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

We show that the author of a recent paper [arXiv:2008.04929] put forward some false statements about the eigenstates of Hermitian and non-Hermitian systems. We conjecture that one of the non-Hermitian Hamiltonians for a one-dimensional…

We provide a reply to a comment by I. Goychuk arXiv:1708.04155, version v2 from 27 Aug 2017 (not under active consideration with Phys. Rev. Lett.), on our Letter E. Aghion, D. A. Kessler and E. Barkai, Phys. Rev. Lett., 118, 260601 (2017).

An arxiv paper, ref. [1] by Cao et al., claimed that the tunable attraction reported in our ref. [2] could not be detected. Ref. [1] was submitted to Nature in Apr. 2016 as a Comment on our ref. [2]. Our reply in May 2016 responded to ref.…

Pi et al report in their letter [1] that SrRuO3 exhibits "exchange bias-like phenomenon". In our comment we would like to point out that the data presented in the letter is qualitatively different from what is known as exchange-bias…

This paper has been withdrawn, see the replacement arXiv:1302.6670.

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).

In a recent comment [arXiv:1405.2978v1 (2014)] Romanenko and Grassellino made unsubstantiated statements about our work [Appl. Phys. Lett. 104, 092601 (2014)] and ascribed to us wrong points which we had not made. Here we show that the…

This paper has been withdrawn because it has been by far superseded by the Author's post arXiv:1108.1306v6, which was published on 30/08/2011.

With regard to the recently published article, ``Y.-Q. Wang, et al., Physical mechanism of equiprobable exclusion network with heterogeneous interactions in phase transitions: Analytical analyses of steady state evolving from initial state,…

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…

The paper of Unal [J. Math. Phys. 59, 062104 (2018)], though worthy of attention, contains a conclusion that is in error and may mislead the efforts to extend his results. The aim of the present note is twofold: we provide a correction to…

In a recent Physical Review Letter [1] Garcia and Nieto Vesperinas (GNV) dispute the claim of perfect lensing made in [2]. The thrust of the GVN paper is that the solutions proposed in [2] imply infinite energy density and are therefore…

Reply to the preceding comment by Rolf Schilling and Bernhard Schmid [arXiv:1101.5577, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 049601 (2011)].

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…

In a recent comment [1], Masud Mansuripur presented some concerns with theoretical and experimental interpretations of She's paper [2], and concluded that She's conclusion is incorrect. We agree that, some of the She's work required further…

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…

It is shown that the claims expressed in the Comment arXiv:0810.3247v1 against my paper Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 101}, 163603 (2008) [arXiv:0809.3901] are obviously wrong or not essential.

This is a Reply to the Comment [arXiv:0807.0699] on our paper [PRL 100:232002 (2008)].

Two objections have been raised to the arguments presented in O. Cohen, Phys. Rev. A 60, 80 (1999). It is pointed out that neither objection has anything whatsoever to do with the main subject matter of that paper, and shown that both…

We make corrections on the paper by Sugino [{\it JHEP} {\bf 0501} (2005) 016].