arXiv:0705.0348

Reply to Comment arXiv:0704.3529v1

Rafael de la Madrid

Published May 2, 2007• 0 citations

Abstract

In this reply, we show that the author of the Comment arXiv:0704.3529v1 inadvertently provides additional arguments against the use of Hardy functions as test functions for the Gamow states.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.0705.0348

Related papers

Reply to the "Comment on: Testing the speed of 'spooky action at a distance' "

D. Salart, A. Baas, Cyril Branciard +2 more

This is the reply to the comment arXiv:0810.4452 by Kofler, Ursin, Brukner, and Zeilinger.

arXiv:0810.4607Oct 27, 20083 citations

Phase-shifted Bell states: reply

J. J. Joshua Davis, Carey L. Jackman, R. Leonhardt +2 more

The authors reply to comments on their published paper [ J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 42 , 1227 ( 2025 ) 10.1364/JOSAB.552007 ].

Journal of the Optical Society of America BMay 26, 20260 citations

Hardy Replies:

Lucién Hardy

Physical Review LettersSep 4, 199537 citations

A Discussion on the Properties of Gamow States

Manuel Gadella

Foundations of PhysicsDec 10, 20148 citations

Comment on: "Fluctuation Theorem for Many-Body Pure Quantum States" and Reply to "arXiv:1712.05172"

Jochen Gemmer B, Lars Knipschild, Robin Steinigeweg

We comment on: E. Iyoda, K. Kaneko, and T. Sagawa, "Fluctuation Theorem for Many-Body Pure Quantum States", Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 100601 (2017). We also respond to the reply by the afore mentioned authors: "arXiv:1712.05172". The response at hand concludes our discussion of the subject on the arXiv.

arXiv:1712.02128Dec 6, 20170 citations

ON THE RELEVANCE OF GAMOW STATES FOR THE DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEMS WITH TIME DEPENDENT PARAMETERS

B. Milek, R. Reif

Physics of Atomic NucleiJan 1, 19890 citations