相关论文: Response to Compagno and Persico

In the paper [Hong-Shi Zong, Wei-Min Sun, Phys. Lett. B 640 (2006) 196], the authors claim that our proof of the inconsistency of the ladder approximation to QCD [Phys. Lett. B 611 (2005) 129] was incorrect. However, their claim is based on…

It is shown that the title Comment by W. Szczepanik, M. Dulak, and T. A. Wesolowski [Int. J. Quantum Chem. 106 (2006)] is unsatisfactory.

In this comment we point out some wrong statements in the paper by Inc and Cavlak, Phys. Scr. 78 (2008) 045008

Working within the framework of the classical theory of electrodynamics, we derive an exact mathematical solution to the problem of self-field (or radiation reaction) of an accelerated point-charge traveling in free space. We obtain…

Here we respond to a comment [arXiv:1802.01382] submitted recently on 'Experimental Verification of a Jarzynski-Related Information-Theoretic Equality by a Single Trapped Ion' PRL 120 010601 (2018). We consider that the argument is the…

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 response to criticism of the author's previous paper quant-ph/0002084.

We present an elementary proof concerning reciprocal transmittances and reflectances. The proof is direct, simple, and valid for the diverse objects that can be absorptive and induce diffraction and scattering, as long as the objects…

Comments by Dr. I. Angeli and Dr. J. Csikai raise concerns and questions regarding omission of references, proper name of the model, energy dependence of the radius and average chord length as 4R/3 which are briefly replied.

It is shown that the well-known disparity in classical electrodynamics between the power radiated in electromagnetic fields and the power-loss, as calculated from the radiation reaction on a charge undergoing a non-uniform motion, is…

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

In this paper we show that the claims in [Class. Quantum Grav. 19 (2002) 3067, gr-qc/0203081] related to our analysis in [Phys. Rev. D 62, 063508 (2000), astro-ph/0005070] are wrong.

Two typos in the published paper are pointed out. Both are just typos and the calculations in that paper are based on the correct formulism.

An error in the paper [J. Math. Phys. 43, 6343 (2002); math-ph/0207009] is corrected. Further explanation is given.

Errors in the published version of the paper are corrected, and new figures are provided.

Benenti et al. recently submitted a Comment (arXiv:0912.3667) on our work "Coherent Ratchets in Driven Bose-Einstein condensates". We show that the main claim of the Comment is wrong, and correct some other misunderstandings presented…

It is argued that, contrary to conventional wisdom, no trustworthy universal self-force/radiative corrections to the Lorentz force equation, can be derived from the basic tenets of classical electrodynamics. This concords with the apparent…

A short Reply to the Comment of Prokof'ev and Svistunov, cond-mat/0504008, is given.

Classical radiation reaction is the effect of the electromagnetic field emitted by an accelerated electric charge on the motion of the charge itself. The self-consistent underlying classical equation of motion including radiation-reaction…

An erroneous interpretation of the hydrodynamical results led to an incorrect determination of the fallback masses in Ugliano et al. (2012), which also (on a smaller level) affects the neutron star masses provided in that paper. This…