Related papers: Reply to a comment on "A Comparison Between Broad …
A recent work (2014 New J. Phys. 16 013006) claims that nonmonotonic structures found in the many-particle quantum-to-classical transition (2013 Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110 1227-1231; 2011 Phys. Rev. A 83 062111) are not exclusive to the…
As a coauthor of the article mentioned in the title, I discuss the criticism in the comment of Aalseth et al. Part of the criticism is justified.
We prove global existence of small solutions to the initial value problem for a class of cubic derivative nonlinear Schr\"odinger systems with the masses satisfying suitable non-resonance relations. The large-time asymptotics of the…
The aim of this short Note is to show that the Schr\"odinger and Heisenberg pictures of quantum mechanics are not equivalent unless one uses a quantization rule clearly stated by Born and Jordan in their famous 1925 paper. This rule is…
We elaborate in more details why lattice calculation in [Kolanovic et al, Phys. Rev. D 62, 025021 (2000)] was done correctly and argue that incresing the number of sites is not expected to change our conclusions on the mass spectrum.
We present two counterexamples to the paper by Carot et al. in Gen. Rel. Grav. 1997, 29, 1223 and show that the results obtained are correct but not general.
This Comment corrects an erroneous remark by Stadnik in a recent paper to the effect that many-body neutrino-mediated forces are suppressed in all types of stars.
This is the authors response to commentaries on the original article H is for Human and How (Not) to Evaluate Qualitative Research in HCI, https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2025.2475743 Commentaries were provided by: Jeffrey Bardzell,…
This paper is a companion article to our previous paper (J. Stat. Phys. 119, 1283 (2005), cond-mat/0408681), which introduced a generalized canonical ensemble obtained by multiplying the usual Boltzmann weight factor $e^{-\beta H}$ of the…
The present note is a feedback on the article by M.O. Katanaev in "Physica Scripta" (2023, 98, 104001), where, in our opinion, a distorted view of the classical theory of separation of variables in the Hamilton-Jacobi equation is given. We…
We address the concerns raised by the author of "Comment: Some exact quasinormal frequencies of a massless scalar field in Schwarzschild spacetime" appeared in arXiv:1807.05940. In particular, we explain why the analysis in our paper [Phys.…
The aim of this note is to rebut some unsupported claims which cast suspicions on the results of the papers titled: "Extrinsic extinction cross-section in the multiple acoustic scattering by fluid particles," [J. Appl. Phys. 121, 144904…
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.…
This is a point-by-point response to a non-peer-reviewed document titled The Miscalibration of the Honeybee Odometer [arXiv:2405.12998], authored by L. Luebbert and L. Pachter, that was published on arXiv on 8 May 2024 and subsequently…
We compare the results of our two papers with the results of the paper Aratyn H., Gomes J.F., Zimerman A.H., Higher order Painlev\'e equations and their symmetries via reductions of a class of integrable models, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., V.…
In this paper we show that the claims in [Class. Quantum Grav. 19 (2002) 3067, gr-qc/0203081] related to our analysis in [Phys. Rev. D 62, 063508 (2000), astro-ph/0005070] are wrong.
A recent paper of Trandafir and Cabello [Phys. Rev. A, 111, 022408 (2025)] contains a number of errors, inconsistencies, and inefficiencies. They are too numerous to be listed here, so we identify and discuss them in the main body of the…
We correct an error in [I. Kangasniemi, and J. Onninen, On the heterogeneous distortion inequality. Math. Ann. 384 (2022), no. 3-4, 1275-1308.]
It is shown in detail why the arguments put forward by Struyve and Baere (quant-ph/0108038) against my conclusions are incorrect.
We regret that PRL did not accept our Reply for publication. We believe that both our Reply and the original paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 135901 (2017)) is sound and correct. We post our reply here and let readers to judge.