Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical

Reply to Comment on ‘Initial states of qubit–environment models leading to conserved quantities’

Bartłomiej Gardas, Jerzy Dajka

Published Apr 2, 2014• 0 citations

Abstract

We discuss a comment recently made by C F Lo concerning validity of one of the examples used in our paper (2013 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 46 235301). While we agree with Lo's statement regarding inapplicability of the example to the proposed schema, we disagree with the claim concerning mathematical correctness of that example. We are not convinced by Lo's arguments leading to the conclusion that the model is mathematically ill-defined.

DOI: 10.1088/1751-8113/47/16/168002

Related papers

Comment on ‘Initial states of qubit–environment models leading to conserved quantities’

Chi‐Fai Lo

Recently, Gardas and Dajka (2013 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 46 235301) proposed a theoretical scheme on how to prepare a proper initial state of a composite qubit–boson system which could assure no energy exchange between the two subsystems. For illustration, they applied the proposed scheme to both the Jaynes–Cummings model and the multi-photon Rabi model. However, it has already been rigorously proven that the k -photon Rabi model for k > 2 does not have eigenstates in the Hilbert space spanned by the eigenstates of the corresponding k -photon Jaynes–Cummings model and that the two-photon Rabi model has a discrete eigenenergy spectrum with normalizable eigenstates only if the coupling strength is smaller than a critical value. Hence, the proposed theoretical scheme is not applicable to the multi-photon Rabi model.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalApr 2, 20141 citation

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 ASep 1, 19992 citations

Reply to "Comment on "On a new definition of quantum entropy""

Michele Campisi

The example provided in the comment [arXiv:0803.2241] concerns a situation where the system is initially at negative temperature. It is known that in such cases the Law of Entropy Decrease holds. Nevertheless, this does not challenge the validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

arXiv:0804.1146Apr 7, 20080 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Single-particle entanglement’ ”

S. J. van Enk

I try to rebut Drezet's arguments [Phys. Rev. A. 74, 026301 (2006)]) against the state $\ensuremath{\mid}0⟩\ensuremath{\mid}1⟩+\ensuremath{\mid}1⟩\ensuremath{\mid}0⟩$ being entangled by agreeing with them. I also address some old arguments repeated by Drezet.

Physical Review AAug 21, 200633 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Entangled entanglement’ ”

Günther Krenn, Anton Zeilinger

Expounding an argument that we have stated in Sec. IV of our paper [Phys. Rev. A 54, 1793 (1996)], we demonstrate that according to our understanding Schafir's conclusion [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 56, 4335 (1997)] is based upon a premise that is not tenable.

Physical Review ANov 1, 19973 citations

Reply to comment on ‘Real-space renormalization-group methods for hierarchical spin glasses’

Michele Castellana

Abstract In their comment, Angelini et al object to the conclusion of (2019 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 52 445002), where we show that in (2013 Phys. Rev. B 87 134201) the exponent ν has been obtained by applying a mathematical relation in a regime where this relation is not valid. We observe that the criticism above on the mathematical validity of such relation has not been addressed in the comment. Our criticism thus remains valid, and disproves the conclusions of the comment. This constitutes the main point of this reply. In addition, we provide a point-by-point response and discussion of Angelini et al ’s claims. First, Angelini et al claim that the prediction 2 1/ ν = 1 of (2019 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor . 52 445002) is incorrect, because it results from the relation λ max = 2 1/ ν between the largest eigenvalue of the linearized renormalization-group (RG) transformation and ν , which cannot be applied to the ensemble renormalization group (ERG) method, given that for the ERG λ max = 1. However, the feature λ max = 1 is specific to the ERG transformation, and it does not give any grounds for questioning the validity of the general relation λ max = 2 1/ ν specifically for the ERG transformation. Second, Angelini et al claim that ν should be extracted from an early RG regime (A), as opposed to the asymptotic regime (B) used to estimate ν in (2019 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor . 52 445002), and that (B) is dominated by finite-size effects. However, (A) is a small-wavelength, non-critical regime, which cannot characterize the critical exponent ν related to the divergence of the correlation length. Also, the fact that (B) involves finite-size effects is a feature specific to the ERG, and gives no rationale for extracting ν from (A). Finally, we refute the remaining claims made by Angelini et al As a result of our analysis, we stand by our assertion that the ERG method yields a prediction given by 2 1/ ν = 1.

arXiv:2102.06263Journal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalApr 3, 20200 citations