Related papers: Comments on Backreaction

In their correspondence [arXiv:1610.07633] Drummond and Brand criticize our work [Nature Physics 12, 451-454 (2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3631]. We show that their criticism is misleading and unfounded.

We hereby reply concisely and hopefully clearly to the ongoing claims of incorrectness made by Chen et al. about our work on two-dimensional flocks.

Remarks on reply (cond-mat/0206368) to Johansen's comment (cond-mat/0205249)

Comment on ``Microarrays, Empirical Bayes and the Two-Groups Model'' [arXiv:0808.0572]

Comment on ``Microarrays, Empirical Bayes and the Two-Groups Model'' [arXiv:0808.0572]

We reply to misleading claims made in a comment to our work by Birse and McGovern in arXiv:1708.09341.

A reply to the comment by Lee et al. [arXiv:1309.5367]

We respond to recent works by Bradshaw and Andrews on the discriminatory optical force for chiral molecules, in particular to the erroneous claims made by them concerning our earlier work.

We offer o reply for the comments of Rapisarda et al. cond-mat/0601409 on our letter "Entropy of Classical Systems with Long Range Interactios", published in Phys. Rev. Lett. Vol 95 (2005) 190601.

Withdrawn -- a revised version will appear in due course.

In this brief reply we point out to some misconceptions in C.Camacho's comment (cond-mat/9701210).

This is a response to the commentaries on "CoRR: A Computing Research Repository".

A Comment on the paper "Conservative Quantum Computing" by M. Ozawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057902 (2002). The author replies in Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 089802 (2003).

We clarify the relationship between the conclusions of the previous Comment of A. Helfer [1] and that of our Brief Report [arXiv:0906.5315]

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 addendum addresses several objections regarding accelerating cavities in the paper by Boughn and Rothman, "Hasen\"ohrl and the Equivalence of Mass and Energy," arXiv:1108.2250.

We refute criticisms by Del Santo and Horvat towards our paper "Quantum principle of relativity": most of their counterarguments can be dismissed, and the rest provides further evidence to our claims.

Gates et al (astro-ph/9606132) have raised several issues in their Comment on our Letter (Phys. Rev. Lett. Vol. 76, p.3886 (1996); astro-ph/9605001). We clarify these issues and show that our results are robust, and there is no…

We reply to the criticism raised by Volovik in his Comment (cond-mat/9805159) and by Hirschfeld et al. in their Comment (cond-mat/9806085).

We regret to point out several inaccurate and misleading statements that Benedetto {\em et al.} make in their Reply to our Comment on their paper titled ``Language Trees and Zipping''.