相关论文: Reply to the comment "quant-ph/9710002"

It is shown that the evidence asserted in the Comment [arXiv:1205.6418] on the chemical composition data published by Carpinteri et al. [Strain 47 (Suppl. 2), 282 (2011)]-that the data "cannot be the result of independent measurements as…

We show that the comment [cond-mat/0408217] by Continentino on our recent paper [PRL 91, 066404 (2003), cond-mat/0212335] reaches incorrect conclusions as the comment wrongly extrapolates from results valid close to a classical phase…

This is a Reply to the Comment by Vaidman in arXiv:2306.16756 on the paper: R. B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062219 (2023)

Hornberger and Vacchini [Phys. Rev. A82, 036101 (2010); arxiv:0907.3018] claim that the specific collisional momentum decoherence, pointed out in my recent work [Phys. Rev. A80, 064104 (2009); arXiv:0905.3908], is already described by their…

We show that the reply by Tamburini et al (2012 New J. Phys. 14 118002) to our previous comment (2012 New J. Phys. 14 118001) on the experiment reported in (2012 New J. Phys. 14 033001) actually does not invalidate any of the issues raised…

It is demonstrated that today's quantum fluctuation theorems are component part of old quantum fluctuation-dissipation relations [Sov.Phys.-JETP 45, 125 (1977)], and typical misunderstandings in this area are pointed out.

We show that results obtained in paper Foundations of Physics 33, No. 7, 1107 (2003), are not correct.

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

We reply to a comment by Capozziello and Vignolo about the Cauchy problem of Palatini f(R) gravity.

We argue that several statements in Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 081301 (2020) are not correct.

The quantum Monte Carlo study [S. Gandolfi, H.-W. Hammer, P. Klos, J. E. Lynn, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 118}, 232501 (2017), arXiv:1612.01502] of few-neutron resonant states provided results incompatible with rigorous few-body…

We reply to the comments on our previous paper Physical Review Letters, Vol. 129, 087001 (2022), raised by Th\'eo S\'epulcre, Serge Florens, and Izak Snyman in arXiv:2210.00742.

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

The argument used, in a recent letter to Nature (Nature 130 vol 404, 2000) to arrive at the `quantum-no-deleting principle' is erroneous. It is pointed out here that there may not be anything like such a principle. In any case, the claims…

We respond below to the comment of E. I. Lashin [ arXiv:1505.03070 ] on our work Phys. Lett. {\bf B741} (2015) 276-279 [ arXiv:1404.3093 ], and point out the errors in that comment.

We comment on various incorrect claims made in a recent paper by Grosu et al. (cond-mat/0101392).

In their correspondence [arXiv:1610.07633] Drummond and Brand criticize our work [Nature Physics 12, 451-454 (2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3631]. We show that their criticism is misleading and unfounded.

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.

A disagreement of the empirical results with quantum mechanical predictions is pointed out in the experiment by M. Giustina et al. [arXiv:1212.0533].

Misinterpretation in the preceding Comment of my recent analysis of the past of a photon is corrected. There is nothing in this analysis which is "contrary to the usual quantum expectations" but, nevertheless, it does provide "further…