Related papers: Reply to "Comment on `Quantum Raychaudhuri Equatio…

We reply to the comment by Ying Zhang and S. Das Sarma on our PRL 94, 226405 (2005).

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…

This is a reply to an article with the same title in which Kirkpatrick claimed that the considerations I put forward some thirty years ago on quantum mixtures are incorrect. It is shown here that Kirkpatrick's reasoning is erroneous.

We address the three points raised by the authors of the above Comment.

We show that the comment [cond-mat/0408217] by Continentino on our recent paper [PRL 91, 066404 (2003), cond-mat/0212335] reaches incorrect conclusions as the comment wrongly extrapolates from results valid close to a classical phase…

Critical comments on the recent papers supporting the idea of resilient quantum computations are presented.

In [arXiv:2409.00161v1 (2024)] Cavendish et al. raise three criticisms against our time of arrival proposal [L. Maccone and K. Sacha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110402 (2020)]. Here we show that all three criticisms are without merit. One of…

We point out that the claim of strong universality in the paper J.Phys. A 44, 015002, arXiv:1011.3321 is incorrect, as it contradicts known rigorous results.

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

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.

A recent attempt to arrive at a quantum version of Raychaudhuri's equation is looked at critically. It is shown that the method, and even the idea, has some inherent problems. The issues are pointed out here. We have also shown that it is…

Based on easy-to-follow considerations it is not difficult to be vehemently opposed not only the solutions found in that paper but also the conclusions manifested there.

This paper has been temporarily withdrawn for corrections.

This comment directs attention to some fails of the Alhaidari approach to solve relativistic problems. It is shown that his gauge considerations are way off the mark and that the class of exactly solvable relativistic problems is not so…

We refute the criticism expressed in a comment by P. Talkner and P. H\"anggi [Phys. Rev. E 102, 066101 (2020)] on our paper Phys. Rev. E 101, 050101(R) (2020). We first make clear that our paper is free of any technical mistakes. We then…

This combines a reply to the Comment [hep-th/0203067 v1] by A. N. Vaidya and R. de L. Rodrigues with an erratum to our Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 210405 (2001)]

The question raised by [Bastin and Martin 2003 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 36, 4201] is examined and used to explain in more detail a key point of our calculations. They have sought to rebut criticisms raised by us of certain techniques…

It is shown that ''Theorem 1'' of the article ''Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Is Incorrect'' by G.-L. Li and V.O.K. Li (see quant-ph/0509089) is false. Therefore the assertion expressed in the title of that article is…

The paper has been withdrawn.

I reply to the comment by Dr S. Nishigaki (hep-th/0007042) to my papers Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 056005 and Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 016005.