Remarks related to the paper of Rafael de la Madrid: "On the inconsistency of the Bohm-Gadella theory with quantum mechanics", JPhysA 39, No. 29, 9255-9268 (2006)

Hellmut Baumgaertel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0704.3529

2007-04-26

Abstract:The paper contains critical comments to the paper mentioned in the title from the mathematical point of view

Mathematical Physics

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Comment on the Comment on Deformation of Quantum-Mechanics

YQ LI,ZM SHENG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0253-6102/24/3/384

1995-01-01

Communications in Theoretical Physics

Abstract:This is a reply to the comment by Chung and Chung [J. Phys. A27 (1994) 5037]. We point out that the discussion there is imperfect.
Comments on Struyve and Baere's paper on experiments to distinguish Bohmian mechanics from quantum mechanics

Partha Ghose

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0208192

2002-08-30

Abstract:It is shown in detail why the arguments put forward by Struyve and Baere (<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="quant-ph/0108038" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0108038">quant-ph/0108038</a>) against my conclusions are incorrect.

Quantum Physics
Reply to the comment "quant-ph/9710002"

Lu-Ming Duan,Guang-Can Guo

1997-01-01

Abstract:In the comment, Zanardi and Rasetti argue that several claims in our recent letter (Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1953, 1997) are questionable. The reply shows these claims remain true.
Comments on "On Bohm trajectories in two-particle interference devices" by L. Marchildon

Partha Ghose

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0102131

2001-02-27

Quantum Physics

Abstract:Marchildon's arguments against my earlier work are refuted.
Reply to the Comment, <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0810.3243v1" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3243v1">arXiv:0810.3243v1</a> by B. Geyer, G. L. Klimchitskaya, U. Mohideen, and. V. M. Mostepanenko

L. P. Pitaevskii

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0811.3081

2008-11-19

Abstract:It is shown that criticism of my paper <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0801.0656" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0656">arXiv:0801.0656</a> Phys. Rev. Lett, vol. 101, 163202 (2008) by the authors of Comment <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0810.3243v1" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3243v1">arXiv:0810.3243v1</a> is wrong and that their main arguments are in contradiction with established concepts of statistical physics.

Statistical Mechanics
Some remarks on papers: <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="math.DG/0211091" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/math.DG/0211091">math.DG/0211091</a>, <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="math.DG/0306187" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/math.DG/0306187">math.DG/0306187</a>, <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="math.CA/0312090" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/math.CA/0312090">math.CA/0312090</a>

A. Portaluri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.math/0508318

2007-05-24

Abstract:This is no longer available.

Differential Geometry
Reply to "A note on the innocuous implications of a minimum length in quantum gravity" by P.H. Frampton

Cosimo Bambi,Katherine Freese

2009-01-01

Abstract:We reply to the comment "A note on the innocuous implications of a minimum length in quantum gravity" by P.H. Frampton [Class. Quantum Grav. 26 (2009) 018001, arXiv:arXiv:0808.0283] on our paper "Dangerous implications of a minimum length in quantum gravity" [Class. Quantum Grav. 25 (2008) 195013, arXiv:0803.0749].
Reply to `No Contradictions between Bohmian and quantum mechanics'

Partha Ghose

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0008007

2000-08-01

Quantum Physics

Abstract:Marchildon's claim (quant-ph/0007068) regarding Ghose's papers (quant-ph/0001024 and 0003037) is shown to be erroneous.
Reply to the Comment "Past of a quantum particle and weak measurement"

Lev Vaidman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1310.1319

2013-10-04

Abstract: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 understanding and interpretation of the system considered". In particular, it teaches us that the naive common sense argument frequently used in the literature including the Comment has to be abandoned.

Quantum Physics
A Comment on "On Some Contradictory Computations in Multi-dimensional Mathematics"

E. Capelas de Oliveira,W. A. Rodrigues Jr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.math/0603599

2006-03-27

Abstract:In this paper we analyze the status of some `unbelievable results' presented in the paper `On Some Contradictory Computations in Multi-Dimensional Mathematics' [1] published in Nonlinear Analysis, a journal indexed in the Science Citation Index. Among some of the unbelievable results `proved' in the paper we can find statements like that: (i) a linear transformation which is a rotation in R^2 with rotation angle theta different from nphi/2, is inconsistent with arithmetic, (ii) complex number theory is inconsistent. Besides these 'results' of mathematical nature [1],offers also a `proof' that Special Relativity is inconsistent. Now, we are left with only two options (a) the results of [1] are correct and in this case we need a revolution in Mathematics (and also in Physics) or (b) the paper is a potpourri of nonsense. We show that option (b) is the correct one. All `proofs' appearing in [1] are trivially wrong, being based on a poor knowledge of advanced calculus notions. There are many examples (some of them discussed in [2,3,4,5,6]of complete wrong papers using nonsequitur Mathematics in the Physics literature. Taking into account also that a paper like [1] appeared in a Mathematics journal we think that it is time for editors and referees of scientific journals to become more careful in order to avoid the dissemination of nonsense.

General Mathematics
Reply to 'Comment on "Thermodynamics of quantum crystalline membranes"'

B. Amorim,R. Roldán,E. Cappelluti,F. Guinea,A. Fasolino,M. I. Katsnelson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.176302

2014-10-09

Abstract:In this note, we reply to the comment made by <a class="link-external link-http" href="http://E.I.Kats" rel="external noopener nofollow">this http URL</a> and <a class="link-external link-http" href="http://V.V.Lebedev" rel="external noopener nofollow">this http URL</a> [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1407.4298" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.4298">arXiv:1407.4298</a>] on our recent work "Thermodynamics of quantum crystalline membranes" [Phys. Rev. B 89, 224307 (2014)]. Kats and Lebedev question the validity of the calculation presented in our work, in particular on the use of a Debye momentum as a ultra-violet regulator for the theory. We address and counter argue the criticisms made by Kats and Lebedev to our work.

Mesoscale and Nanoscale Physics,Statistical Mechanics
Comments on Unruh's Paper

Henry P. Stapp

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/9801056

1998-01-24

Abstract:Unruh has commented upon my recent proof that certain predictions of quantum theory are incompatible with the assertion that no influence of any kind acts backward in time in any Lorentz frame. Unruh fails to make a necessary distinction between statements that assert the existence of values, and statements that assert the existence merely of correlations between possible values. Consequently his argument fails to show that my proof involves a tacit or hidden reality assumption that is alien to quantum theory.

Quantum Physics
Comments on the paper "Foundation of statistical mechanics from symmetries of entanglement" by S. Deffner and W. Zurek

Robert Alicki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1504.06572

2015-04-23

Quantum Physics

Abstract:The authors of the recent paper [1] boldly claim to discover a new fully quantum approach to foundation of statistical mechanics: "Our conceptually novel approach is free of mathematically ambiguous notions such as probability, ensemble, randomness, etc." The aim of this note is to show that this approach is neither specific for quantum systems nor really conceptually different from the standard textbook arguments supporting microcanonical or canonical ensembles in statistical mechanics.
Reply to the "Comment on The Tully-Fisher law and dark matter effects derived via modified symmetries by I. Arraut"

Ivan Arraut

2024-04-02

Abstract:It has been claimed in \cite{1}, that the idea proposed in \cite{2} has certain mistakes based on arguments of energy conditions and others. Additionally, some of the key arguments of the paper are criticized. Here we demonstrate that the results obtained in \cite{2} are correct and that there is no violation of any energy condition. The statements claimed in \cite{1} are based on three things: 1). Misinterpretation of the metric solution. 2). Language issues related to the physical quantities obtained in \cite{1}, where the authors make wrong interpretations about certain results over the geometry proposed in \cite{2}. 3). Non-rigorous evaluations of the vacuum condition defined via the result over the Ricci tensor $R_{\mu\nu}=0$

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
Reply to "Comment on 'Nontrivial Quantum Geometry and the Strength of Electron-Phonon Coupling',

Jiabin Yu,Christopher J. Ciccarino,Raffaello Bianco,Ion Errea,Prineha Narang,B. Andrei Bernevig

2023-06-07

Abstract:This is our reply to "Comment on 'Nontrivial Quantum Geometry and the Strength of Electron-Phonon Coupling', <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="2305.02340" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.02340">arXiv:2305.02340</a>, J. Yu, C. J. Ciccarino, R. Bianco, I. Errea, P. Narang, B. A. Bernevig" by Prof. Pickett, which focuses on the MgB$_2$ part of our work. We show that the entirety of the criticism in Prof. Pickett's comment pertaining to our work (<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="2305.02340" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.02340">arXiv:2305.02340</a>) is invalid.

Superconductivity
Reply to "Comment on `Extending the laws of thermodynamics for arbitrary autonomous quantum systems'"

Cyril Elouard,Camille Lombard Latune

2023-09-15

Abstract:In his Comment [1], Philip Strasberg (PS) argues from the analysis of different examples that the framework we have presented in [2] does not recover known results of macroscopic textbook thermodynamics. Here, we show that such apparent contradictions disappear when the necessary assumptions the aforementioned known results pre-suppose are applied. Those assumptions concern the control ability of the observer, the nature of the described degree of freedom, or the scale of the systems. The ability to relax those assumptions is precisely a motivation of our framework, which can explore the capacity of quantum systems to exchange work and heat even at scales not captured by textbook thermodynamics. We take the opportunity of this reply to further expand on the use of our framework and its connections with traditional thermodynamics.

Quantum Physics
Some Minimal Notes on Notation and Minima: A Comment on "How Particular is the Physics of the Free Energy Principle?" by Aguilera, Millidge, Tschantz, and Buckley

Maxwell J D Ramstead,Dalton A R Sakthivadivel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2022.05.005

2022-04-28

Abstract:We comment on a technical critique of the free energy principle in linear systems by Aguilera, Millidge, Tschantz, and Buckley, entitled "How Particular is the Physics of the Free Energy Principle?" Aguilera and colleagues identify an ambiguity in the flow of the mode of a system, and we discuss the context for this ambiguity in earlier papers, and their proposal of a more adequate interpretation of these equations. Following that, we discuss a misinterpretation in their treatment of surprisal and variational free energy, especially with respect to their gradients and their minima. In sum, we argue that the results in the target paper are accurate and stand up to rigorous scrutiny; we also highlight that they, nonetheless, do not undermine the FEP.

Statistical Mechanics,Adaptation and Self-Organizing Systems,History and Philosophy of Physics
Reply to Comment on "Multitime Quantum Communication: Interesting But Not Counterfactual" by L. Vaidman

Robert B. Griffiths

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.108.056202

2024-02-02

Abstract:This is a Reply to the Comment by Vaidman in <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="2306.16756" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.16756">arXiv:2306.16756</a> on the paper: R. B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062219 (2023)

Quantum Physics
Reply to the comment on "Quantum principle of relativity"

Andrzej Dragan,Artur Ekert

2023-08-31

Abstract:We discuss critical remarks raised by Horodecki towards our work on the connection between superluminal extension of special relativity and fundamental aspects of quantum theory.

Quantum Physics
Reply to "Comment on 'Dr. Bertlmann's Socks in a Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality'"

Joy Christian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3076449

2021-05-24

Abstract:In this paper, I respond to a critique of one of my papers previously published in this journal, entitled `Dr. Bertlmann's socks in a quaternionic world of ambidextral reality.' The geometrical framework presented in my paper is based on a quaternionic 3-sphere, or S^3, taken as a model of the physical space in which we are inescapably confined to perform all our experiments. The framework intrinsically circumvents Bell's theorem by reproducing the singlet correlations local-realistically, without resorting to backward causation, superdeterminism, or any other conspiracy loophole. In this response, I demonstrate point by point that, contrary to its claims, the critique has not found any mistakes in my paper, either in the analytical model of the singlet correlations or in its event-by-event numerical simulation based on Geometric Algebra.

General Physics

Remarks related to the paper of Rafael de la Madrid: "On the inconsistency of the Bohm-Gadella theory with quantum mechanics", JPhysA 39, No. 29, 9255-9268 (2006)

Comment on the Comment on Deformation of Quantum-Mechanics

Comments on Struyve and Baere's paper on experiments to distinguish Bohmian mechanics from quantum mechanics

Reply to the comment "quant-ph/9710002"

Comments on "On Bohm trajectories in two-particle interference devices" by L. Marchildon

Reply to the Comment, <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0810.3243v1" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3243v1">arXiv:0810.3243v1</a> by B. Geyer, G. L. Klimchitskaya, U. Mohideen, and. V. M. Mostepanenko

Reply to "A note on the innocuous implications of a minimum length in quantum gravity" by P.H. Frampton

Reply to `No Contradictions between Bohmian and quantum mechanics'

Reply to the Comment "Past of a quantum particle and weak measurement"

A Comment on "On Some Contradictory Computations in Multi-dimensional Mathematics"

Reply to 'Comment on "Thermodynamics of quantum crystalline membranes"'

Comments on Unruh's Paper

Comments on the paper "Foundation of statistical mechanics from symmetries of entanglement" by S. Deffner and W. Zurek

Reply to the "Comment on The Tully-Fisher law and dark matter effects derived via modified symmetries by I. Arraut"

Reply to "Comment on 'Nontrivial Quantum Geometry and the Strength of Electron-Phonon Coupling',

Reply to "Comment on `Extending the laws of thermodynamics for arbitrary autonomous quantum systems'"

Some Minimal Notes on Notation and Minima: A Comment on "How Particular is the Physics of the Free Energy Principle?" by Aguilera, Millidge, Tschantz, and Buckley

Reply to Comment on "Multitime Quantum Communication: Interesting But Not Counterfactual" by L. Vaidman

Reply to the comment on "Quantum principle of relativity"

Reply to "Comment on 'Dr. Bertlmann's Socks in a Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality'"