ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
In this reply, we address the comment by Ericsson and Sjoqvist on our paper [Phys. Rev. A {bf 84}, 034103 (2011)]. We point out that the zero gauge field is not the evidence of trivial geometric phase for a non-Abelian SU(2) gauge field. Furthermore, the recalculation shows that the non-Abelian geometric phase we proposed in the three-level $Lambda$ system is indeed experimentally detectable.
A corresponding comment, raised by Kao and Hwang, claims that the reconstructor Bob1 is unable to obtain the expected secret information in (t, n) Threshold d-level Quantum Secret Sharing (TDQSS)[Scientific Reports, Vol. 7, No. 1 (2017), pp.6366] . I
We propose a scheme in which entanglement can be transferred from atoms (discrete variables) to entangled states of cavity fields (continuous variables). The cavities play the role of a kind of quantum memory for entanglement, in such a way that it i
In this Reply, we respond to the above Comment. Our computation [Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 074512] only took into account pure QCD effects, arising from quark mass differences, so it is not surprising that there are discrepancies in isospin splittings a
In this Reply we propose a modified security proof of the Quantum Dense Key Distribution protocol detecting also the eavesdropping attack proposed by Wojcik in his Comment.
Here we give our reply to the comment by Sibirtsev et al on our paper ``Mass and K-Lambda Coupling of the N*(1535).