Related papers: A close look at Jeckelmann's weak-coupling results…
Kedem's Comment [arXiv:1402.1352] on our Letter [PRL 112, 040406 (2014)] contains only the criticism that we did not consider complex weak values. We point out follow-up work which uses the same analysis as in our Letter, includes any type…
This note responds to Schwartz and Hutchison's Comment (arXiv:2403.06001) on our article (DOI:10.1002/adma.202309393). We think differences have arisen not in the experimental results themselves but in their interpretation: our more…
We clarify the relationship between the conclusions of the previous Comment of A. Helfer [1] and that of our Brief Report [arXiv:0906.5315]
Misinterpretation in the preceding Comment of my recent analysis of the past of a photon is corrected. There is nothing in this analysis which is "contrary to the usual quantum expectations" but, nevertheless, it does provide "further…
We comment on some apparently weak points in the novel strategies recently developed by various authors aiming at a proof of the Riemann hypothesis. After noting the existence of relevant previous papers where similar tools have been used,…
The reply by Oughstun et al. [J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 28, 468-469 (2011)] to our comment [J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 28, 450-452 (2011)] on their recently published paper [J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 27, 1664-1670 (2010)] is shown to make no response to the main…
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…
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 paper is a reply to the arguments adduced by the authors of Ref. [arXiv:1204.4142] against the results obtained by the author in Refs. [6,7]. It is shown that these arguments are based on the erroneous approach made in Ref.…
We respond to invalid criticism in the recent Comment by Schneider et al. [arXiv:1407.4127v1]
A response to commenter Ke Lan's comment on our paper published in Nature Communications (2023)14:5782 by J. Yan et al
We explicitly fix a mistake in a preliminary statement of our previous paper on the conductor at a multiplanar singularity. The correction is not immediate and, though the mistake does not affect correctness of the subsequent results, the…
We have reviewed the comment in [3], posted on arXiv.org concerning our recent work in [1]. We reply to the comment in this paper.
It is argued that the strong coupling version of recent experiment [Denkmayr et al., PRL 118, 010402 (2017)] while correctly estimating the pre-selected states of the neutrons does not perform strong measurements of weak values as claimed.
In [JETP Lett. 105(3), 152 (2017)], a clear and comprehensive analysis of the paradoxical results of experiment [Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 240402 (2013)] was carried out on the basis of the classical wave theory of light, which presupposes the…
We reply to comment on recent paper by Pieplow and Henkel (New J. Phys. 15 (2013) 023027) and our results made by Volokitin and Persson (arXiv: 1405.2525)
We reply to the comments made by M. Kupczynski and J. P. Lambare on our recent paper titled ''Consequences of the single-pair measurement of the Bell parameter'' [Phys. Rev. A 111, 022204 (2025)], questioning our claims on the implications…
In this paper, we point out that the definition of weak tracial approximation can be improved and strengthened. An example of weak tracial approximation is also provided.
Samuely et al. (cond-mat/0503153) make the strong claim that our letter is 'contradicting several established experimental results'. As we will show below this is not justified and the claims from are based on a misinterpretation of our…
We here reply to a recent comment by Vaidman [\href{https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.048001}{Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 048001 (2023)}] on our paper…