Related papers: Response to Cusin et al's comment on arXiv:1810.13…
In their correspondence [arXiv:1610.07633] Drummond and Brand criticize our work [Nature Physics 12, 451-454 (2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3631]. We show that their criticism is misleading and unfounded.
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…
This is our response to the comment arXiv:2504.13683 posted by Chat\'e and Solon in reference to our preprint arXiv:2503.17064
This paper was withdrawn by arXiv admins because of inappropriate and unverifiable claims of appropriation.
The authors of the Comment ascribe us claims never made while moderating their own previous unsubstantiated statements.
It is shown that the arguments in the reply of Z.-D. Zhang (arXiv:0812.0194) to the comment arXiv:0811.1802 defending his conjectures in arXiv:0705.1045 are invalid. His conjectures have been thoroughly disproved.
The authors of preprint arXiv:2009.00286 and paper Appl. Phys. Lett. 117, 130501 (2020), Y. Sivan and Y. Dubi, made several wrong and inconsistent comments on our papers [J. Phys. Chem. C 117, 16616-16631 (2013), ACS Photonics 4 (11),…
We discuss how the comment by A. Loeb [arXiv:2408.06714] has no bearing on the results of Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 041401 (2024) [arXiv:2405.02389].
It is demonstrated that remarks and criticism in work [1] (arXiv:1005.2436 nucl-th) have resulted from inattentive reading of work [2] (Phys. Rev.C 81, 035501 (2010)) or just some misunderstanding and do not influence conclusions of work…
It is shown that the claims expressed in the Comment arXiv:0810.3247v1 against my paper Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 101}, 163603 (2008) [arXiv:0809.3901] are obviously wrong or not essential.
In this manuscript we reply to the criticisms of our paper [Eur. Phys. J. A 24, 437 (2005)] raised in a recent preprint by Achasov and Kiselev [hep-ph/0606268] and demonstrate that all their criticisms are completely irrelevant and…
In this Reply we argue that the conclusions derived in Ref. arXiv:1301.1241 are questionable.
Below we analyze the `critic' statements made in the Preprint arXiv:1301.1828v1 [nucl-th]. The doubtful scientific argumentation of the authors of the Preprint arXiv:1301.1828v1 [nucl-th] is also discussed.
Response to Comment by A. Bussmann-Holder (arXiv:0909.3603)
In a brief note posted recently, the authors of arXiv:1503.07813 raised some concerns on our arxiv:1502.03821, recently published in Nature Physics. We thank them for the interest in our work and respond here to their criticisms.
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.
We demonstrate that criticisms concerning our work nucl-th/9704043, made in the recent preprint hep-ph/9903352, are unfounded. The improvements over our results claimed in hep-ph/9903352 are in fact spurious, being based mainly on…
Clement and Noiucer submitted a note {\tt arXiv:2401.16008 [gr-qc]} replying to our criticism {\tt arXiv:2401.10479 [gr-qc]} of their previous submission. We reply to the contents of this note and remark that these authors have not…
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…
It is shown that a recent critique (arXiv:1210.1130 and arXiv:1211.4639) concerning the analytical solution of the Rabi model is unfounded.