Related papers: Reply to a comment on "A Comparison Between Broad …

While much of the technical analysis in the preceding Comment [1] is correct, in the end it confirms the conclusion reached in my previous work [2]: a consistent histories analysis provides no support for the claim of counterfactual quantum…

A comment is given to the reply of Kraemmer and Rebhan (hep-th/9711075) to our paper (hep-th/9710131).

A reply to the above mentioned commentary by M.M. Block and F. Halzen on our quoted work is presented. We answer to each point raised by these authors and argument that our data reductions, strategies and methodology are adequate to the…

It is shown that the results of ref [1] are consistent.

Some of the conclusions of an improved JWKB method by Eleuch H., Rostovtsev Y. V. and Scully M. O., EPL, 89 (2010) 50004 are clarified. The degree of approximation to exact solutions is quantitatively assessed. The improved JWKB method is…

The Comment by Xiong et al. (arXiv:1610.06275) criticizing my Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 133903 (2016)] was rejected by Physical Review Letters. In this Reply, I show that all their claims are wrong.

We reply to Comment by J. Gemmer, L. Knipschild, R. Steinigeweg (arXiv:1712.02128) on our paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 100601 (2017).

We reply to the criticism raised by Volovik in his Comment (cond-mat/9805159) and by Hirschfeld et al. in their Comment (cond-mat/9806085).

We reply to the comment cond-mat/9902073 by Ben-Naim and Krapivsky on our paper cond-mat/9901130. We show that their arguments are incorrect, and present more numerical results to back our earlier conclusions.

This is a short manuscript which was initially submitted to Nature Physics as a comment to the PBR (Pusey, M. F., Barrett, J., Rudolph, T) paper just after its publication in 2012. The comment was not accepted. I however think that the…

Here we give our reply to the comment by Sibirtsev et al on our paper ``Mass and K-Lambda Coupling of the N*(1535)".

We show that the reply by Tamburini et al (2012 New J. Phys. 14 118002) to our previous comment (2012 New J. Phys. 14 118001) on the experiment reported in (2012 New J. Phys. 14 033001) actually does not invalidate any of the issues raised…

I reply to a Comment by Q. Wang and W.G. Unruh regarding my paper "Hiding the Cosmological Constant" [Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 131302].

This is a Reply to the Comment of S.R. White and D.J. Scalapino [cond-mat/9907243] on our recent paper ``Stripes and the t-J Model'' [Physical Review Letters 83, 132 (1999) and cond-mat/9812022].

This is a comment on Phys. Rev. A 67, 022104(2003).

Comment on Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2086 (2001)

We offer o reply for the comments of Rapisarda et al. cond-mat/0601409 on our letter "Entropy of Classical Systems with Long Range Interactios", published in Phys. Rev. Lett. Vol 95 (2005) 190601.

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…

Katsnelson submitted his Comment on our paper "Projective Quantum Monte Carlo Method for the Anderson Impurity Model and its Application to Dynamical Mean Field Theory" to Phys. Rev. Lett. in May 2005. We proved in our report that this…

This comment regards a central aspect of the referred-to paper, the issue of convergence of the large coordination-number expansion. Perturbation expansions of expressions containing a large number of parameters are generally invalid due to…