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

Physics Letters A

Reply to Herbut's comment on “the relativity of quantum predictions”

Itamar Pitowsky

Published Jun 1, 1992• 1 citation
Publisher
DOI
10.1016/0375-9601(92)90379-z

Related papers

Herbut and Tešanović Reply:

Igor F. Herbut, Zlatko Tešanović

A Reply to the Comment by Ian D. Lawrie.Received 26 September 1996DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.980©1997 American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Feb 3, 1997•45 citations

The relativity of quantum predictions

Itamar Pitowsky

Physics Letters A•Jun 1, 1991•24 citations

Radzihovsky Replies:

Leo Radzihovsky

A Reply to the Comment by Igor F. Herbut and Zlatko Tešanović.Received 18 December 1995DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.4451©1996 American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Jun 3, 1996•6 citations

On Pitowsky's “The relativity of quantum predictions”

Fedor Herbut

Physics Letters A•Mar 1, 1992•2 citations

Reply to "Comment on 'Theoretical analysis of quantum turbulence using the Onsager ideal turbulence theory'"

Tomohiro Tanogami

We refute the criticism expressed in a Comment by Krstulovic, L'vov, and Nazarenko [arXiv:2107.10598] on our paper [Phys. Rev. E 103, 023106 (2021)]. We first show that quantization of circulation is not ignored in our analysis. Then, we propose a more sophisticated analysis to avoid a subtle problem with the regularity of the velocity field. We thus defend the main results of our paper, which predicts the double-cascade scenario where the quantum stress cascade follows the Richardson cascade. We also provide a conjecture on the relation between the Kelvin-wave cascade and the quantum stress cascade.

arXiv:2111.11659•Nov 23, 2021•1 citation

Further Comment on “Alternative to the Orthodox Interpretation of Quantum Theory”

Mendel Sachs

American Journal of Physics•Feb 1, 1969•3 citations
We refute the criticism expressed in a Comment by Krstulovic, L'vov, and Nazarenko [arXiv:2107.10598] on our paper [Phys. Rev. E 103, 023106 (2021)]. We first show that quantization of circulation is not ignored in our analysis. Then, we propose a more sophisticated analysis to avoid a subtle problem with the regularity of the velocity field. We thus defend the main results of our paper, which predicts the double-cascade scenario where the quantum stress cascade follows the Richardson cascade. We also provide a conjecture on the relation between the Kelvin-wave cascade and the quantum stress cascade.