相关论文: Response to the Mouschovias-Tassis Comments on "Te…

In their recent paper ``Faraday rotation of the cosmic microwave background polarization by a stochastic magnetic field'', Kosowsky et al. Phys.Rev. D71, 043006 (2005) have commented about our paper [C.Caprini and R.Durrer, Phys. Rev. D65,…

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

A Comment [1] to our recent article [2], expressed criticism on our estimate of the maximum magnetic field that can exist inside a neutron star and on the pressure anisotropy we found for a magnetized gas of fermions. These two points are…

We study stars in M theory. First, we obtain the analog of Oppenheimer -- Volkoff equations in a suitably general set up. We obtain analytically the asymptotic solutions to these equations when the equations of state are linear. We study…

We reply to the criticism raised by Volovik in his Comment (cond-mat/9805159) and by Hirschfeld et al. in their Comment (cond-mat/9806085).

A review on current theories and observations of high-mass star formation is given. Particularly the influence of magnetic fields and feedback mechanisms, and of varying initial conditions on theories are discussed. The, in my biased view,…

We reply to the "Comment on 'The Lifshitz-Matsubara sum formula for the Casimir pressure between magnetic metallic mirrors'" [arXiv:1604.06432]. We believe the comment misrepresents our papers, and fails to provide a plausible resolution to…

We refute the criticism expressed in a comment by P. Talkner and P. H\"anggi [Phys. Rev. E 102, 066101 (2020)] on our paper Phys. Rev. E 101, 050101(R) (2020). We first make clear that our paper is free of any technical mistakes. We then…

Here we respond to the comment by Tsagas (gr-qc/0503042) on our paper gr-qc/0503006. We show that the results in that comment are flawed and cannot be used for drawing conclusion about the nature of magnetic field amplification by…

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.

We review theoretical models of the early stages of star formation, in which gravitational collapse is strongly regulated by magnetic fields and the associated process of ambipolar diffusion. We discuss results of numerical simulations and…

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.

We construct the stably stratified magnetized stars within the framework of general relativity. The effects of magnetic fields on the structure of the star and spacetime are treated as perturbations of non-magnetized stars. By assuming…

Star formation is a complex process involving the interplay of many physical effects, including gravity, turbulent gas dynamics, magnetic fields and radiation. Our understanding of the process has improved substantially in recent years,…

Our recent letter "Cosmic Microwave Background Constraints Cast a Shadow On Continuous Spontaneous Localization Models" [arXiv:1906.04405] has recently been criticised in [G. R. Bengochea, G. Leon, P. Pearle, and D. Sudarsky,…

This is a white paper submitted to the Stars and Stellar Evolution (SSE) Science Frontier Panel (SFP) of the NRC's 2010 Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey. The white paper is endorsed by the NSF Physics Frontier Center for Magnetic…

The experimental findings reported in our original paper [1] (arXiv:1211.2913) have been criticized in ref.[2] (arXiv:1606.00710). We believe that the arguments brought in ref. [2] are not correct and we show evidence for this.

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…

A Reply to the criticisms contained in astro-ph/9612003 is provided and a logical inconsistency in astro-ph/9612214 is pointed out.

We refute criticisms by Del Santo and Horvat towards our paper "Quantum principle of relativity": most of their counterarguments can be dismissed, and the rest provides further evidence to our claims.