Related papers: Further Comment on 'Encoding many channels on the …
This Comment corrects an erroneous remark by Stadnik in a recent paper to the effect that many-body neutrino-mediated forces are suppressed in all types of stars.
The Comment by Duval et al. [PRL 96, 099701 (2006)] addresses an important, but not the main, result of our Letter [PRL 95, 137204 (2005)]. It does not contradict our results in substance, and the only objection is really on the style of…
In this note, the correction to the proof of one theorem in some our previous paper [arXiv:1302.0589] will be given.
Comment in response to Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 046401 (2014)
Mermin states in a recent paper that his nontechnical version of Bell's theorem stands and is not invalidated by time and setting dependent instrument parameters as claimed in one of our previous papers. We identify a number of…
This paper includes two comments. The first one is a comment on 'Teleportation of two quNit entanglement: Exploiting local resources'. Two different efficient methods are presented to modify some details of N. Ba An's protocol, so that…
Arguments continue to appear in the literature concerning the validity of the standard oscillation formula. We point out some misunderstandings and try to explain in simple terms our viewpoint.
The present note is to make minor correction on the assumption of Theorem 1.2 and its proof in our paper [arXiv:2111.02059, Jinrui Huang, Yinghui Wang, Huanyao Wen and Rizhao Zi, {\it J. Differential Equations}, 306(2022), 456--491].
Interesting objections to conclusions of our experiment with nested interferometers raised by Salih in a recent Commentary are analysed and refuted.
We briefly remind references and arguments, already discussed in the past, which confute erroneous claims in arXiv:1210.5501.
Hohensee, Chu, Peters and M\"uller have submitted a comment (arXiv:1112.6039 [gr-qc]) on our paper "Does an atom interferometer test the gravitational redshift at the Compton frequency?", Classical and Quantum Gravity 28, 145017 (2011),…
Response to comment by Finn et al.
Reply to the Comment physics/0307134 by A. Helmstetter and D. Sornette
After our publication of the observed first indication for neutrinoless double beta decay in [KK-Evid01], a number of papers have been published [KK-Sar_Evid01,KK2-Sar_Evid01,KK3-Sar_Evid01,Ma02-Ev,Barg02-Ev,Ueh02-Ev,Mi…
Some remarks are made on the theoretical interpretation of recent experimental results on the propagation speed of electromagnetic force fields.
We welcome Allagui et al.'s discussions about our recent paper that has proposed revisions to the existing theory of capacitors. It gives us an opportunity to emphasize on the physical underpinnings of the mathematical expressions that are…
We reply to a recent comment by Bhattacharya et. al. (cond-mat/9812290) on our previous Letter (PRL 81, 5640 (1998)).
I reply to the four points raised by S. A. Hayward, R. Di Criscienzo, M. Nadalini, L. Vanzo, S. Zerbini (arXiv:0909.2956v1) against my comment (arXiv:0907.2020v1) to their previous article. I maintain my position on the wrongness of their…
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…
Comment on the article by S. Gandolfi et al. Phys.Rev.Letters 118 (2017), 232501; arXiv:1612.01502 [nucl-th]