Physical Review A

Reply to ``Comment I and Comment II on `Topological angular momentum in electron exchange excitation of a single atom' ''

Jim Williams, Luka Pravica, Sergey N. Samarin

Published Jan 9, 2013• 0 citations

Abstract

The Comments by Bartschat and Zatsarinny and by Bostock et al. on our paper [Phys Rev A 85, 022701 (2011)] are addressed. We clarify our original statement and point out that we only suggested that theory should include topological phase and did not say how to include it.

DOI: 10.1103/physreva.87.016703

Related papers

Reply to “Comment on ‘Cyclic quantum-evolution dependence on the Hamiltonian and geometrical phase’ ”

Lian-Ao Wu

I reply to the Comment [A. Mostafazadeh, Phys. Rev. A 55, 4640 (1997)] on my paper in Phys. Rev. A 53, 2053 (1996). In particular, there is nothing in the Comment except the final paragraph, which points out my two sick sentences in English. I give a simple example to explain my original meaning of the two sick English sentences and try to correct them.

Physical Review ASep 1, 19970 citations

Eggert, Gustafsson, and Rommer Reply:

Sebastian Eggert, David Gustafsson, Stefan Rommer

In a comment by A.A. Zvyagin the phase diagram in our Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 516 (2001)] was critisized of being incomplete and a new fixed point was suggested. We show that this point is in fact not a fixed point and that the phase diagram is correct as presented.

arXiv:cond-mat/0210001Physical Review LettersJul 12, 20012 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

Comment on “Legendre-transform functionals for spin-density-functional theory” [J. Chem. Phys. 124, 224108 (2006)]

A. Holas, Robert Balawender

In this Comment the authors propose an alternative formulation of the starting point to the analysis performed in the commented paper [P. W. Ayers and W. Yang, J. Chem. Phys.124, 224108 (2006)]. An important role of the z component of the vector of the total spin angular momentum operator for the considered many-electron system is indicated. The authors believe their approach to be mathematically cleaner and conceptually easier than the original treatment.

The Journal of Chemical PhysicsDec 26, 200616 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Relevance of Bell’s theorem as a signature of nonlocality: Case of classical angular momentum distributions’ ”

A. Matzkin

In this Reply, we show that the main argument of the criticism given in the preceding Comment is inconsistent with the assumption lying at the basis of the model introduced in the original paper [A. Matzkin, Phys. Rev. A 77, 062110 (2008)]. We further clarify some issues concerning the interplay between noncommuting measurements and conservation laws in order to reply to the additional criticism contained in the comment.

Physical Review AApr 10, 20090 citations

Response to ‘‘Note on ‘Ladder operators for orbital angular momentum’ ’’[Am. J. Phys. 5 6, 375(1988)]

Owen L. de Lange, R. E. Raab

American Journal of PhysicsApr 1, 19880 citations