No Arabic abstract
This article focuses on correcting several factual errors and critiques in the previously published Letter in Phys. Rev. L, Vol. 89, No. 10, 2022, by D. Shapira and M. Saltmarsh. The authors of the Letter did not perform their own independent experiments as claimed; they did not perform control experiments with normal acetone; and, neither did they monitor for tritium. It their Letter, the authors (D. Shapira and M. Saltmarsh) failed to disclose that the data they collected actually confirmed our claims of having observed statistically significant nuclear emissions in chilled, cavitated deuterated acetone.
We present a comment on Spin-Momentum-Locked Edge Mode for Topological Vortex Lasing, Phys. Rev. Lett. vol. 125, 013903 (2020)(hereafter the Letter).In the Letter, Yang et al. reported on an elegant topological vortex laser and proposed that the near-field spin and OAM of the topological edge mode lasing have a one-to-one far-field radiation correspondence. The near-field information is based on frequency dispersions of the topological edge modes, without supporting measurements and/or computer simulations. Unfortunately, their frequency dispersions shown in Fig. 1(c) (see also Fig. S6 and Eqs. (5.3) and (5.4) in Supplemental Material) are wrong. As the result, the mode assignment of the main mode |-2,+> investigated in the Letter is mistaken, which should be |2,+>. This spoils the one-to-one correspondence claimed in the Letter.
In our Letter (Phys. Rev. Lett. vol. 125, 013903 (2020)), we reported topological vortex lasers based on spin-momentum-locked edge modes. We observed that the near field spin and orbital angular momentum has a one-to-one far-field radiation correspondence of circular polarization and orbital angular momentum respectively. Sun et al. in their Comment (arXiv:2009.04700v1), however, argued that we did not perform numerical simulations on the near field information of our experimentally studied topological edge modes, and our mode assignment was mistaken and spoiled the one-to-one correspondence. However, we will show that their arguments are wrong. Furthermore, we will show that the Eqs. (1) and (2) and the phase windings in their Comment are wrong.
Heat capacities at fixed volume and pressure as a function of the degree of ionization are graphically depicted as functions of reciprocal temperature and ionization degree. The polytropic index is calculated as a function of the same variables; as it is not constant a partially ionized plasma can be only approximately polytropic fluid. In parallel, it is launched the idea that Alfven waves can be used to heat the plasma in a propulsion jet with magnetic nozzle.
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 this communication we refute a criticism concerning results of our work [3] that was presented in references [1] and [2].