Related papers: Response to Compagno and Persico
Using the canonical formalism, Compagno and Persico [J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 35 (2002) 3629--45] have calculated the 'radiation-reaction' force on a uniform spherical charge moving rigidly, slowly and slightly from its position at the time…
We reply to P. Forg\'acs, T. Herpay, and P. Kov\'acs (arXiv: 1202.6289).
I show that the main statement of [Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 094802 (2010), arXiv:1005.2617] is wrong. Other inconsistences of this Letter are also discussed.
After more than a century of history, the radiation-reaction problem in classical electrodynamics still surprises and puzzles new generations of researchers. Here we revise and explain some of the paradoxical issues that one faces when…
The differences in potential models used in our work and in the original paper of the authors of the Comment are discussed. The neglecting of simple rules of reaction calculations is shown as a possible origin of the defect in the…
It is shown that a newly derived "exact expression" for radiation of an accelerated charge in the recent literature is simply incorrect, having arisen because of a wrong relativistic transformation of the distance parameter. The ensuing…
The subject of radiation reaction in classical electromagnetism remains controversial over 120 years after the pioneering work of Lorentz. We give a simple but rigorous treatment of the subject at the textbook level that explains the…
We make a few comments on some misleading statements in the above paper.
We respond to the recent comment [arXiv:1105.1593] on our Letter [G. G. Plunk and T. Tatsuno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 165003 (2011)]. The comment claims that our argument for spectral transfer direction is incomplete. The comment gives an…
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…
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>.
In their correspondence [arXiv:1610.07633] Drummond and Brand criticize our work [Nature Physics 12, 451-454 (2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3631]. We show that their criticism is misleading and unfounded.
It is argued that the findings of a recent reanalysis by Compagno and Persico [Phys. Rev. A 57, 1595 (1998)] of the Bohr--Rosenfeld procedure for the measurement of a single space-time-averaged component of the electromagnetic field are…
In [1, arXiv:1005.2617] effective field theory methods have been employed to compute the equations of motion of a spherically symmetric charged shell of radius R, taking into account the radiation reaction force exerted by the shell's own…
The authors of preprint arXiv:2009.00286 and paper Appl. Phys. Lett. 117, 130501 (2020), Y. Sivan and Y. Dubi, made several wrong and inconsistent comments on our papers [J. Phys. Chem. C 117, 16616-16631 (2013), ACS Photonics 4 (11),…
Amato et al.[arXiv:1205.6418] maintain that certain data published in Carpinteri et al.[2] are not the result of independent measurements, and are in any case affected by uncertainties such that our conclusions are not valid. We will…
In this comment, I point out to several mathematical mistakes in the above-referenced letter.
This paper follows up a recent debate as to whether classical electrodynamics is inconsistent. I suggest that disagreements can be managed by disambiguating 'theory' in two different ways.
A reply to arXiv:0809.2310, "Comment on Universal Charge-Radius Relation for Subatomic and Astrophysical Compact Objects" [arXiv:0804.2140,PRL100(2008)151102]
In this note we show that Jackson's criticism (hep-ph/0203076) of our work "Necessity of simultaneous co-existence of..." is based on an inexact understanding of the basic assumptions and conclusions of our work.