aqora

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Generalized saddle-point method for Feshbach resonances’ ’’

Mirosłlaw Bylicki

It is argued that the saddle-point method developed by Chung [Phys. Rev. A 20, 1743 (1979)] may be considered in the category of orthogonalization to the open-channel space, and that the generalization of the method introduced by Bylicki offers a precise prescription for implementation of the original formulation by Chung.

Physical Review AApr 1, 199010 citations

Comment on “Feshbach resonances in an optical lattice”

Roberto B. Diener, Tin-Lun Ho

We point out some logical inconsistencies in the model proposed in [Phys. Rev. A 71, 043604 (2005)] as well as in the calculations performed on it. The proposed model is not able to describe Feshbach resonances in optical lattices.

arXiv:cond-mat/0507255Physical Review AJan 4, 200610 citations

Reply to "Comment on `Theory of collective resonance fluorescence in strong driving fields' "

G. Compagno, Franco Persico

In relation to Seke's Comment, some remarks are presented concerning the qualitative agreement between the results obtained by the simple decoupling technique used by the authors and previous numerical calculation.

Physical Review ASep 1, 19842 citations

Reply to "Comment on `Feshbach resonances in an optical lattice' " (2 pages)

D. B. M. Dickerscheid

Physical Review AJan 1, 20060 citations

Reply to Comment on ``Time-dependent quasi-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the unitary quantum evolution''

Miloslav Znojil

In his fresh "Comment" (arXiv:0711.0137v1), A. Mostafazadeh reacts on my very recent letter (arXiv:0710.5653v1) where I tried to clarify certain misunderstandings which occurred in A. M., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007) [arXiv:0706.1872v2, "Paper"]. As long as the "Comment" offers a new support of the original assertions made in the "Paper", I feel obliged to re-clarify the matter by extending my argumentation. I insist that it is possible to escape the main conclusion of the "Paper", indeed. In particular, I point out a gap in the new calculations in "Comment", add a few remarks on the notation and reconfirm that the unitarity of the time-evolution DOES NOT require the time-independence of the metric operator.In his fresh "Comment" (arXiv:0711.0137v1), A. Mostafazadeh reacts on my very recent letter (arXiv:0710.5653v1) where I tried to clarify certain misunderstandings which occurred in A. M., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007) [arXiv:0706.1872v2, "Paper"]. As long as the "Comment" offers a new support of the original assertions made in the "Paper", I feel obliged to re-clarify the matter by extending my argumentation. I insist that it is possible to escape the main conclusion of the "Paper", indeed. In particular, I point out a gap in the new calculations in "Comment", add a few remarks on the notation and reconfirm that the unitarity of the time-evolution DOES NOT require the time-independence of the metric operator.

arXiv:0711.0514Nov 5, 20076 citations

Reply to "Comment on `Winding around non-Hermitian singularities' by Zhong et al., Nat. Commun. 9, 4808 (2018)"

Qi Zhong, Mercedeh Khajavikhan, Demetrios N. Christodoulides +1 more

A comment has been recently posted on the arXiv (arXiv:1902.07504) that discuss our recent work on encircling multiple exceptional points in Nat. Commun. 9, 4808 (2018). In that comment, the authors claim that our approach is prone to errors. In discussing their findings, they also indicate that a method presented by their team in Phys. Rev. A 98, 023818 (2018) (presumed to give correct results in all situations) was published prior to our work. First, we would like to note that both their work and ours were posted on the arXiv within a week from each other. Second and more importantly, as we will show below, their analysis and conclusion concerning the validity of our approach as presented in the comment article (arXiv:1902.07504) are not correct. As we will demonstrate, a proper application of our method does indeed provide the correct results.A comment has been recently posted on the arXiv (arXiv:1902.07504) that discuss our recent work on encircling multiple exceptional points in Nat. Commun. 9, 4808 (2018). In that comment, the authors claim that our approach is prone to errors. In discussing their findings, they also indicate that a method presented by their team in Phys. Rev. A 98, 023818 (2018) (presumed to give correct results in all situations) was published prior to our work. First, we would like to note that both their work and ours were posted on the arXiv within a week from each other. Second and more importantly, as we will show below, their analysis and conclusion concerning the validity of our approach as presented in the comment article (arXiv:1902.07504) are not correct. As we will demonstrate, a proper application of our method does indeed provide the correct results.

arXiv:1903.07580Mar 18, 20190 citations

Comment on ‘‘Generalized saddle-point method for Feshbach resonances’’

Abstract

Related papers

Comment on ‘‘Generalized saddle-point method for Feshbach resonances’’

Abstract

Related papers