Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userReply to the Comment on Anyonic Braiding in Optical Lattices
101
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
This is the reply to the comment arXiv:0801.4620 by Vidal, Dusuel, and Schmidt.
rate research
Read More
We point out some major technical and conceptual mistakes which invalidate the conclusion drawn in Anyonic braiding in optical lattices by C. Zhang, V. W. Scarola, S. Tewari, and S. Das Sarma published in PNAS 104, 18415 (2007).
We reply to Jacek Dziarmaga, Piotr Deuar, and Krzysztof Sachas comment, arXiv:1001.1045, supporting the authors simulations but differentiating between near-mean-field and strongly quantum regimes. We clarify that we have three lines of evidence on decay of dark solitons and connect our work to Liebs Type-II excitations and the true meaning of a quantum dark soliton.
This is a Reply to Nemirovskii Comment [Phys. Rev. B 94, 146501 (2016)] on the Khomenko et al, [Phys.Rev. B v.91, 180504(2016)], in which a new form of the production term in Vinens equation for the evolution of the vortex-line density $cal L$ in the thermal counterflow of superfluid $^4$He in a channel was suggested. To further substantiate the suggested form which was questioned in the Comment, we present a physical explanation for the improvement of the closure suggested in Khomenko et al [Phys.Rev. B v. 91, 180504(2016)] in comparison to the form proposed by Vinen. We also discuss the closure for the flux term, which agrees well with the numerical results without any fitting parameters.
This is the reply to a Comment by I.S.Tupitsyn and P.C.E. Stamp (PRL v92,119701 (2004)) on a letter of ours (J.F.Fernandez and J.J.Alonso, PRL v91, 047202 (2003)).
The above comment [E. I. Lashin, D. Dou, arXiv:1606.04738] claims that the paper Quantum Raychaudhuri Equation by S. Das, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 084068 [arXiv:1404.3093] has problematic points with regards to its derivation and implications. We show below that the above claim is incorrect, and that there are no problems with results of the above paper or its implications.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
