Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userComment on Phys. Rev. B 83, 054515 (2011) by V. G. Kogan and J. Schmalian and comment on their reply Phys. Rev. B 86, 016502 (2012)
146
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
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.
rate research
Read More
In this communication we refute a criticism concerning results of our work [3] that was presented in references [1] and [2].
In this Comment we show that the statements made in PRB85, 014505 (2012) regarding our work (PRL 100, 227007 (2008))) are incorrect because they result from model artifacts. We address the issues neglected in PRB85, 014505 (2012) and discuss their importance for a more consistent theory of thermally-activated hoping of vortices in thin films and the interpretation of experimental data.
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 [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 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.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
