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.

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.
Qin Et Al. Reply

Nan Qin,Emmanuelle Le Chatelier,Jing Guo,Edi Prifti,Lanjuan Li,S. Dusko Ehrlich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14852

IF: 64.8

2015-01-01

Nature

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by J. H. Chen and H. Y. Fan.Received 22 May 2013DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.269502© 2013 American Physical Society
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
Gao et al. Reply

Hong-Jun Gao,Karl Sohlberg,Z. Q. Xue,H. Y. Chen,S. M. Hou,L. P. Ma,X. W. Fang,Stephen J. Pennycook

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.87.179707

IF: 8.6

2001-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by Yanming Zhao et al.Received 2 June 2001DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.179707©2001 American Physical Society
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
Zu et al. reply:.

C Zu,Y-X Wang,D-L Deng,X-Y Chang,K Liu,P-Y Hou,H-X Yang,L-M Duan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.110.078902

IF: 8.6

2013-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by E. Amselem et al.Received 4 December 2012DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.078902© 2013 American Physical Society
Gregoryanzet Al.reply:

Eugene Gregoryanz,Russell J. Hemley,Ho-kwang Mao,R. E. Cohen,Philippe Gillet

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.90.079702

IF: 8.6

2003-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by Margin H. Müser and Philipp Schöffel.Received 1 November 2002DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.079702©2003 American Physical Society
Xiaoet Al.reply:

Di Xiao,Junren Shi,Qian Niu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.96.099702

IF: 8.6

2006-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract: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 approach.
Xiang et al. reply.

H J Xiang,Bing Huang,Erjun Kan,Su-Huai Wei,X G Gong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.112.199802

IF: 8.6

2014-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by M. Amsler et al.Received 4 December 2013DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.199802© 2014 American Physical Society
Reply to Comment on ‘quantum Principle of Relativity’

Andrzej Dragan,Artur Ekert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/acec62

2023-01-01

New Journal of Physics

Abstract:We refute criticisms by Del Santo and Horvat towards our paper "Quantum principle of relativity": most of their counterarguments can be dismissed, and the rest provides further evidence to our claims.
Reply to Comment [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0810.3244v1" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3244v1">arXiv:0810.3244v1</a>] by R.S. Decca et al. on "Contribution of drifting carriers to the Casimir-Lifshitz and Casimir-Polder interactions with semiconductor materials"

Diego A. R. Dalvit,Steve K. Lamoreaux

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0812.1056

2008-12-06

Abstract:We show that the claims expressed in the Comment <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0810.3244v1" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3244v1">arXiv:0810.3244v1</a> by R.S. Decca et al against our paper, D.A.R. Dalvit and S.K. Lamoreaux, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 101}, 163203 (2008), are wrong and manifestly inconsistent with basic principles of statistical physics.

Quantum Physics
Reply to "Comment on 'Fano resonance for Anderson Impurity Systems' "

H. G. Luo,T. Xiang,X. Q. Wang,Z. B. Su,L. Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cond-mat/0504177

2005-04-07

Strongly Correlated Electrons

Abstract:In a recent Comment, Kolf et al. (cond-mat/0503669) state that our analysis of the Fano resonance for Anderson impurity systems [Luo et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 92, 256602 (2004)] is incorrect. Here we want to point out that their comments are not based on firm physical results and their criticisms are unjustified and invalid.
Reply to comment in <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1802.01382" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.01382">arXiv:1802.01382</a>

T. P. Xiong,L. L. Yan,F. Zhou,K. Rehan,D. F. Liang,L. Chen,W. L. Yang,Z. H. Ma,M. Feng,V. Vedral

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1802.02392

2018-08-05

Abstract:Here we respond to a comment [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1802.01382" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.01382">arXiv:1802.01382</a>] 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 thermalization in a quantum system, which is different from the counterpart in conventional thermodynamics.

Quantum Physics
Reply to "Comment on 'Comparison of potential models with the pp-scattering data below 350 MeV.' "

V.Stoks,J.J. de Swart

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.nucl-th/9312004

1993-12-08

Abstract:Replying to the above Comment by <a class="link-external link-http" href="http://G.Q.Li" rel="external noopener nofollow">this http URL</a> and <a class="link-external link-http" href="http://R.Machleidt" rel="external noopener nofollow">this http URL</a>, we point out that the supposed "flaws" in our Comparison of NN potential models with the pp- scattering data [ Phys.Rev.C47,761(1993) ] are in reality not flaws at all.

Nuclear Theory
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
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
Chen and Itoi Reply

Wei Chen,Chigak Itoi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.hep-th/9405182

1994-05-27

High Energy Physics - Theory

Abstract:We reply a Comment (hep-th/xxx) on our recent paper published in Phys Rev Lett 72 (1994) 2527-2530. We point out that the author of the Comment overlooks the highly non-trivial Chern-Simons interactions and his hand-waving arguments are totally groundless.
Reply to the Comment on `The operational foundations of PT-symmetric and quasi-Hermitian quantum theory'

Abhijeet Alase,Salini Karuvade,Carlo Maria Scandolo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/acca54

2023-04-20

Abstract:This document is our reply to the Comment (Miloslav Znojil 2023 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 56, 038001) on our recent work titled `The operational foundations of PT-symmetric and quasi-Hermitian quantum theory'. The original Comment consists of three addenda to our work. The first addendum claims that our work is ill-motivated as the motivating question, namely whether PT-symmetric quantum theory extends the standard quantum theory, was already answered in the literature. The second addendum points to some missing references in our work, and the third addendum suggests what constraints could lead to an extension of standard quantum theory. In our reply, we explain that the claim in the first addendum is a result of a misinterpretation of our motivating question. When interpreted correctly, the third addendum in the Comment in itself elaborates on why our motivating question is interesting and relevant. We also briefly comment on the prospects of an extension of standard quantum theory along the lines suggested in the third addendum. As our response to the second addendum, we explain our rationale behind citing certain references while leaving out others.

Quantum Physics,Mesoscale and Nanoscale Physics,High Energy Physics - Theory
Reply to Comment on "Quantum Force in a Superconductor"

A.V.Nikulov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cond-mat/0304313

2003-04-14

Abstract:A reply is made to Comment by <a class="link-external link-http" href="http://D.P.Sheehan" rel="external noopener nofollow">this http URL</a> in which he takes notice that the quantum force introduced in my earlier paper <a class="link-external link-http" href="http://A.V.Nikulov" rel="external noopener nofollow">this http URL</a>, Phys. Rev. B 64, 012505 (2001) challenges to the absolute status of the second law of thermodynamics. It is shown that the introduction of the quantum force explains only an experimental challenge to the second law. The observation of the persistent current at non-zero resistance R > 0 is experimental evidence of violation of the postulate saving the second law in the beginning of the 20 century. According to this postulate any Brownian motion is absolutely random whereas the persistent current at R > 0 is a regulated Brownian motion.

Superconductivity,Statistical Mechanics
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