Related papers: Comment on "Disassembling the Clockwork Mechanism"

This is a Reply to the Comment by Vaidman in arXiv:2306.16756 on the paper: R. B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062219 (2023)

Comment on ``On Random Scan Gibbs Samplers'' [arXiv:0808.3852]

The article presents the detailed analysis of the watch paradox. It is shown that it arose because of unjustified, as it turned out, identification of watch readings at the moment of its return with the time read by it.

We answer a question raised in ``Peripheral elements in reduced Alexander modules'' [J. Knot Theory Ramifications 31 (2022), 2250058]. We also correct a minor error in that paper.

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.

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).

Comment on ``The 2005 Neyman Lecture: Dynamic Indeterminism in Science'' [arXiv:0808.0620]

Comment on ``The 2005 Neyman Lecture: Dynamic Indeterminism in Science'' [arXiv:0808.0620]

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…

Reply to the Comment of Luo, Xiang, and Wang, cond-mat/0212580.

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",…

Comment on the article by S. Gandolfi et al. Phys.Rev.Letters 118 (2017), 232501; arXiv:1612.01502 [nucl-th]

This paper ("Two-Level Chromophore and Irreversibility", which can be found at arXiv:0804.0086) has been withdrawn by the author due to too many errors and misleading statements. This paper has been superseded by Section 2.11 and Chapter 7…

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

In a recent preprint, arXiv 2005.03716v1, G. Wegner and C. Henkel criticized my work on the possibility of lossless surface plasma waves. Here I refute all of their criticisms.

In this short note we argue why the conclusions made by the authors of arXiv:1908.04675, related to arXiv:1805.05184 and in particular arXiv:1602.03666 given therein, are incorrect. Nevertheless, we think that the advocated Anti-Quark…

In our comment we show that some of the very difficult problems have been successfully solved. We have to focus on the resolved problems, since the authors claims: Our hope, however, is that the topics we have presented will provide…

This is our formal Reply to revised version (v2) of arXiv: nucl-th/0510004v2.

This is a reply to the comment to a letter by D. Mandal, K. Klymko and M. R. DeWeese published as Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 258001 (2017).

We respond to the comment arXiv:1809.03931 put forward by Li-Han Chen, Zhen Liu, and Jian-Tin Zheng on our work Kiesel, Platt, and Thomale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 126405 (2013). All misunderstandings and misconceptions communicated in the…