Related papers: Reply to Comment on "Mass and K-Lambda Coupling of…

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).

This is a short communication in reference to the comments in (arXiv: 1605.05147) of our paper in Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 25, 1650051 (2016). We have tried to answer to the comments or criticism in the paper.

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

A Comment on the Letter by Atsushi Ikeda and Kunimasa Miyazaki, [arXiv:1003.5472v2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 255704 (2010)].

We reply to a recent comment by Bhattacharya et. al. (cond-mat/9812290) on our previous Letter (PRL 81, 5640 (1998)).

Here we respond briefly to a comment on our work in arXiv:cond-mat/0405501.

The Response [J. Chem. Phys. 160, 187102 (2024)] of Inoue and coworkers to my Comment [J. Chem. Phys. 160, 187101 (2024)] on their original paper [J. Chem. Phys. 159, 054105 (2023)] clarifies some points put forward in my Comment, but also…

This reply tries to rectify some misunderstandings that are in our opinion contained in the Comment by Campostrini and Rossi, <hep-lat 99407008> on our paper <hep-lat 9407003>.

Comment on "Optical Response of Gas-Phase Atoms at Less than lambda/80 from a Dielectric Surface" published by K. A. Whittaker, J. Keaveney, I. G. Hughes, A. Sargsyan, D. Sarkisyan, C. S. Adams in Phys. Rev. Lett. Lett 112 253201 (2014)

This is a reply to "Comment on 'Noncommutative gauge theories and Lorentz symmetry,'" Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 048701 by Alfredo Iorio.

Authors' Reply to the Comment by Janossy et al. [cond-mat/0005275] on our article, "Magnetoresistance Anomalies in Antiferromagnetic YBa_{2}Cu_{3}O_{6+x}: Fingerprints of Charged Stripes" [cond-mat/9905071, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2813…

Recently K. Banaszek, I. A. Walmsley, K. Wodkiewicz (quant-ph/0012097) commented on our Proposal for the Measurement of Bell-Type Correlations from Continuous Variables [T. C. Ralph, W. J. Munro, R. E. S. Polkinghorne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85,…

We comment on the Reply of G. Su and M. Suzuki [cond-mat/9808011] to our Comment [cond-mat/9807402] about the papers of G. Su [Phys. Rev. B 54, 8291 (1996)] and G. Su and M. Suzuki [Phys. Rev. B 57, 13367 (1998)]. The algebraic mistake…

This is a reply to the comment to a letter by D. Mandal, K. Klymko and M. R. DeWeese published as Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 258001 (2017).

In this manuscript we reply to the criticisms of our paper [Eur. Phys. J. A 24, 437 (2005)] raised in a recent preprint by Achasov and Kiselev [hep-ph/0606268] and demonstrate that all their criticisms are completely irrelevant and…

We make comments on Gaidarzhy {\it et al.}'s [{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} 94, 030402 (2005)] letter.

A Comment on the letter by V. Koptev, et al. - Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 022301.

We reply to S. Coen and T. Sylvestre's comment on our paper [Phys. Rev. A 80, 045803 (2009)] and make some additional remarks on our experimental results.

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.

Answer to the comment of E. Chudnovsky concerning the following papers: (1) N.V. Prokof'ev, P.C.E. Stamp, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 5794 (1998). (2) W. Wernsdorfer, T. Ohm, C. Sangregorio, R. Sessoli, D. Mailly, C. Paulsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82,…