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

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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
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
Linet Al.reply:

Lin Liu,Hsin‐Fei Meng,Jow-Tsong Shy,Sheng-Fu Horng,L. S. Yu,C. H. Chen,H. H. Liaw,Chun-Ming Huang,Kang‐Yung Peng,S. A. Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.92.059702

IF: 8.6

2004-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by M. Schott.Received 29 October 2003DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.059702©2004 American Physical Society
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.
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
Yaoet Al.reply:

Ke Yao,Martin Andersson,Tomas Brage,Roger Hutton,Per Jönsson,Yaming Zou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.104.209602

IF: 8.6

2007-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by Thad G. Walker and Charles J. Goebel.Received 5 February 2007DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.269304©2007 American Physical Society
Onget Al.reply:

N. P. Ong,Yayu Wang,Lu Li,M. J. Naughton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.98.119702

IF: 8.6

2007-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by Lucía Cabo, Jesús Mosqueira, and Félix Vidal.Received 6 July 2006DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.119702©2007 American Physical Society
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.
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
Wonet Al.reply:

C. Won,Y. Z. Wu,N. Kurahashi,H. W. Zhao,Z. Q. Qiu,A. Scholl,A. Doran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.94.039704

IF: 8.6

2005-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by P. J. Jensen et al.Received 19 March 2004DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.039704©2005 American Physical Society
Yanet Al.reply:

X. Q. Yan,C. Lin,Z. M. Sheng,Z. Y. Guo,B. C. Liu,Y. R. Lu,J. X. Fang,J. E. Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.102.239502

IF: 8.6

2009-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by Liangliang Ji et al..Received 13 February 2009DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.239502©2009 American Physical Society
Zhanget Al.reply:

Hui Zhang,Jin-Ho Choi,Yang Xu,Xiuxia Wang,Xiaofang Zhai,Bing Wang,Changgan Zeng,Jun-Hyung Cho,Zhenyu Zhang,J. G. Hou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.107.019702

IF: 8.6

2011-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by Han Woong Yeom and Tae-Hwan Kim.Received 5 May 2011DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.019702© 2011 American Physical Society
Wexleret Al.reply:

Carlos Wexler,D. J. Thouless,Ping Ao,Qian Niu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.81.4277

IF: 8.6

1998-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by E. B. Sonin.Received 9 September 1998DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.4277©1998 American Physical Society
Anandanet Al.reply:

Jeeva Anandan,Erik Sjöqvist,Arun K. Pati,Artur Ekert,Marie Ericsson,Daniel K. L. Oi,Vlatko Vedral

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.89.268902

IF: 8.6

2002-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by R. Bhandari.Received 14 May 2001DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.268902©2002 American Physical Society
Houet Al.reply:

D. M. Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.85.2654

IF: 8.6

2000-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by J. I. Pascual, et al.Received 10 May 2000DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.2654©2000 American Physical Society
Tang, Feng, and Golubovic Reply:

Chao Tang,Shechao Feng,Leonardo Golubovic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.74.3500

IF: 8.6

1995-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by E. H. Brandt.Received 27 January 1995DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.3500©1995 American Physical Society
Linet Al.reply

L. C. Lin,H. F. Meng,J. T. Shy,S. F. Horng,L. S. Yu,C. H. Chen,H. H. Liaw,C. C. Huang,K. Y. Peng,S. A. Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.91.219703

IF: 8.6

2003-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comments by (Ltr. I) R. Österbacka and (Ltr. II) A. S. Dhoot and N. C. Greenham.Received 16 May 2003DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.219703©2003 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
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
Comment on “berry Phase in a Composite System”

Lin‐Hai Han,Yong Guo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.100.168901

IF: 8.6

2008-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Comment on the Letter by X. X. Yi, L. C. Wang, and T. Y. Zheng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 150406 (2004). The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.Received 2 April 2007DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.168901©2008 American Physical Society