Related papers: Comments on Backreaction

Reply to ``Comment on [Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 630 (1998)]''

This is response to the recent comment arXiv:2210.10539v2 by I. Burmistrov.

In a brief note posted recently, the authors of arXiv:1503.07813 raised some concerns on our arxiv:1502.03821, recently published in Nature Physics. We thank them for the interest in our work and respond here to their criticisms.

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 clarify a number of points raised in [Matias, arXiv:cond-mat/0507471v2 (2005)].

The conclusions presented in this Letter arXiv:cond-mat/0412591 rely on not converged calculations and should be considered with caution.

Cho and Pak reply to Lamm et al. [hep-th/0007108] comment on "A Convergent Series for the Effective Action of QED" [hep-th/0006057].

A reply to arXiv:0809.2310, "Comment on Universal Charge-Radius Relation for Subatomic and Astrophysical Compact Objects" [arXiv:0804.2140,PRL100(2008)151102]

We show that the criticism of our paper [Phys. Rev. B 65, 125109 (2002)] by Wang, Millis, and Das Sarma [cond-mat/0206203] is based on a trivial mathematical mistake they have committed.

I show that the conclusions of [Hwang, Chavez, Amann, & Boccaletti, PRL 94, 138701 (2005); Chavez, Hwang, Amann, Hentschel, & Boccaletti, PRL 94, 218701 (2005)] are closely related to those of previous publications.

In this short note we summarize the arguments against a significant back-reaction of inhomogeneities on the acceleration of the Universe. We also present a quick way to access the importance of back-reaction using the Fourier space…

A Reply to the criticisms contained in astro-ph/9612003 is provided and a logical inconsistency in astro-ph/9612214 is pointed out.

We reply to the critiques of our paper arXiv:1210.5501 by the DAMA collaboration which appeared in arXiv:1210.6199 and arXiv:1211.6346. Our original claim that the observed background levels are likely to require a large modulation fraction…

We respond to a Comment [arXiv:1407.6854 (2014)] on our recent Nature paper [Nature, 510, 385 (2014)]. We categorically disprove the arguments provided in arXiv:1407.6854 (2014) and thereby further substantiate the evidence we presented in…

A Comment on the letter by V. Koptev, et al. - Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 022301.

We demonstrate that criticisms concerning our work nucl-th/9704043, made in the recent preprint hep-ph/9903352, are unfounded. The improvements over our results claimed in hep-ph/9903352 are in fact spurious, being based mainly on…

Reply to the Comment physics/0307134 by A. Helmstetter and D. Sornette

In the present work we reply to the Comment by Catalan and Scott (cond-mat/0607500) on two of our papers. This Comment has been rejected from publication in Physical Review Letters and, hence, our Reply is based on the cond-mat version.

Amato et al.[arXiv:1205.6418] maintain that certain data published in Carpinteri et al.[2] are not the result of independent measurements, and are in any case affected by uncertainties such that our conclusions are not valid. We will…

In a recent publication [PRL 111, 160405 (2013)] we proved a version of Heisenberg's error-disturbance tradeoff. This result was in apparent contradiction to claims by Ozawa of having refuted these ideas of Heisenberg. In a direct reaction…