Related papers: Reply to "Comment on Testing Planck-Scale Gravity …
This is a reply to the recent comment from Ikeda, Berthier, and Sollich (arXiv:1602.04796) on "Constant stress and pressure rheology of colloidal suspensions", Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 158301 (2015).
The current activity of the SPARC_LAB test-facility is focused on the realization of plasma-based acceleration experiments with the aim to provide accelerating field of the order of several GV/m while maintaining the overall quality (in…
The Planck or the quantum gravity scale, being $16$ orders of magnitude greater than the electroweak scale, is often considered inaccessible by current experimental techniques. However, it was shown recently by one of the current authors…
This article focuses on correcting several factual errors and critiques in the previously published Letter in Phys. Rev. L, Vol. 89, No. 10, 2022, by D. Shapira and M. Saltmarsh. The authors of the Letter did not perform their own…
As a coauthor of the article mentioned in the title, I discuss the criticism in the comment of Aalseth et al. Part of the criticism is justified.
An arxiv paper, ref. [1] by Cao et al., claimed that the tunable attraction reported in our ref. [2] could not be detected. Ref. [1] was submitted to Nature in Apr. 2016 as a Comment on our ref. [2]. Our reply in May 2016 responded to ref.…
This paper is in response to a recent comment by Bellissard [arXiv:1704.02644] on the paper [Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 130201 (2017)]. It is explained that the issues raised in the comment have already been discussed in the paper and do not…
This is a reply to the comment from Patrick Bruno (arXiv:1211.4792) on our paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 163001 (2012)).
We comment on the paper A. Esposito, R. Krichevsky, and A. Nicolis, "Gravitational Mass Carried by Sound Waves", Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 084501 (2019). Our comment aims to avoid the confusion arisen in the scientific community and beyond on…
Plasma Wakefield Accelerators promise huge acceleration gradients that are three orders of magnitude greater than today's conventional radio frequency (RF) accelerators. These novel accelerators show also the potential of diminishing the…
The equation derived by F. Rohrlich (Phys. Rev. E 77, 046609 (2008)) has been known for 60 years (C. J. Eliezer, Proc. Royal Soc. London. Ser. A 194, 543 (1948)). For a long time this equation has been considered to be incorrect. If there…
We respond to Comment on our recent letter (Phys.Rev.Lett.99:092501,2007) by Dean et al (arXiv:0709.0449).
We explain our strong disagreement with the statement about "several scientific errors" in our paper [arXiv:1407.6619] and highlight the validity of our approach, which had been already confirmed in the well-known experiments by Millikan.
We correct a sign mistake in the work mentioned in the title; explore consequences on energy conditions in the relevant context, and make a suggestion on the introduced parameter.
Reply to the Comment [arXiv:1609.04476] on a recent work in PRL [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 036601 (2016), arXiv:1511.02994v2].
GGR News: o GGR program at the APS meeting in Denver, by David Garfinkle o we hear that ..., by David Garfinkle o 400 years ago, by David Garfinkle Conference reports: o The 24th Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics, by Scott Hughes…
It is shown that the experimental results reported in cond-mat/0010412 do not invalidate the well-known expression for the Kelvin force density in ferrofluids.
We respond below to the comment of E. I. Lashin [ arXiv:1505.03070 ] on our work Phys. Lett. {\bf B741} (2015) 276-279 [ arXiv:1404.3093 ], and point out the errors in that comment.
Comment on "Efficiency of Isothermal Molecular Machines at Maximum Power" (PRL 108, 210602 (2012), arXiv:1201.6396)
The comments raised in Ref. [1] by Mishra et al aim at two papers contained in Ref. [2]. We show that those comments on Ref. [2] pointed out by Mishra et al in Ref.[1] are not relevant and the concept used in Ref.[2] is consistent and in…