Related papers: Comment on "Enhancing Acceleration Radiation from …

A Comment on the Letter by B. Kraus {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}{\bf 104}, 020504 (2010).

The calculation presented in "Rotation Velocities and Radial Electric Field in the Plasma Edge" by W. M. Stacey [Contrib. Plasma Phys. 46, (2006)] contains an inconsistent treatment of the electrostatic potential. Comparing the expressions…

We reply to the comment arXiv:quant-ph/0702060 on our letter arXiv:quant-ph/0603120 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 100402 (2006)]

The question raised by [Bastin and Martin 2003 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 36, 4201] is examined and used to explain in more detail a key point of our calculations. They have sought to rebut criticisms raised by us of certain techniques…

Comment on X.-L. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 253602 (2010).

Results of a 2012 PRL Letter have recently been questioned by T. Kalaydzhyan in arXiv:1604.04486. Here we confirm our original results and conclusions by addressing all concerns raised in the Comment.

This is a Comment on Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 95}, 187404 (2005)

In arXiv:1202.0691, Geloni et al. criticise our recent work describing the spontaneous emission by a relativistic, undulating electron beam. In particular they claim that our prediction of a quantum regime in which evolution of the electron…

We give a corrected version of the algorithm presented within the commented paper by M.A. Novotny, Phys. Rev. Lett. Vol. 74, 1 (1995) (cond-mat/9411086)

It is shown that criticism in the paper: "On observation of neutron quantum states in the Earth's gravitational field." Phys.Rev.D {\bf 81} 052008 (2010) of the experiment with neutrons to observe bound levels in gravity field is not…

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

A comment on a recent Letter by Baker and Kawashima (Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 994 (1995)).

This is an addendum to the Reply Comment [Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 139602 (2009), arXiv:0811.0518] to Comment [Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 139601 (2009), arXiv:0810.4791] on Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 116101 (2008), arXiv:0804.1898].

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

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),…

Reply to Comments by Lambrecht, Jaekel, and Reynaud, and by Garcia and Levanyuk, submitted to Physical Review Letters.

This is the reply to the comment of Kuyucak and Stuchbery on our paper published in Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 2006.

A critique to the article by C.A. Fuchs, N.D. Mermin, and R.Schack, "An introduction to QBism with and application to the locality of quantum mechanics" that appeared in Am. J. Phys. 82 (8), 749-754 (2014)

We reply to comment on recent paper by Pieplow and Henkel (New J. Phys. 15 (2013) 023027) and our results made by Volokitin and Persson (arXiv: 1405.2525)

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)