Related papers: Reply to Comment on "Completely positive quantum d…

This is a reply to the comment from E. Amselem et al. on our paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 150401 (2012), arXiv:1207.0059).

The possibility of the resonance reflection (100 % at maximum) is revealed. The corresponding exactly solvable models with the controllable numbers of resonances, their positions and widths are presented.

This is a reply to the Comment by S.-Y. Wang concerning our paper "Modified Coulomb Law in a Strongly Magnetized Vacuum"

This is a supplementary material to our Comment arXiv:0909.4265 on M. Stern, V. Garmider, E. Segre, M. Rappaport, V. Umansky, Y. Levinson, and I. Bar-Joseph, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 257402 (2008).

In the context of electromagnetism and nonlinear optical interactions damping is generally introduced as a phenomenological, viscous term that dissipates energy, proportional to the temporal derivative of the polarization. Here, we follow…

We reply to the comment cond-mat/0008098 by Yang, Sun, and Chang on our paper "Theory of Diluted Magnetic Semiconductor Ferromagnetism", Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5628 (2000).

This is a reply to the comment by A. W. Sandvik (cond-mat/0010433) on our paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4204 (2000). We show that his data do not conflict with our data nor with our conclusions.

As a coauthor of the article mentioned in the title, I discuss the criticism in the comment of Aalseth et al. Part of the criticism is justified.

Reply to the comment, cond-mat/0209398 by by N.W. Watkins, S.C. Chapman, and G. Rowlands

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

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).

We provide a reply to a comment by I. Goychuk arXiv:1501.06996 [cond-mat.stat-mech] (not under active consideration with Phys. Rev. Lett.) on our Letter A. Rebenshtok, S. Denisov, P. H\"anggi, and E. Barkai, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf…

This paper replies the comment by E. Kapuscik [Am. J. Phys. 77, 754 (2009)]

A Comment on the Letter by C. R. Galley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 174301 (2013).

We reply to the comments on our previous paper J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 91, 024001 (2022)

The recent paper nucl-th/0012037 by Moretto et al. is commented

A comment on the letter by M. Machida and T. Koyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 140401 (2005) and also on the preprint by Y. Kawaguchi and T. Ohmi, cond-mat/0411018.

This paper is Comment on the paper: S.A.R. Horsley and M. Babiker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010405 (2005).

It is shown that the title Comment by W. Szczepanik, M. Dulak, and T. A. Wesolowski [Int. J. Quantum Chem. 106 (2006)] is unsatisfactory.

We respond to `Comments on the U(2) ADHM two-instanton' [Y. Tian, Phys. Lett. B 566 (2003) 183].