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

Journal de Physique I

Comment on “Photonic tunneling times"

Aephraim M. Steinberg

Published Dec 1, 1994• 12 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In [1], some misleading statements were made about [2] and “zero-time" tunneling. We criticize these claims.
DOI
10.1051/jp1:1994222

Related papers

Comment On Zero Time Tunneling

Guenter Nimtz, Horst Aichmann

•May 31, 2019•0 citations

Li et al. Reply:

Xin Li, Sooran Kim, Xi Chen +1 more

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.

arXiv:2003.03992•Physical Review Letters•Mar 12, 2020•13 citations

Reply to Comment on 'The quantum mechanical tunnelling time problem-revisited'

David Lowe, Stephen P. Collins

Journal of Physics C Solid State Physics•Dec 30, 1988•8 citations

A classical simulation of nonlinear Jaynes–Cummings and Rabi models in photonic lattices: reply to comment

B. M. Rodríguez-Lara, Francisco Soto, Alejandro Zárate Cárdenas +1 more

We regret that such a misleading comment [Opt. Express (2013)] has been made to our paper. First Lo states in his abstract that "However, the nonlinear Rabi model has already been rigorously proven to be undefined" to later recoil and use the contradictory statement "(. . . ) regarding the BS model with the counter-rotating terms (. . . ) Lo and his co-authors have proven that the model is well defined only if the coupling stregth g is smaller than a critical value gc = ω/4". While Lo focuses on the validity of the quantum optics Hamiltonians and gives a misleading assesment of our manuscript, the focus of our paper is the method to map such a set of Hamiltonians from quantum optics to photonic lattices. Our method is valid for the given class of Hamiltonians and, indeed, precaution must be exerted on the paramater ranges where those Hamiltonians are valid and where their classical simulation is feasible. These parameter ranges have to be specified in for each particular case studied. Furthermore, we gave as example the Buck-Sukumar model including counter-rotating terms which is a valid Hamiltonian for some coupling parameters.

Optics Express•Jan 17, 2014•6 citations

Comment on "Quantum tunneling time" (2 pages)

G. E. Hahne

Physical Review A•Jan 1, 2005•0 citations

Some Basic Questions Concerning Quantum Tunneling

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Jan 1, 2003•0 citations
We regret that such a misleading comment [Opt. Express (2013)] has been made to our paper. First Lo states in his abstract that "However, the nonlinear Rabi model has already been rigorously proven to be undefined" to later recoil and use the contradictory statement "(. . . ) regarding the BS model with the counter-rotating terms (. . . ) Lo and his co-authors have proven that the model is well defined only if the coupling stregth g is smaller than a critical value gc = ω/4". While Lo focuses on the validity of the quantum optics Hamiltonians and gives a misleading assesment of our manuscript, the focus of our paper is the method to map such a set of Hamiltonians from quantum optics to photonic lattices. Our method is valid for the given class of Hamiltonians and, indeed, precaution must be exerted on the paramater ranges where those Hamiltonians are valid and where their classical simulation is feasible. These parameter ranges have to be specified in for each particular case studied. Furthermore, we gave as example the Buck-Sukumar model including counter-rotating terms which is a valid Hamiltonian for some coupling parameters.