Related papers: Comments on "Recent Developments in Plasmon-Assist…

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…

The results of a recent paper by D.J.Hinde et al., PRL 101, 092701 (2008) are discussed.

In November 2016 we submitted to arXiv our paper "Automated Inference on Criminality Using Face Images". It generated a great deal of discussions in the Internet and some media outlets. Our work is only intended for pure academic…

This comment is devoted to the paper "Exact solutions of nonlinear diffusion-convection-reaction equation: A Lie symmetry approach" (CNSNS, vol. 67 (2019), 253-263) in which several results are not new because were derived much earlier.…

We present comments on the paper "Observation of Long-Range, Near-Side Angular Correlations in proton-proton Collisions at the LHC".

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.

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).

The authors of the Comment ascribe us claims never made while moderating their own previous unsubstantiated statements.

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.

The paper by Deng et al. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 050402 (2010)) presents an analytic theoretical description of matter-wave superradiance (Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4225-4228 (2000)) which claims to go beyond previous theoretical frameworks. I…

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.

We reply to the Comment by Hartmann (cond-mat/9908132) on our paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 2026 (also cond-mat/9907125).

The comment by Lundeen et al. contains two criticisms of our proposal. While we agree that the state-preparation procedure could be replaced by a simpler setup as proposed by the authors of the comment, we do not agree with the authors on…

The comment gives principal arguments proving that the claims given in the title of the commented paper and some its conclusions have to be wrong for principal reasons. An example illustrating the arguments is provided via atomistic…

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 their Rejoinder [arXiv:1105.1316v1], Levin and Pakter repeat some of the points raised in their previous Comment [arXiv:1104.0697v1] (already refuted in our first Reply [arXiv:1104.5036v1]), and present some new ones concerning our…

We respond to a Comment on our recent paper (Phys.Rev.C77:024304,2008) by Paar (arXiv:0803.0274).

We reply to S. Coen and T. Sylvestre's comment on our paper [Phys. Rev. A 80, 045803 (2009)] and make some additional remarks on our experimental results.

A Comment on the paper "Conservative Quantum Computing" by M. Ozawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057902 (2002). The author replies in Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 089802 (2003).

The basic assumption of the authors of manuscript arXiv:physics/0603175v1 (21 Mar 2006) is that a laser wave differs from a plane wave because of photon coherence. This is not true and therefore their conclusion is also wrong.