Related papers: Reply to "Comment on Testing Planck-Scale Gravity …

We challenge the analysis and conclusions of the paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 141103 (2012) by V. Gharibyan on the tests of Planck-scale gravity with accelerators. The main objective of the Comment is the observation that the explored domain…

Reply to the comment by D.N. Aristov and A.G. Yashenkin (cond-mat/9612245) on PRL by Balatsky and Salkola (Phys. Rev. Lett., V76, 2386, (1996), cond-mat/9602034).

We reply to the comment arXiv:quant-ph/0702060 on our letter arXiv:quant-ph/0603120 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 100402 (2006)]

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…

Comment on R. Planet, S. Santucci, J. Ortin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 094502 (2009) about the rescaling of the data and the data collapse. Reply to be found here.

We summarize some of the results we obtained in arXiv:1006.2126 (Physical Review Letters 106, 071301), arXiv:1102.4637 (Physics Letters B 700, 150-156) and in arXiv:1107.3334, giving complementary characterizations of the relativity of…

In this communication we refute a criticism concerning results of our work [3] that was presented in references [1] and [2].

GGR News: we hear that..., by David Garfinkle What's new in LIGO, by David Shoemaker News from NSF, by Pedro Marronetti Citation counts and indicies: Beware of bad data, by Clifford Will Research Briefs: Results from Planck, by William…

We reply to the recent comments on our published papers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 152005 and Phys. Lett. B717 (2012) 214. We point out that the criticisms about the transverse polarization parton sum rule we obtained are invalid.

We make comments on Gaidarzhy {\it et al.}'s [{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} 94, 030402 (2005)] letter.

We reply to comment on recent paper by Pieplow and Henkel (New J. Phys. 15 (2013) 023027) and our results made by Volokitin and Persson (arXiv: 1405.2525)

A recent e-print (cond-mat/0604532) presented a proposed Comment to Applied Physics Letters on our publication Appl. Phys. Lett. 88, 162503 (2006), cond-mat/0603260. Here is our Response. As the proposed Comment has now been rejected by…

This is a comment on [Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 243004 (2003)] by Marlan O. Scully, Vitaly V. Kocharovsky, Alexey Belyanin, Edward Fry and Federico Capasso (quant-ph/0305178).

We reply to a comment by Capozziello and Vignolo about the Cauchy problem of Palatini f(R) gravity.

This paper is a set of notes that we wrote concerning the first version of Emergent Gravity [gr-qc/0602022]. It is our version of an exercise that we proposed to some of our students. The idea was to find mathematical errors and…

In this letter, we consider the theory of $F(R)$ gravity with the lagrangian density $ \pounds = R+\alpha R^2 + \beta R^2 \ln \beta R $. We obtain the constant curvature solutions and find the scalar potential of the gravitational field. We…

This is the reply to a Comment by I.S.Tupitsyn and P.C.E. Stamp (PRL v92,119701 (2004)) on a letter of ours (J.F.Fernandez and J.J.Alonso, PRL v91, 047202 (2003)).

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).

This is the Reply to the revised Comment [Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 139601; arXiv:0810.4791] by Joachim Krug on our paper: C. Escudero, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 116101 (2008); arXiv:0804.1898.

We regret that PRL did not accept our Reply for publication. We believe that both our Reply and the original paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 135901 (2017)) is sound and correct. We post our reply here and let readers to judge.