相关论文: Reply to "Comment on `Dark pulse emission of a fib…

A recent communication [Opt. Commun. doi:10.1016/j.optcom.2010.06.076 (2010)] presents experimental results in which dark pulses are observed in a dispersion-managed (DM) net-anomalous dispersion fiber laser. Disagreement on the formation…

We report on the dark pulse emission of an all-normal dispersion erbium-doped fiber laser with a polarizer in cavity. We found experimentally that apart from the bright pulse emission, under appropriate conditions the fiber laser could also…

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…

Comment on the PRL paper.

In this manuscript the authors present a detailed answer to the comment in order to avoid misunderstandings in the future.

To appear in Phys. Rev. Lett. together with the author's Reply.

The reply by Oughstun et al. [J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 28, 468-469 (2011)] to our comment [J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 28, 450-452 (2011)] on their recently published paper [J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 27, 1664-1670 (2010)] is shown to make no response to the main…

We point out several superficialities in Itano's comment (quant-ph/0211165).

Chevalier et al. (Science, 15 November 2019, p. 856-860) report mathematical formulas and a table predicting the threshold and the output power of terahertz molecular lasers based on various molecules. We show that these formulas are not…

We discuss how the comment by A. Loeb [arXiv:2408.06714] has no bearing on the results of Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 041401 (2024) [arXiv:2405.02389].

In a recent Comment on our Letter (Phys. Rev. Lett, Vol 76, p 3886 (1996); astro-ph/9605001) Evans (astro-ph/9606155) has raised some issues concerning the specific choice of the distribution function used in our calculation. He has also…

We reply to the comment by Ying Zhang and S. Das Sarma on our PRL 94, 226405 (2005).

I reply to A. Mitra's comment on my PRL paper "Bare quark matter surfaces of strange stars and $e^+e^-$ emission". I show that his points of criticism are not correct.

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

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

After the rejection of their comment [arXiv:cond-mat/0609399v1] to our Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}, 100601 (2006), the Authors informed us that an extended version of their comment is going to be published in a different journal under the…

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].

Here we give our reply to the comment by Sibirtsev et al on our paper ``Mass and K-Lambda Coupling of the N*(1535)".

We respond to the accompanying Comment on our paper, 'Validity of certain soft photon amplitudes'. While we hope the discussion here clarifies the issues, we have found nothing which leads to a change in the original conclusions of our…

We reply to the comment [arXiv:0903.5110] on our paper "Mechanism of Terahertz Electromagnetic Emission from Intrinsic Josephson Junctions" [arXiv:0810.5268].