Related papers: Rochester Reply to Phair et al. "Evidence for dyna…
We respond to invalid criticism in the recent Comment by Schneider et al. [arXiv:1407.4127v1]
We observe that there is no clash between the works \cite{gar} and \cite{g1}.
In this communication we refute a criticism concerning results of our work [3] that was presented in references [1] and [2].
It is shown that comments by Guichon [hep-ph/0012126], and also by Bernard, Kaiser, and Mei{\ss}ner [hep-ph/0101062], regarding my recent criticism [Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3576 (2000)] of how the axial form factor is supposed to enter pion…
The Comment by Duval et al. [PRL 96, 099701 (2006)] addresses an important, but not the main, result of our Letter [PRL 95, 137204 (2005)]. It does not contradict our results in substance, and the only objection is really on the style of…
We reply to the comment cond-mat/9902073 by Ben-Naim and Krapivsky on our paper cond-mat/9901130. We show that their arguments are incorrect, and present more numerical results to back our earlier conclusions.
The Comment of Openov (PRL 93, 158901 (2004)) on my Physical Review Letter (PRL 92, 120405 (2004)) does not affect the universality of the decoherence mechanism described in the Letter.
We respond to comments in arXiv:2502.15817v2 about our article, arXiv:2412.12282. We stand by our conclusions and defend them against the criticisms.
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…
We provide our reply to the comment by Greiter and Schuricht (cond-mat/0511607).
It is shown that the recent Comment [cond-mat/0306019] by Y. Yu on the above article is not substantiated.
It is shown that the evidence asserted in the Comment [arXiv:1205.6418] on the chemical composition data published by Carpinteri et al. [Strain 47 (Suppl. 2), 282 (2011)]-that the data "cannot be the result of independent measurements as…
We reply to the comment of Marinari and Parisi [cond-mat/0002457 v2] on our paper [Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5126 (1999) and cond-mat/9906323]. We show that the data in the comment are affected by strong finite-size corrections. Therefore the…
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…
It is shown that the results of ref [1] are consistent.
We respond to a Comment [arXiv:1407.6854 (2014)] on our recent Nature paper [Nature, 510, 385 (2014)]. We categorically disprove the arguments provided in arXiv:1407.6854 (2014) and thereby further substantiate the evidence we presented in…
We refute the criticism expressed in a Comment by P. J. Mart\'{\i}nez and R. Chac\'on [arXiv:2105.09308] on our paper Phys. Rev. E \textbf{97}, 032219 (2018). We first show that our paper is free of any mistakes and that the criticism…
In response to the recent critical comment by M. Mel\'endez and W. G. Hoover [arXiv:1206.0188v2] on our work [M. Campisi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 250601 (2012)], we show that their molecular dynamics simulations do not disprove our…
While much of the technical analysis in the preceding Comment [1] is correct, in the end it confirms the conclusion reached in my previous work [2]: a consistent histories analysis provides no support for the claim of counterfactual quantum…
In this note we briefly comment a paper by Itin, Obukhov and Hehl criticising our previous paper. We show that all remarks by our critics are ill conceived or irrelevant to our approach and moreover we provide some pertinent new comments to…