Physica Scripta

Reply to Comment on ‘Electromagnetic potentials without gauge transformation’

Andrew E. Chubykalo, Augusto Espinoza, Rolando Alvarado Flores

Published Mar 22, 2012• 1 citation

Abstract

This is a reply to the criticism from Engelhardt and Onoochin of our work (2011 Phys. Scr. 84 015009): a general argument for the possibility of different solutions in different gauges unrelated to gauge transformation; a result that has been given by Engelhardt and Onoochin using examples. For this reason we are not in any sense trying to refute the statements made by Engelhardt and Onoochin, instead we are offering a possible theoretical explanation of their results.

DOI: 10.1088/0031-8949/85/04/047002

Related papers

Reply to “Comment on ‘Role of potentials in the Aharonov-Bohm effect’ ”

Lev Vaidman A

The preceding Comment challenged my claim that potentials might be just auxiliary mathematical tools and that they are not necessary for explaining physical phenomena. The Comment did not confront my explanation without the potentials of the Aharonov-Bohm effects that appeared in the original article, but stated that I cannot apply this explanation for seven other examples. In my reply, using my method, I provide explanations of one of the examples, show that two other examples are not relevant, and agree that the remaining examples require further analysis. However, I argue that none of the examples provides robust counterexamples to my claim, similar to the original Aharonov-Bohm setups which were explained in my article, so the Comment does not refute my claim.

arXiv:1508.00743Physical Review AAug 31, 201534 citations

Comment on “What is a Gauge Transformation in Quantum Mechanics?”

Nicolaas P. Landsman

A Comment on the Letter by Carlo Rovelli. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4613 (1998). The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.Received 11 August 1998DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1070©1999 American Physical Society

Physical Review LettersAug 2, 19991 citation

Reply to Comments on ‘Defining the electromagnetic potentials’

Art Davis

Abstract The two commentary articles by van Hees and Heras both reject the conclusions of our paper. Our response here shows that they address neither the issues we raised nor the reasons for our conclusions. Rather, they merely reiterate the ‘conventional approach’ as arguments against them.

European Journal of PhysicsOct 19, 20202 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Solution of the Schrödinger equation for the time-dependent linear potential’ ”

I. Guedes

In this reply I discuss further the misconception in my paper [Phys. Rev. A 63, 034102 (2001)] related to the solution of the Schr\"odinger equation for a particle in a time-dependent linear potential.

Physical Review AJul 8, 200318 citations

Reply to comments on ‘A three-level atom interacting with a single mode cavity field: different configurations’ and ‘The general formalism for a three-level atom interacting with a two-mode cavity field’

N. H. Abdel-Wahab

In this reply, I respond to the criticisms of my two papers (2007 Phys. Scr. 76 244–8 and 2007 Phys. Scr. 76 233–7) made by Hassan (2012 Phys. Scr. 85 027001). In particular, there is a correction to equation (7) in the first paper, while the second paper has no error.

Physica ScriptaJan 24, 20120 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Detuning effects in the one-photon mazer’ ”

Thierry Bastin, John Martin

We refute in this Reply the criticisms made by M. Abdel-Aty [Phys. Rev. A 70, 047801 (2004)]. We show that none of them are founded and we demonstrate very explicitly what is wrong in the arguments developed by this author.

arXiv:quant-ph/0505134Physical Review AOct 8, 20040 citations