相关论文: Reply to Comment on "Anomalous Edge State in a Non…

I reply to a Comment by Q. Wang and W.G. Unruh regarding my paper "Hiding the Cosmological Constant" [Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 131302].

The Comment by Duval et al. [PRL 96, 099701 (2006)] addresses an important, but not the main, result of our Letter [PRL 95, 137204 (2005)]. It does not contradict our results in substance, and the only objection is really on the style of…

This article focuses on correcting several factual errors and critiques in the previously published Letter in Phys. Rev. L, Vol. 89, No. 10, 2022, by D. Shapira and M. Saltmarsh. The authors of the Letter did not perform their own…

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…

In this short note we provide clarification to the comments made in Z. Angew. Math. Phys. (2018) 69:64 on our work "Finiteness of corner vortices" [ Z. Angew. Math. Phys. (2018) 69:37].

This note points out that the assertions of [1] are groundless and incorrect.

Perspectives article on J. Xiong et al., Science 350, 413 (2015).

This is the Reply to the Comment by E. Thuneberg refuting the paper by E. B.Sonin [Phys. Rev. B 104, 094517 (2021)] as incorrect. The criticism is based on a misunderstanding of the goal and the approach of the paper and does not provide…

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

Authors' Reply to the Comment by Janossy et al. [cond-mat/0005275] on our article, "Magnetoresistance Anomalies in Antiferromagnetic YBa_{2}Cu_{3}O_{6+x}: Fingerprints of Charged Stripes" [cond-mat/9905071, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2813…

It is shown that criticism of my paper arXiv:0801.0656 Phys. Rev. Lett, vol. 101, 163202 (2008) by the authors of Comment arXiv:0810.3243v1 is wrong and that their main arguments are in contradiction with established concepts of statistical…

It is demonstrated that remarks and criticism in work [1] (arXiv:1005.2436 nucl-th) have resulted from inattentive reading of work [2] (Phys. Rev.C 81, 035501 (2010)) or just some misunderstanding and do not influence conclusions of work…

It is shown that the proof of the main theorem in the article "On the Existence of the N-Body Efimov Effect" by X. P. Wang, J. Funct. Anal. 209 (2004) pp. 137--161, is incorrect.

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.

Comment on Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2086 (2001)

Reply to the Comment by L. Berthier and J.-P. Bouchaud, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 059701 (2003), also cond-mat/0209165, on our paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 097201 (2002), also cond-mat/0203444

Reply to the Comment physics/0307134 by A. Helmstetter and D. Sornette

This is a comment on Chen et al Letter PRL,100, 232002 (2008).

It is shown that the results of ref [1] are consistent.

We correct some intermediate expressions and arguments in hep-lat/0002009 (Nucl. Phys. B 585 (2000) 471--513). The main results do not change. We also mention some additional observations, including a constraint on a coefficient of the…