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:2003.03992 · Physical Review Letters

Li et al. Reply:

Xin Li, Sooran Kim, Xi Chen, William Fitzhugh

Published Mar 12, 2020• 13 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

This Reply to preceding Comment of arXiv:1909.09867 shows why the statements in the Comment are misleading. We point out that our physical picture and theirs are fundamentally different, therefore the claim of using their correlation to include ours shows a very limited physical relevance, which instead may impede the precise understanding of either of the two pictures.

DOI
10.1103/physrevlett.124.109702

Related papers

Li, Stockman, and Bergman Reply:

Kuiru Li, Mark I. Stockman, David J. Bergman

A Reply to the Comment by Zhipeng Li, Zhilin Yang, and Hongxing Xu.Received 14 June 2006DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.079702©2006 American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Aug 15, 2006•9 citations

Li, Zhao, and Hu Reply:

Baowen Li, Hui Zhao, B. Hu

A Reply to the Comment by Abhishek Dhar.Received 8 May 2001DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.069402©2001 American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Jul 24, 2001•19 citations

Li, Guzun, and Xiao Reply:

Yong-qing Li, Dorel Guzun, Min Xiao

A Reply to the Comment by T. C. Ralph.Received 19 August 1999DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.678©2000 American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Jul 17, 2000•2 citations

Henriksenet al.Reply:

Erik A. Henriksen, Paul Cadden-Zimansky, Zhigang Jiang +2 more

A Reply to the Comment by W. Zhu et al..Received 24 August 2010DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.159704© 2010 The American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Oct 7, 2010•1 citation

Reply to the comment on

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

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.

arXiv:1104.5036•Apr 26, 2011•0 citations

Legoaset al.Reply:

Sérgio B. Legoas, Varlei Rodrigues, D. Ugarte +1 more

A Reply to the Comment by Edwin Hobi, Jr. et al..Received 12 July 2005DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.169602©2005 American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Oct 14, 2005•9 citations
This Reply to preceding Comment of arXiv:1909.09867 shows why the statements in the Comment are misleading. We point out that our physical picture and theirs are fundamentally different, therefore the claim of using their correlation to include ours shows a very limited physical relevance, which instead may impede the precise understanding of either of the two pictures.
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.