相关论文: Reply to the comment by D.N. Aristov and A.G. Yash…

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).

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

It is shown that the criticism of Voitkiv [Phys. Rev. A 74, 027403 (2006)] is based on one assumption, which is false for an ionized electron, initially bound by the Coulomb potential, in a strong circularly polarized laser field. A certain…

We reply to Dukelsky, et al. regarding the article: L. A. Wu, M. S. Byrd and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057904 (2002).

First version: del Barco et al. submitted recently a comment [arXiv:0812.4070] on our latest Phys. Rev. Lett. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 237204 (2008)], claiming three basic mistakes. We show here that their claims are unjustified and based on…

A reply on the comment of Bertin, Chate, Ginelli, Gregoire, Leonard and Peshkov, arxiv:1404.3950v1, in this special issue.

I show that the conclusions of [Hwang, Chavez, Amann, & Boccaletti, PRL 94, 138701 (2005); Chavez, Hwang, Amann, Hentschel, & Boccaletti, PRL 94, 218701 (2005)] are closely related to those of previous publications.

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

This is the reply to a Comment by I.S.Tupitsyn and P.C.E. Stamp (PRL v92,119701 (2004)) on a letter of ours (J.F.Fernandez and J.J.Alonso, PRL v91, 047202 (2003)).

A Comment on the Letter by Victor Gurarie and Alexander E. Lobkovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 178301 (2002). The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.

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

Certain comments on the paper of Yu.V. Orlov, B. F. Irgaziev and L. I. Nikitina published in Phys.At.Nuclei, {\bf 73} (2010) 757 are made.

This is a Reply to a Comment by V.P. Torchigin and A.V. Torchigin, published in Physical Review A 92, 017803 (2015). The paper which is commented upon is titled "Deducing radiation pressure on a submerged mirror from the Doppler shift,"…

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

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

The work is a comments on the article of V. G. Pal'chikov, Yu. L. Sokolov, and V. P. Yakovlev, devoted to the measurement of the Lamb shift in the hydrogen atom and published in Physica Scripta, 55 (1997) 33-40.

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…

Reply to the Comment by S.V. Kravchenko, A.A. Shashkin, and V.T. Dolgopolov [cond-mat/0106056]

E. M. Chudnovsky has recently posted on the ArXive his Reply (arXiv:0805.2918) to my Comment (Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 199703 (2008)) on his recent Letter (E. M. Chudnovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 206601 (2007)). In order to avoid possible…

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…