© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

Physics Letters A

Reply to “Comment on: ‘Questions concerning the generalized Hartman effect’ [Phys. Lett. A 375 (2011) 3259]”

Shoju Kudaka, Shuichi Matsumoto

Published Mar 1, 2012• 9 citations

DOI: 10.1016/j.physleta.2012.03.019

Related papers

Comment on: “Questions concerning the generalized Hartman effect” [Phys. Lett. A 375 (2011) 3259]

Vitomir Milanović, J. Radovanović

Physics Letters A•Mar 1, 2012•9 citations

Questions concerning the generalized Hartman effect

Shoju Kudaka, Shuichi Matsumoto

Physics Letters A•Jul 26, 2011•20 citations

Braunstein, Buceta, and Giovambattista Reply:

Lidia A. Braunstein, R. C. Buceta, Nicolás Giovambattista

Reply to ``Comment on [Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 630 (1998)]''

arXiv:cond-mat/9908346•Physical Review Letters•Feb 8, 1999•4 citations

Reply to Comment on: “On the ‘standard’ quantum-mechanical approach to times of arrival” [Phys. Lett. A 313 (2003) 498]

C. Richard Leavens

Physics Letters A•Aug 11, 2005•16 citations

Reply to the comment "quant-ph/9710002"

Luming Duan, Guang‐Can Guo

In the comment, Zanardi and Rasetti argue that several claims in our recent letter (Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1953, 1997) are questionable. The reply shows these claims remain true.

arXiv:quant-ph/9710014•Oct 3, 1997•1 citation

Reply to Comment on "Deterministic six states protocol for quantum communication" [arXiv:1107.4435v1 [quant-ph] / Phys. Lett. A 374 (2010) 1097]

Jesni Shamsul Shaari, Marco Lucamarini, Asmaʼ Ahmad Bahari

We reply to the Comment made in arXiv:1107.4435v1 [quant-ph] (Phys. Lett. A \textbf{374} (2010) 1097) by noting some erroneous considerations therein resulting in a misleading view of the quantum key distribution protocol in question. We then correct the rates provided for the Intercept-and-Resend attack and we complete the analysis of Eve's attack based on a double CNOT gate.

arXiv:1110.1170•Oct 6, 2011•0 citations