Related papers: Comment on "Spinon Attraction in Spin-1/2 Antiferr…

Comment on "Spin Dynamics of the 2D Spin 1/2 Quantum Antiferromagnet Copper Deuteroformate Tetradeuterate (CFTD)", H. M. Ronnow et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 037202 (2001)

A comment on a recent paper (PRL {\bf 94}, 226405 (2005)) by S. De Palo, M. Botti, S. Moroni, and Gaetano Senatore.

Comment on "BCS superconductivity of Dirac fermions in graphene layers" by N. B. Kopnin and E. B. Sonin [arXiv:0803.3772; Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 246808 (2008)].

We have realized that our results have a strong overlap with those previously published in J Chovan, N Papanicolaou, and S Komineas, Phys.Rev.B65,064433(2002).

We derive the representation of the two-spinon wavefunction for the Haldane-Shastry model in terms of the spinon coordinates. This result allows us to rigorously analyze spinon interaction and its physical effects. We show that spinons…

Comment on K.J Thomas et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 135-138 (1996).

This is a reply to the Comment on 'Spin Decoherence in Superconducting Atom Chips' [arXiv:quant-ph/0610095 (2006)].

Comment on T. M. Squires and M. P. Brenner, Phys.Rev.Lett. 85, 4976 (2000)

This paper has been withdrawn by the author because similar published work on the topic was overlooked. See S. Deser and A. Waldron, Nucl. Phys. B 631, 369-387 (2002).

A comment to the paper by S. Chen, H. B\"uttner, and J. Voit, [Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 087205 (2001)].

Comment on paper by A. Zvyagin, Phys. Rev. B 64, R060405 (2001).

A Comment on the Letter by S. Zelakiewicz et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1942 (2000).

A comment on the paper by Lopez et al. [A. Lopez, Z. Z. Sun, and J. Schliemann, Phys. Rev. B 85, 205428 (2012)].

We make some comments about the results we obtained in Phys. Rev. Lett. 86,3392(2001), and in Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 177206 (2001), and show that the conclusion of a recent paper [cond-mat/0409495] leveling some criticism on our results is, in…

In a comment on arXiv:1006.5070v2, Drechsler et al. claim that the frustrated ferromagnetic spin-1/2 chain LiCuVO4 should be described by a strong rather than weak ferromagnetic nearest-neighbor interaction, in contradiction with their…

Reply to Bernevig, Giuliano, and Laughlin: cond-mat/0410147

Comment to D. Kaczorowski et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 027003 (2009).

This is a comment on Chen et al Letter PRL,100, 232002 (2008).

Letter/comment on M. Rini, Physics $\textbf{13}$, s94 (July 27, 2020) and A. Sanna et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. $\textbf{125}$, 057001 (2020).

Comment on the paper P. E. Jonsson, H. Yoshino, and P. Nordblad, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 097201 (2002), also cond-mat/0203444.