Related papers: Reply to the comment "quant-ph/9710002"

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…

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

We provide our reply to the comment by Greiter and Schuricht (cond-mat/0511607).

Reply to the Comment by F. Corberi, E. Lipiello and M. Zannetti (cond-mat/0211609).

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

A recent Comment [arXiv:0811.2790] on the Letter 'Quantum Bounce and Cosmic Recall' by the authors is shown to arise from an incorrect understanding of the issues at hand and of our analysis. The conclusions of Bojowald's Comment are shown…

A Comment on the paper "Conservative Quantum Computing" by M. Ozawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057902 (2002). The author replies in Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 089802 (2003).

In response to the comment by Zhu and Berakdar (arXiv:1207.3457) that the physical system considered by them in their previous work [Ding et al., PRB 84, 115433 (2011)] is conceptually different from ours in the appendix of our latest paper…

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

We stand by our findings in Phys. Rev A. 96, 022126 (2017). In addition to refuting the invalid objections raised by Peleg and Vaidman, we report a retrocausation problem inherent in Vaidman's definition of the past of a quantum particle.

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 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…

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

In this Reply we argue that the conclusions derived in Ref. arXiv:1301.1241 are questionable.

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…

The above comment [E. I. Lashin, D. Dou, arXiv:1606.04738] claims that the paper "Quantum Raychaudhuri Equation" by S. Das, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 084068 [arXiv:1404.3093] has "problematic points" with regards to its derivation and…

The validity of the work by Lamata et al [Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 253005 (2007)] can be further shown by quantum field theory considerations.

In this brief reply we point out to some misconceptions in C.Camacho's comment (cond-mat/9701210).

This combines a reply to the Comment [hep-th/0203067 v1] by A. N. Vaidya and R. de L. Rodrigues with an erratum to our Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 210405 (2001)]

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…