysis in Class. Quant. Grav. v28, 145017 does not support their conclusions, in particular that there is "no redshift effect" in atom interferometers except in inconsistent dual Lagrangian formalisms. Wolf…

We stand by our findings in Phys. Rev A. 96, 022126 (2017). In addition to refuting the invalid objections raised by Peleg and Vaidman, we report a retrocausation problem inherent in Vaidman's definition of the past of a quantum particle.

This comment points out that simulation results of Mehrabi and Sahimi [Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 735 (1999)] are iconsistent with exact bounds, renormalization group calculations, and previous numerical simulations.

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].

This is a reply to the comment by A. W. Sandvik (cond-mat/0010433) on our paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4204 (2000). We show that his data do not conflict with our data nor with our conclusions.

We discuss the implications of the time-energy uncertainty relation to recoillessly emitted and captured neutrinos (Mossbauer neutrinos) and show that it does not preclude oscillations of these neutrinos, contrary to a recent claim (J.…

This note contains my response to the comment written by J. Franklin on my paper ``Covariant formulation of electrodynamics in isotropic media''.

We are pleased to see that Jeckelmann has made many changes to the original version of his comment on our paper as a result of our response. Here is a copy of this powerful response that reveals problems in his previous results. However,…

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…

The experimental findings reported in our original paper [1] (arXiv:1211.2913) have been criticized in ref.[2] (arXiv:1606.00710). We believe that the arguments brought in ref. [2] are not correct and we show evidence for this.

A comment on the letter by M. Machida and T. Koyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 140401 (2005) and also on the preprint by Y. Kawaguchi and T. Ohmi, cond-mat/0411018.

We provide a reply to a comment by I. Goychuk arXiv:1708.04155, version v2 from 27 Aug 2017 (not under active consideration with Phys. Rev. Lett.), on our Letter E. Aghion, D. A. Kessler and E. Barkai, Phys. Rev. Lett., 118, 260601 (2017).

The target paper presents an experimental verification of a "Jarzynski-related" equality. We show that the latter equality is in fact not related to the Jarzynski equality.

The present paper is written in response to the comment of M. R. Hadizadeh et. al on our original paper "Solution of the Specific Model of Five-body Problem to Investigate the Effective Alpha-Nucleon Interaction in a Partial-Wave analysis"…

This is a Reply to the Comment [arXiv:0807.0699] on our paper [PRL 100:232002 (2008)].

It is shown that the recent Comment [cond-mat/0306019] by Y. Yu on the above article is not substantiated.

After the rejection of their comment [arXiv:cond-mat/0609399v1] to our Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}, 100601 (2006), the Authors informed us that an extended version of their comment is going to be published in a different journal under the…

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…

In a recent paper, we vindicated a general entanglement-based witness of non-classicality in hybrid quantum systems. Our vindication refutes a counterexample to the witness, proposed by Hall and Reginatto. These authors recently commented…