Related papers: Comments on Backreaction

This manuscript, a revised version of arXiv:0811.3168v1, was inadvertently submitted as a separate paper. It can now be accessed, including some final corrections for the published version, as arXiv:0811.3168v2.

Lieberman and Melott built their recent arXiv preprint 0704.2896 on my published paper and (a preprint of) a subsequent comment by Liebermans associate Cornette. But had this group waited for the Cornette comment to actually appear in print…

This is a reply to arXiv:1409.7513 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 138901 (2014)].

We remark on the validity of the concerns raised in the comment(cond-mat/0304626) by Fal'ko, Lerner, Tsyplyatyev, and Aleiner..

I comment on a recent preprint "Neutrino Velocity Anomalies: A Resolution without a Revolution" that appeared recently as arXiv:1110.0989 [hep-ph]

A reply to the comment by S. Friedemann et al. [arXiv:1207.0536] on our article [Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 137002 (2011), arXiv:1012.0303].

In response to the comment by Zhu and Berakdar (arXiv:1207.3457) that the physical system considered by them in their previous work [Ding et al., PRB 84, 115433 (2011)] is conceptually different from ours in the appendix of our latest paper…

This reply tries to rectify some misunderstandings that are in our opinion contained in the Comment by Campostrini and Rossi, <hep-lat 99407008> on our paper <hep-lat 9407003>.

In this note, it is shown that the results claimed in the paper [1]---as well as the examples presented there---are, unfortunately, incorrect.

We briefly comment on the paper by Albaladejo et al. [arXiv:1709.09101], rejecting its conclusions.

We make some comments about the results we obtained in Phys. Rev. Lett. 86,3392(2001), and in Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 177206 (2001), and show that the conclusion of a recent paper [cond-mat/0409495] leveling some criticism on our results is, in…

We make two tiny corrections to our previous paper with the same title, and also obtain, as a bonus, something new.

Cosmological backreaction has been suggested as an explanation of dark energy and is heavily disputed since. We combine cosmological perturbation theory with Buchert's non-perturbative framework, calculate the relevant averaged observables…

This is a reply to Michael Nauenberg's arXiv:1502.00123, to be published in the American Journal of Physics, in which he comments critically on our paper "An introduction to QBism with an application to the locality of quantum mechanics",…

We present two counterexamples to the paper by Carot et al. in Gen. Rel. Grav. 1997, 29, 1223 and show that the results obtained are correct but not general.

Comment on "Citation Statistics" [arXiv:0910.3529]

Comment on "Citation Statistics" [arXiv:0910.3529]

The inconsistency of cond-mat/0007299 and Phys. Rev. B 63 094510 (2001) with ARPES and resistivity data is pointed-out.

We reply to a recent comment by Diehl and Shpot (cond-mat/0305131) criticizing a new approach to the Lifshitz critical behavior just presented (M. M. Leite Phys. Rev. B 67, 104415(2003)). We show that this approach is free of…

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.