Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userResponse to Cusin et als comment on arXiv:1810.13435
76
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Alexander C. Jenkins
Publication date
2019
fields
Physics
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We offer a brief response to the criticisms put forward by Cusin et al in arXiv:1811.03582 about our work arXiv:1810.13435 and arXiv:1806.01718, emphasising that none of these criticisms are relevant to our main results.
rate research
Read More
Riess et al (2018c) have claimed there exist seven problems in the analyses presented by Shanks et al (2018) where we argue that there is enough uncertainty in Cepheid distances and local peculiar velocity fields to explain the current tension in $H_0$. Here, we take each of the Riess et al (2018c) points in turn and suggest that either they do not apply or that the necessary caveats are already made by Shanks et al (2018). We conclude that the main point to be inferred from our analyses still stands which is that previous claims by Riess et al (2018b) that Gaia parallaxes confirm their Cepheid scale are, at best, premature in advance of further improvements in the Gaia astrometric solution.
We investigate the discrepancy pointed out by Jenkins et al. in Ref. [1] between the predictions of anisotropies of the astrophysical gravitational wave (GW) background, derived using different methods in Cusin et al. [2] and in Jenkins et al. [3]. We show that this discrepancy is not due to our treatment of galaxy clustering, contrary to the claim made in Ref. [1] and we show that our modeling of clustering gives results in very good agreement with observations. Furthermore we show that the power law spectrum used in Refs. [1] and [3] to describe galaxy clustering is incorrect on large scales and leads to a different scaling of the multipoles $C_ell$. Moreover, we also explain that the analytic derivation of the gravitational wave background correlation function in Refs. [1] and [3] is mathematically ill-defined and predicts an amplitude of the angular power spectrum which depends on the (arbitrary) choice of a non-physical cut-off.
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.
Unfortunately, Liu et al. contains a number of errors and omissions which compromise its conclusions. These have to do with the amount of 14C which is necessary to deposit in the atmosphere in order to see a perturbation like that in 774 AD, and the ability of a comet to do so.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
