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

Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics

Reply to “Comment on ‘Quantum suppression of chaos in the spin-boson model’ ”

G. A. Finney, Julio R. Gea-Banacloche

Published Aug 1, 1997• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We dispute the claim by Bonci et al. [Phys. Rev. E 56, 2325 (1997)] that we have misidentified a chaotic trajectory, and point out that their new results actually support the main conclusions of our original article.
DOI
10.1103/physreve.56.2329

Related papers

Reply to “Comment on ‘Entanglement and chaos in the kicked top' ”

M. Lombardi, A. Matzkin

We reply to the preceding Comment that attempts to clarify the connection between chaos and entanglement exposed in our previous paper [Phys. Rev. E 83, 016207 (2011)PRESCM1539-375510.1103/PhysRevE.83.016207]. We present additional computations that show the argument exposed in the Comment to explain the entangling power of some regular states is not important in the present case. More fundamentally we argue that the example chosen in the Comment is not the most significant in order to understand why specific regular dynamics can entangle as efficiently as when the corresponding classical dynamics is chaotic.

Physical Review E•Sep 23, 2015•7 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Exploring chaos in the Dicke model using ground-state fidelity and Loschmidt echo’ ”

Utso Bhattacharya, Sayak Dasgupta, Amit Dutta

Although we agree with the fact reported in García-Mata et al. [Phys. Rev. E 91, 036901 (2015)] that a computational error resulted in misinterpretation of the behavior of the ground-state fidelity only, we emphasize below that this does not alter the main conclusion of our paper. That is the main claim that we had made about the use of quantum information measures to study chaos in the Dicke model still holds true.

Physical Review E•Mar 10, 2015•1 citation

Comment on "Stable Quantum Computation of Unstable Classical Chaos"

Christof Zalka

This is a 1-page comment on a wrong paper that recently appeared in PRL (Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (23), 5393 (2001), also quant-ph/0101004). The authors claim to have shown that using a quantum computer gives an "exponential advantage" for simulating and studying classical chaotic systems.

arXiv:quant-ph/0110019•Oct 2, 2001•1 citation

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Exact solution of the wave dynamics of a particle bouncing chaotically on a periodically oscillating-wall’’’

Jorge F. Willemsen

A reexamination of the results of my earlier paper [Phys. Rev. E 50, 3116 (1994)] is supplied using entirely straightforward methods, i.e., without appealing to operator formalism. This reexamination confirms the consistency of the work in that paper by extracting a term proportional to time that Dembrinski et al. [Phys. Rev. E 53, 4243 (1996)] claim is not present. The arguments of Dembinski et al. are not refuted, but it is pointed out that they are based upon methods within which one readily encounters paradoxes such [p${\mathrm{^}}^{2}$,p^]\ensuremath{\ne}0 and [x^,p^]\ensuremath{\ne}i^. The present exposition avoids such methods. Unfortunately I am not prepared to address their numerical results. This will have to await further investigation. However, an example of numerical results of my own is presented in order to illustrate the richness of the dynamics of the model. \textcopyright{} 1996 The American Physical Society.

Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics•Jun 1, 1996•0 citations

Reply to "Comment on 'Modified quantum-speed-limit bounds for open quantum dynamics in quantum channels'"

Xin Liu, Wei Wu, Chao Wang

The authors of the comment[Phys. Rev. A 97, 046101 (2018)] raise that the inconsistency in calculating some common quantum-speed-limit (QSL) bounds, which is presented in our paper [Phys. Rev. A 95, 052118 (2017)], does not exist in their paper [Phys. Rev. A 94, 052125 (2016)]. Therefore they insist that their criticism to some QSL bounds is still valid. We demonstrate all the QSL bounds mentioned in the comment are similar in essence. We also show the inconsistency which is presented in their original paper can not be used to support their criticism. Furthermore, we exhibit although the inconsistency presented in our paper is not a same one to which is presented by the authors of the comment, it exists and be unavoidable in their example. Accordingly, we believe the result in our paper is usable in numerical calculations.

arXiv:1805.01986•May 5, 2018•0 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 A•Sep 1, 1999•2 citations
We reply to the preceding Comment that attempts to clarify the connection between chaos and entanglement exposed in our previous paper [Phys. Rev. E 83, 016207 (2011)PRESCM1539-375510.1103/PhysRevE.83.016207]. We present additional computations that show the argument exposed in the Comment to explain the entangling power of some regular states is not important in the present case. More fundamentally we argue that the example chosen in the Comment is not the most significant in order to understand why specific regular dynamics can entangle as efficiently as when the corresponding classical dynamics is chaotic.
A reexamination of the results of my earlier paper [Phys. Rev. E 50, 3116 (1994)] is supplied using entirely straightforward methods, i.e., without appealing to operator formalism. This reexamination confirms the consistency of the work in that paper by extracting a term proportional to time that Dembrinski et al. [Phys. Rev. E 53, 4243 (1996)] claim is not present. The arguments of Dembinski et al. are not refuted, but it is pointed out that they are based upon methods within which one readily encounters paradoxes such [p${\mathrm{^}}^{2}$,p^]\ensuremath{\ne}0 and [x^,p^]\ensuremath{\ne}i^. The present exposition avoids such methods. Unfortunately I am not prepared to address their numerical results. This will have to await further investigation. However, an example of numerical results of my own is presented in order to illustrate the richness of the dynamics of the model. \textcopyright{} 1996 The American Physical Society.
The authors of the comment[Phys. Rev. A 97, 046101 (2018)] raise that the inconsistency in calculating some common quantum-speed-limit (QSL) bounds, which is presented in our paper [Phys. Rev. A 95, 052118 (2017)], does not exist in their paper [Phys. Rev. A 94, 052125 (2016)]. Therefore they insist that their criticism to some QSL bounds is still valid. We demonstrate all the QSL bounds mentioned in the comment are similar in essence. We also show the inconsistency which is presented in their original paper can not be used to support their criticism. Furthermore, we exhibit although the inconsistency presented in our paper is not a same one to which is presented by the authors of the comment, it exists and be unavoidable in their example. Accordingly, we believe the result in our paper is usable in numerical calculations.