Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userComment on Yerin et al , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 077002 (2018), and, Mironov et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 237002 (2012)
169
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
In this communication we refute a criticism concerning results of our work [3] that was presented in references [1] and [2].
rate research
Read More
In [J. T. Matta et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 082501 (2015)] a transverse wobbling band was reported in $^{135}$Pr. The critical experimental proof for this assignment is the E2 dominated linking transitions between the wobbling and normal bands, which are supported by two experiments performed with Gammasphere and INGA. However, the M1 dominated character cannot be excluded based on the reported experimental information, indicating that the wobbling assignment is still questionable.
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.
The RENO experiment recently reported the disappearance of reactor electron antineutrinos consistent with neutrino oscillations, with a significance of 4.9 standard deviations. The published ratio of observed to expected number of antineutrinos in the far detector is R=0.920 +-0.009(stat.) +-0.014(syst.) and corresponds to sin^2 2theta13 = 0.113 +-0.013(stat.) +-0.019(syst), using a rate-only analysis. In this letter we reanalyze the data and we find a ratio R=0.903 +-0.01(stat.), leading to sin^2 2theta13 = 0.135. Moreover we show that the sin^2 2theta13 measurement still depend of the prompt high energy bound beyond 4 MeV, contrarily to the expectation based on neutrino oscillation.
In recent paper Cao et al. [Phys. Rev. B {bf 67}, 161101 (R) (2003)] reported an observation of what is the first genuine multi-mode behavior in random lasers. They observed a splitting of a single lasing line into two lines with close frequencies when pumping is increased beyond a certain threshold. Here we are pointing out that the qualitative interpretation of these experiments given in that paper is misleading.
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.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
