Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1312.6452

Reply to Comment on "Quantum quasicrystals of spin-orbit coupled dipolar bosons''

Sarang Gopalakrishnan, Ivar Martin, Eugene Demler

Published Dec 23, 2013• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In a recent Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 185304 (2013)], we proposed a scheme for realizing quantum quasicrystals using spin-orbit coupled dipolar bosons. We remarked that these quantum quasicrystals have additional ``phason''-like modes compared with their classical counterparts. A recent comment by Lifshitz [arXiv:1312.1388] contests this claim. We argue here that our enumeration of gapless modes is indeed the physically relevant one; whether the additional modes are ``phasons'' is, however, a matter of definition.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1312.6452

Related papers

Comment on “Quantum Quasicrystals of Spin-Orbit-Coupled Dipolar Bosons”

Matthias Sandbrink, Johannes Roth, Michael Schmiedeberg

A Comment on the Letter by S. Gopalakrishnan, I. Martin, and E. A. Demler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 185304 (2013).. The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.

Physical Review Letters•Aug 13, 2014•5 citations

Comment on “Quantum Quasicrystals of Spin-Orbit-Coupled Dipolar Bosons”

Ron Lifshitz

A Comment on the Letter by S. Gopalakrishnan, I. Martin, and E. A. Demler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 185304 (2013).. The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.

arXiv:1312.1388•Physical Review Letters•Aug 13, 2014•5 citations

Quantum quasicrystals and other exotic states of spin-orbit coupled dipolar bosons

Sarang Gopalakrishnan, Ryan Wilson, Brandon Anderson +4 more

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Mar 6, 2014•0 citations

Reply to Comment on ``Time-dependent quasi-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the unitary quantum evolution''

Miloslav Znojil

In his fresh "Comment" (arXiv:0711.0137v1), A. Mostafazadeh reacts on my very recent letter (arXiv:0710.5653v1) where I tried to clarify certain misunderstandings which occurred in A. M., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007) [arXiv:0706.1872v2, "Paper"]. As long as the "Comment" offers a new support of the original assertions made in the "Paper", I feel obliged to re-clarify the matter by extending my argumentation. I insist that it is possible to escape the main conclusion of the "Paper", indeed. In particular, I point out a gap in the new calculations in "Comment", add a few remarks on the notation and reconfirm that the unitarity of the time-evolution DOES NOT require the time-independence of the metric operator.

arXiv:0711.0514•Nov 5, 2007•6 citations

Reply to Comment on "Superradiant Phase Transitions and the Standard Description of Circuit QED"

Oliver Viehmann, Jan von Delft, Florian Marquardt

A Reply to the Comment by C. Ciuti and P. Nataf [arXiv:1112.0986v1] on our Letter "Superradiant Phase Transitions and the Standard Description of Circuit QED" [Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 113602 (2011)].

arXiv:1202.2916•Feb 14, 2012•3 citations

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

Eiki Iyoda, Kazuya Kaneko, Takahiro Sagawa

We reply to Comment by J. Gemmer, L. Knipschild, R. Steinigeweg (arXiv:1712.02128) on our paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 100601 (2017).

arXiv:1712.05172•Dec 14, 2017•1 citation
In a recent Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 185304 (2013)], we proposed a scheme for realizing quantum quasicrystals using spin-orbit coupled dipolar bosons. We remarked that these quantum quasicrystals have additional phason''-like modes compared with their classical counterparts. A recent comment by Lifshitz [arXiv:1312.1388] contests this claim. We argue here that our enumeration of gapless modes is indeed the physically relevant one; whether the additional modes are phasons'' is, however, a matter of definition.
In his fresh "Comment" (arXiv:0711.0137v1), A. Mostafazadeh reacts on my very recent letter (arXiv:0710.5653v1) where I tried to clarify certain misunderstandings which occurred in A. M., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007) [arXiv:0706.1872v2, "Paper"]. As long as the "Comment" offers a new support of the original assertions made in the "Paper", I feel obliged to re-clarify the matter by extending my argumentation. I insist that it is possible to escape the main conclusion of the "Paper", indeed. In particular, I point out a gap in the new calculations in "Comment", add a few remarks on the notation and reconfirm that the unitarity of the time-evolution DOES NOT require the time-independence of the metric operator.