arXiv:2101.00849 · Physical review. E

Reply to “Comment on ‘Measurability of nonequilibrium thermodynamics in terms of the Hamiltonian of mean force’ ”

Philipp Strasberg, Massimiliano Esposito

Published Dec 21, 2020• 4 citations

Abstract

We refute the criticism expressed in a Comment by P. Talkner and P. Hänggi [Phys. Rev. E 102, 066101 (2020)10.1103/PhysRevE.102.066101] on our paper Phys. Rev. E 101, 050101(R) (2020)2470-004510.1103/PhysRevE.101.050101. We first make clear that our paper is free of any technical mistakes. We then defend the statements of our paper which were claimed to be taken out of context. Finally, we give clear arguments showing that the basic concepts we rely on are meaningful and have a deep rational.

DOI: 10.1103/physreve.102.066102

Related papers

Reply to “Comment on ‘Cyclic quantum-evolution dependence on the Hamiltonian and geometrical phase’ ”

Lian-Ao Wu

I reply to the Comment [A. Mostafazadeh, Phys. Rev. A 55, 4640 (1997)] on my paper in Phys. Rev. A 53, 2053 (1996). In particular, there is nothing in the Comment except the final paragraph, which points out my two sick sentences in English. I give a simple example to explain my original meaning of the two sick English sentences and try to correct them.

Physical Review ASep 1, 19970 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Nonlocality counterfactuals, and quantum mechanics’ ”

William George Unruh

Stapp [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 60, 2595 (1999)] has argued that my criticism of his nonlocality proof is wrong. I point out that counterfactual arguments are fraught with dangers, and that any such claim should use them in a conservative manner. A reanalysis of his claims continues to lead me to the conclusion that the nonlocality of quantum mechanics remains unproven.

Physical Review ASep 1, 19992 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Fermionic entanglement ambiguity in noninertial frames’ ”

Miguel Montero, Eduardo Martín-Martínez

We show that, contrary to the claims of the preceding Comment [Br\'adler and J\'auregui, Phys. Rev. A 85, 016301 (2012)], our original work [Phys. Rev. A 83, 062323 (2011)] is devoid of flaws or mistakes. We show that the criticism comes from a misunderstanding of part of our work.

arXiv:1108.6074Physical Review AJan 17, 201224 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Relevance of Bell’s theorem as a signature of nonlocality: Case of classical angular momentum distributions’ ”

A. Matzkin

In this Reply, we show that the main argument of the criticism given in the preceding Comment is inconsistent with the assumption lying at the basis of the model introduced in the original paper [A. Matzkin, Phys. Rev. A 77, 062110 (2008)]. We further clarify some issues concerning the interplay between noncommuting measurements and conservation laws in order to reply to the additional criticism contained in the comment.

Physical Review AApr 10, 20090 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Fluctuation-dissipation relations in the nonequilibrium critical dynamics of Ising models’ ”

Peter Mayer, Ludovic Berthier, Juan P. Garrahan +1 more

arXiv:cond-mat/0310545Physical Review EJul 2, 200425 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Association between quantum paradoxes based on weak values and a realistic interpretation of quantum measurements' ”

Alice M. Aredes, Pablo L. Saldanha

Physical Review AJun 2, 20251 citation

arXiv:2101.00849 · Physical review. E

Reply to “Comment on ‘Measurability of nonequilibrium thermodynamics in terms of the Hamiltonian of mean force’ ”

Philipp Strasberg, Massimiliano Esposito

Published Dec 21, 2020• 4 citations

arXiv HTML PDF

Abstract

DOI: 10.1103/physreve.102.066102

Related papers

Reply to “Comment on ‘Cyclic quantum-evolution dependence on the Hamiltonian and geometrical phase’ ”

Lian-Ao Wu

Physical Review ASep 1, 19970 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Nonlocality counterfactuals, and quantum mechanics’ ”

William George Unruh

Physical Review ASep 1, 19992 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Fermionic entanglement ambiguity in noninertial frames’ ”

Miguel Montero, Eduardo Martín-Martínez

arXiv:1108.6074Physical Review AJan 17, 201224 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Relevance of Bell’s theorem as a signature of nonlocality: Case of classical angular momentum distributions’ ”

A. Matzkin

Physical Review AApr 10, 20090 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Fluctuation-dissipation relations in the nonequilibrium critical dynamics of Ising models’ ”

Peter Mayer, Ludovic Berthier, Juan P. Garrahan +1 more

We have recently shown that in nonequilibrium spin systems at criticality the limit ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$ of the fluctuation-dissipation ratio $X(t,{t}_{w})$ for $t⪢{t}_{w}⪢1$ can be measured using observables such as magnetization or energy [Phys. Rev. E 68, 016116 (2003)]. Pleimling argues in a Comment [preceding paper, Phys. Rev. 70, 018101 (2004)] on our paper that for such observables correlation and response functions are dominated by one-time quantities dependent only on $t$ , and are therefore not suitable for a determination of ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$. Using standard scaling forms of correlation and response functions, as used by Pleimling, we show that our data do have a genuine two-time dependence and allow $X(t,{t}_{w})$ and ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$ to be measured, so that Pleimling's criticisms are easily refuted. We also compare with predictions from renormalization-group calculations, which are consistent with our numerical observation of a fluctuation-dissipation plot for the magnetization that is very close to a straight line. A key point remains that coherent observables make measurements of ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$ easier than the traditionally used incoherent ones, producing fluctuation-dissipation plots whose slope is close to ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$ over a much larger range.We have recently shown that in nonequilibrium spin systems at criticality the limit ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$ of the fluctuation-dissipation ratio $X(t,{t}_{w})$ for $t⪢{t}_{w}⪢1$ can be measured using observables such as magnetization or energy [Phys. Rev. E 68, 016116 (2003)]. Pleimling argues in a Comment [preceding paper, Phys. Rev. 70, 018101 (2004)] on our paper that for such observables correlation and response functions are dominated by one-time quantities dependent only on $t$, and are therefore not suitable for a determination of ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$. Using standard scaling forms of correlation and response functions, as used by Pleimling, we show that our data do have a genuine two-time dependence and allow $X(t,{t}_{w})$ and ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$ to be measured, so that Pleimling's criticisms are easily refuted. We also compare with predictions from renormalization-group calculations, which are consistent with our numerical observation of a fluctuation-dissipation plot for the magnetization that is very close to a straight line. A key point remains that coherent observables make measurements of ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$ easier than the traditionally used incoherent ones, producing fluctuation-dissipation plots whose slope is close to ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$ over a much larger range.

arXiv:cond-mat/0310545Physical Review EJul 2, 200425 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Association between quantum paradoxes based on weak values and a realistic interpretation of quantum measurements' ”

Alice M. Aredes, Pablo L. Saldanha

Seoane et al. [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 111, 066201 (2025)] criticized our work [Phys. Rev. A 109, 022238 (2024)], saying that our argument that realistic interpretations of weak values lead to inconsistencies is not valid for all weak values and quantum theories. This is true. We never intended that the arguments we presented would be valid for all weak values. We believe it is clearly stated in our work that we were dealing only with the weak values related to the quantum paradoxes cited in our paper. Seoane et al. also said in their Comment that the ``general argument'' we present in our paper is formally incorrect. However, this criticism is related to the interpretation they give to the expression ``equivalent,'' which is different from the one we use. In this sense, the presented criticisms are a matter of semantics, not of physics.Seoane et al. [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 111, 066201 (2025)] criticized our work [Phys. Rev. A 109, 022238 (2024)], saying that our argument that realistic interpretations of weak values lead to inconsistencies is not valid for all weak values and quantum theories. This is true. We never intended that the arguments we presented would be valid for all weak values. We believe it is clearly stated in our work that we were dealing only with the weak values related to the quantum paradoxes cited in our paper. Seoane et al. also said in their Comment that the ``general argument'' we present in our paper is formally incorrect. However, this criticism is related to the interpretation they give to the expression ``equivalent,'' which is different from the one we use. In this sense, the presented criticisms are a matter of semantics, not of physics.

Physical Review AJun 2, 20251 citation

We have recently shown that in nonequilibrium spin systems at criticality the limit ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$ of the fluctuation-dissipation ratio

X(t,{t}_{w})

for

t⪢{t}_{w}⪢1

can be measured using observables such as magnetization or energy [Phys. Rev. E 68, 016116 (2003)]. Pleimling argues in a Comment [preceding paper, Phys. Rev. 70, 018101 (2004)] on our paper that for such observables correlation and response functions are dominated by one-time quantities dependent only on

t

, and are therefore not suitable for a determination of ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$. Using standard scaling forms of correlation and response functions, as used by Pleimling, we show that our data do have a genuine two-time dependence and allow

X(t,{t}_{w})

and ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$ to be measured, so that Pleimling's criticisms are easily refuted. We also compare with predictions from renormalization-group calculations, which are consistent with our numerical observation of a fluctuation-dissipation plot for the magnetization that is very close to a straight line. A key point remains that coherent observables make measurements of ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$ easier than the traditionally used incoherent ones, producing fluctuation-dissipation plots whose slope is close to ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$ over a much larger range.