© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

arXiv:1104.5036

Reply to the comment on

J. Andrade, G. F. T. da Silva, André Auto Moreira, Fernando Dantas Nobre, Evaldo M. F. Curado

Published Apr 26, 2011• 0 citations

Abstract

We show that the comment [arXiv:1104.0697] by Levin and Pakter on our work [arXiv:1008.1421] is conceptually unfounded, contains misleading interpretations, and is based on results of questionable applicability. We initially provide arguments to evince that, inexplicably, these authors simply choose to categorically dismiss our elaborated and solid conceptual approach, results and analysis, without employing any fundamental concepts or tools from Statistical Physics. We then demonstrate that the results of Levin and Pakter do not present any evidence against, but rather corroborates, our conclusions. In fact, the results shown in their comment correspond to a confining potential that is 1000 times stronger than the typical valued utilized in our study, therefore explaining the discrepancy between their results and ours. Furthermore, in this regime where higher vortex densities are involved, vortex cores might get so close to each other that can no longer be treated as point-like defects. As a consequence, Ginzburg-Landau equations should be employed instead, meaning that the physical conditions implied by the results of Levin and Pakter should be considered with caution in the context of the Physics of interacting superconducting vortexes.

Related papers

Comment on "critical dynamics of a vortex-loop model for the superconducting transition" [2] (multiple letters)

Jack Lidmar, Vivek Aji, Nigel D. Goldenfeld

Physical Review Letters•Sep 2, 2002•0 citations

Andradeet al.Reply:

José S. Andrade, G. F. T. da Silva, André Auto Moreira +2 more

A Reply to the Comment by Yan Levin and Renato Pakter.Received 19 July 2011DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.088902© 2011 American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Aug 16, 2011•17 citations

Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms for complex nonlinear partial differential equations with Ginzburg-Landau potential and vortex motion laws

Shi Jin, Nana Liu, Chuwen Ma

We propose quantum algorithms for complex-valued nonlinear partial differential equations in the strongly nonlinear regime, where the dynamics is governed by vortex cores, phase singularities, and nonlinear vortex interactions. Examples include the complex-valued nonlinear Schrödinger equation, as well as nonlinear heat and wave equations with Ginzburg--Landau-type nonlinearity. In the strongly nonlinear regime, the solutions to these equations are asymptotically governed by, in leading order, linear elliptic equations, coupled with low-dimensional vortex dynamics, where the vortex cores correspond to topological defects in superconductors. Our hybrid quantum-classical algorithms utilize this asymptotic property, in which the vortex dynamic is advanced classically while the boundary-value problem of linear elliptic equation is handled by quantum algorithms. For the two-dimensional nonlinear Schrödinger equation, we also combine quantum BPX preconditioning with Schrödingerization to estimate physically relevant observables in the small-output regime. This yields, already in two dimensions, an {\it exponential} improvement in the dependence on the spatial problem size, while the dependence on the target accuracy remains essentially linear up to polylogarithmic factors. We further show that the same principle extends to dissipative Ginzburg--Landau vortex dynamics and to vortex filaments in three-dimensional superconductivity. Numerical results support the validity of this PDE reduction and the effectiveness of the proposed approach.

quant-pharXiv:2604.14079•Apr 16, 2026•0 citations

Rejoinder to the Response to ‘Comment on a recent conjectured solution of the three-dimensional Ising model’

Fa Yueh Wu, Barry M. McCoy, Michael Ellis Fisher +1 more

We add here a few sentences concerning the author's Response 1 to our Comment 2 criticizing his original claims regarding his conjectured solution of the three-dimensional Ising model 3. First, we ...

arXiv:0812.2837•The Philosophical Magazine A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Applied Physics•Sep 11, 2008•16 citations

Reply to "Comment on 'Symmetry properties of magnetization in the Hubbard model at finite temperature'"

Gang Su, Masuo Suzuki

This paper has been withdrawn.

arXiv:cond-mat/9808011•Aug 3, 1998•0 citations

Nonlocal character of quantum theory?

N. David Mermin

In a recent article under the above title (but without the question mark) Henry Stapp has presented arguments which lead him to conclude that under suitable conditions “the truth of a statement that refers only to phenomena confined to an earlier time” must “depend on which measurement an experimenter freely chooses to perform at a later time.” I suggest that this conclusion contains an essential ambiguity as regards the meaning of the expression “statement referring only to phenomena confined to an earlier time,” when such a statement talks about the outcome of an experiment that was not actually performed. As a result Stapp’s argumentation does not imply that future choices can affect present facts. But it does provide a wonderful and instructively different opportunity to reexamine a central point of Bohr’s famous reply to Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen.

arXiv:quant-ph/9711052•American Journal of Physics•Oct 1, 1998•99 citations

We show that the comment [arXiv:1104.0697] by Levin and Pakter on our work [arXiv:1008.1421] is conceptually unfounded, contains misleading interpretations, and is based on results of questionable applicability. We initially provide arguments to evince that, inexplicably, these authors simply choose to categorically dismiss our elaborated and solid conceptual approach, results and analysis, without employing any fundamental concepts or tools from Statistical Physics. We then demonstrate that the results of Levin and Pakter do not present any evidence against, but rather corroborates, our conclusions. In fact, the results shown in their comment correspond to a confining potential that is 1000 times stronger than the typical valued utilized in our study, therefore explaining the discrepancy between their results and ours. Furthermore, in this regime where higher vortex densities are involved, vortex cores might get so close to each other that can no longer be treated as point-like defects. As a consequence, Ginzburg-Landau equations should be employed instead, meaning that the physical conditions implied by the results of Levin and Pakter should be considered with caution in the context of the Physics of interacting superconducting vortexes.

We propose quantum algorithms for complex-valued nonlinear partial differential equations in the strongly nonlinear regime, where the dynamics is governed by vortex cores, phase singularities, and nonlinear vortex interactions. Examples include the complex-valued nonlinear Schrödinger equation, as well as nonlinear heat and wave equations with Ginzburg--Landau-type nonlinearity. In the strongly nonlinear regime, the solutions to these equations are asymptotically governed by, in leading order, linear elliptic equations, coupled with low-dimensional vortex dynamics, where the vortex cores correspond to topological defects in superconductors. Our hybrid quantum-classical algorithms utilize this asymptotic property, in which the vortex dynamic is advanced classically while the boundary-value problem of linear elliptic equation is handled by quantum algorithms. For the two-dimensional nonlinear Schrödinger equation, we also combine quantum BPX preconditioning with Schrödingerization to estimate physically relevant observables in the small-output regime. This yields, already in two dimensions, an {\it exponential} improvement in the dependence on the spatial problem size, while the dependence on the target accuracy remains essentially linear up to polylogarithmic factors. We further show that the same principle extends to dissipative Ginzburg--Landau vortex dynamics and to vortex filaments in three-dimensional superconductivity. Numerical results support the validity of this PDE reduction and the effectiveness of the proposed approach.

In a recent article under the above title (but without the question mark) Henry Stapp has presented arguments which lead him to conclude that under suitable conditions “the truth of a statement that refers only to phenomena confined to an earlier time” must “depend on which measurement an experimenter freely chooses to perform at a later time.” I suggest that this conclusion contains an essential ambiguity as regards the meaning of the expression “statement referring only to phenomena confined to an earlier time,” when such a statement talks about the outcome of an experiment that was not actually performed. As a result Stapp’s argumentation does not imply that future choices can affect present facts. But it does provide a wonderful and instructively different opportunity to reexamine a central point of Bohr’s famous reply to Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen.