Related papers: Reply to Comment on "Berry phase correction to ele…

The main result of Xiao et al. [ Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 137204 (2005)] is shown to follow from Hamiltonian mechanics.

We show in this comment that the results obtained in a recent work by Yi et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 150406 (2004)] are quantitatively not correct and the proposed subsystem Berry phase is not well-defined.

In this communication we refute a criticism concerning results of our work [3] that was presented in references [1] and [2].

Liouville's theorem on the conservation of phase space volume is violated by Berry phase in the semiclassical dynamics of Bloch electrons. This leads to a modification of the phase space density of states, whose significance is discussed in…

After the rejection of their comment [arXiv:cond-mat/0609399v1] to our Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}, 100601 (2006), the Authors informed us that an extended version of their comment is going to be published in a different journal under the…

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…

This is a Comment on the Article ``Aging, phase ordering and conformal invariance'' by M.Henkel, M.Pleimling, C.Godr\`eche and J.M.Luck [Phys.Rev.Lett. 87, 265701 (2001)].

First version: del Barco et al. submitted recently a comment [arXiv:0812.4070] on our latest Phys. Rev. Lett. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 237204 (2008)], claiming three basic mistakes. We show here that their claims are unjustified and based on…

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

We reply to the comment by Ying Zhang and S. Das Sarma on our PRL 94, 226405 (2005).

The paper of Unal [J. Math. Phys. 59, 062104 (2018)], though worthy of attention, contains a conclusion that is in error and may mislead the efforts to extend his results. The aim of the present note is twofold: we provide a correction to…

It is demonstrated that remarks and criticism in work [1] (arXiv:1005.2436 nucl-th) have resulted from inattentive reading of work [2] (Phys. Rev.C 81, 035501 (2010)) or just some misunderstanding and do not influence conclusions of work…

Erratum to Int. J. Quantum Chem. v. 89, pp. 57-85 (2002)

Very brief summary of the most recent developments in an area of QED corrections to the parity nonconservation in atoms is presented. Main conclusion - experimental results of Wood et al do not contradict the standard model

Here we reply to the comment by A. F. Volkov, F. S. Bergeret, and K. B. Efetov.

This is a Reply to the Comment [arXiv:0807.0699] on our paper [PRL 100:232002 (2008)].

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…

The Comment to the Letter "Excitons in Molecular Aggregates with Levy Disorder: Anomalous Localization and Exchange Broadening of Optical Spectra" appeared in Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 259701 (submitted on November 28, 2011). I prepared the…

Errors in Eberly's derivation of several Bell inequalities are pointed out: (1) it is based on an equation that is incorrect; (2) it uses neither two-particle states nor locality to derive Bell's inequalities and; (3) it does not use…

We respond to the comment arXiv:1809.03931 put forward by Li-Han Chen, Zhen Liu, and Jian-Tin Zheng on our work Kiesel, Platt, and Thomale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 126405 (2013). All misunderstandings and misconceptions communicated in the…