Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userReply to the Comment, arXiv:0810.3243v1 by B. Geyer, G. L. Klimchitskaya, U. Mohideen, and. V. M. Mostepanenko
196
0
0.0
(
0
)
Authors
L. P. Pitaevskii
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
It is shown that criticism of my paper arXiv:0801.0656 Phys. Rev. Lett, vol. 101, 163202 (2008) by the authors of Comment arXiv:0810.3243v1 is wrong and that their main arguments are in contradiction with established concepts of statistical physics.
rate research
Read More
In a comment on arXiv:1006.5070v1, Drechsler et al. present new band-structure calculations suggesting that the frustrated ferromagnetic spin-1/2 chain LiCuVO4 should be described by a strong rather than weak ferromagnetic nearest-neighbor interaction, in contradiction with their previous calculations. In our reply, we show that their new results are at odds with the observed magnetic structure, that their analysis of the static susceptibility neglects important contributions, and that their criticism of the spin-wave analysis of the bound-state dispersion is unfounded. We further show that their new exact diagonalization results reinforce our conclusion on the existence of a four-spinon continuum in LiCuVO4, see Enderle et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 237207.
In a comment on arXiv:1006.5070v2, Drechsler et al. claim that the frustrated ferromagnetic spin-1/2 chain LiCuVO4 should be described by a strong rather than weak ferromagnetic nearest-neighbor interaction, in contradiction with their previous work. Their comment is based on DMRG and ED calculations of the magnetization curve and the magnetic excitations. We show that their parameters are at odds with the magnetic susceptibility and the magnetic excitation spectrum, once intensities are taken into account, and that the magnetization curve cannot discriminate between largely different parameter sets within experimental uncertainties. We further show that their new exact diagonalization results support the validity of the RPA-approach, and strongly reinforce our conclusion on the existence of a four-spinon continuum in LiCuVO4, see Enderle et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 237207.
The recent paper by V. G. Kogan and J. Schmalian Phys. Rev. B 83, 054515 (2011) argues that the widely used two-component Ginzburg-Landau (GL) models are not correct, and further concludes that in the regime which is described by a GL theory there could be no disparity in the coherence lengths of two superconducting components. This would in particular imply that (in contrast to $U(1)times U(1)$ superconductors), there could be no type-1.5 superconducting regime in U(1) multiband systems for any finite interband coupling strength. We point out that these claims are incorrect and based on an erroneous scheme of reduction of a two-component GL theory. We also attach a separate rejoinder on reply by Kogan and Schmalian. In their reply Phys. Rev. B 86, 016502 (2012) to our comment Phys. Rev. B 86, 016501 (2012) Kogan and Schmalian did not refute or, indeed, discuss the main points of criticism in the comment. Unfortunately they instead advance new incorrect claims regarding two-band and type-1.5 superconductivity. The main purpose of the attached rejoinder is to discuss these new incorrect claims.
In their comment on our work (ArXiv:1912.07056v1), Cavagna textit{et al.} raise several interesting points on the phenomenology of flocks of birds, and conduct additional data analysis to back up their points. In particular, they question the existence of rigid body rotations in flocks of birds. In this reply, we first clarify the notions of rigid body rotations, and of rigidity itself. Then, we justify why we believe that it is legitimate to wonder about their importance when studying the spatial correlations between speeds in flocks of birds.
In this reply, we will provide our impersonal, point-to-point responses to the major criticisms (in bold and underlined) in arXiv:1909.12464. Firstly, we will identify a number of (imperceptibly hidden) mistakes in the Comment in understanding/interpreting our physical model. Secondly, we will use a 3rd-party experiment carried out in 1961 (plus other 3rd-party experiments thereafter) to further support our claim that our invented Phi memristor is memristive in spite of the existence of a parasitic inductor effect. Thirdly, we will analyse this parasitic effect mathematically, introduce our work-in-progress (in nanoscale) and point out that this parasitic inductor effect should not become a big worry since it can be completely removed in the macro-scale devices and safely neglected in the nano-scale devices.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
