He and Hubbell Reply:

Fangliang He,Stephen P. Hubbell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.95.189804

IF: 8.6

2005-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by Edith Perrier et al.Received 30 August 2005DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.189804©2005 American Physical Society

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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
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
Gaoet Al.reply:

H. J. Gao,K. Sohlberg,Z. Q. Xue,H. Y. Chen,S. M. Hou,L. P. Ma,X. W. Fang,S. 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
Houet Al.reply:

J. G. Hou,Yang Jinlong,Wang Haiqian,Li Qunxiang,Zeng Changgan,Lin Hai,Bing Wang,D. M. Chen,Zhu Qingshi

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
Sinha and Amaratunga Reply:

Dhiräj Sinha,G.A.J. Amaratunga

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.115.119702

IF: 8.6

2015-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:Received 6 August 2015DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.119702© 2015 American Physical Society
Chen, Gong, and Wei Reply:

Shiyou Chen,X. G. Gong,Su-Huai Wei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.99.159602

IF: 8.6

2007-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by Changfeng Chen and Hong Sun.Received 30 May 2007DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.159602©2007 American Physical Society
Comment on “magnus and Iordanskii Forces in Superfluids”

C Wexler,DJ Thouless,P Ao,Q Niu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.80.4356

IF: 8.6

1998-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Comment on the Letter by H. E. Hall and J. R. Hook, Phys. Rev. Lett 79, 1321 (1997). The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.Received 18 August 1997DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.4356©1998 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.
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 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 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