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

Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Exact solution of the wave dynamics of a particle bouncing chaotically on a periodically oscillating-wall’’’

Jorge F. Willemsen

Published Jun 1, 1996• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

A reexamination of the results of my earlier paper [Phys. Rev. E 50, 3116 (1994)] is supplied using entirely straightforward methods, i.e., without appealing to operator formalism. This reexamination confirms the consistency of the work in that paper by extracting a term proportional to time that Dembrinski et al. [Phys. Rev. E 53, 4243 (1996)] claim is not present. The arguments of Dembinski et al. are not refuted, but it is pointed out that they are based upon methods within which one readily encounters paradoxes such [p${\mathrm{^}}^{2}$,p^]\ensuremath{\ne}0 and [x^,p^]\ensuremath{\ne}i^. The present exposition avoids such methods. Unfortunately I am not prepared to address their numerical results. This will have to await further investigation. However, an example of numerical results of my own is presented in order to illustrate the richness of the dynamics of the model. \textcopyright{} 1996 The American Physical Society.

DOI
10.1103/physreve.53.6585

Related papers

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Quantum chaotic system in the generalized Husimi representation’ ’’

Karol Życzkowski

The interpretation of Milburn in the preceding Comment [Phys. Rev A 39, 2749 (1989)] is confirmed in further numerical study.Received 7 December 1987DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.39.2751©1989 American Physical Society

Physical Review A•Mar 1, 1989•1 citation

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 A•Jul 8, 2003•18 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Identical motion in classical and quantum mechanics’ ”

Adam J. Makowski, S. Konkel

We show briefly that claims in the preceding Comment by Mostafazadeh [Phys. Rev. A 60, 5144 (1999)] are based mostly on an empty premise.Received 14 June 1999DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.60.5146©1999 American Physical Society

Physical Review A•Dec 1, 1999•2 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Entanglement and chaos in the kicked top' ”

M. Lombardi, A. Matzkin

We reply to the preceding Comment that attempts to clarify the connection between chaos and entanglement exposed in our previous paper [Phys. Rev. E 83, 016207 (2011)PRESCM1539-375510.1103/PhysRevE.83.016207]. We present additional computations that show the argument exposed in the Comment to explain the entangling power of some regular states is not important in the present case. More fundamentally we argue that the example chosen in the Comment is not the most significant in order to understand why specific regular dynamics can entangle as efficiently as when the corresponding classical dynamics is chaotic.

Physical Review E•Sep 23, 2015•7 citations

Further comment on ‘‘Optimization of approximate solutions to the time-dependent Schrödinger equation’’

José M. Maidagan, Rubén Darío Piacentini

We show that the Reply of Weglein [Phys. Rev. A 31, 4025 (1985)] to our previous Comment [Phys. Rev. A 31, 4023 (1985)] is not valid.Received 18 September 1985DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.35.933©1987 American Physical Society

Physical Review A•Jan 1, 1987•0 citations

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 A•Sep 1, 1997•0 citations
A reexamination of the results of my earlier paper [Phys. Rev. E 50, 3116 (1994)] is supplied using entirely straightforward methods, i.e., without appealing to operator formalism. This reexamination confirms the consistency of the work in that paper by extracting a term proportional to time that Dembrinski et al. [Phys. Rev. E 53, 4243 (1996)] claim is not present. The arguments of Dembinski et al. are not refuted, but it is pointed out that they are based upon methods within which one readily encounters paradoxes such [p{\mathrm{^}}^{2},p^]\ensuremath{\ne}0 and [x^,p^]\ensuremath{\ne}i^. The present exposition avoids such methods. Unfortunately I am not prepared to address their numerical results. This will have to await further investigation. However, an example of numerical results of my own is presented in order to illustrate the richness of the dynamics of the model. \textcopyright{} 1996 The American Physical Society.
We reply to the preceding Comment that attempts to clarify the connection between chaos and entanglement exposed in our previous paper [Phys. Rev. E 83, 016207 (2011)PRESCM1539-375510.1103/PhysRevE.83.016207]. We present additional computations that show the argument exposed in the Comment to explain the entangling power of some regular states is not important in the present case. More fundamentally we argue that the example chosen in the Comment is not the most significant in order to understand why specific regular dynamics can entangle as efficiently as when the corresponding classical dynamics is chaotic.