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

European Journal of Physics

Reply to Comments on ‘Defining the electromagnetic potentials’

Art Davis

Published Oct 19, 2020• 2 citations
Publisher

Abstract

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.
DOI
10.1088/1361-6404/abc246

Related papers

Reply to 'Comment on "Relativistic shape invariant potentials"'

Abdulaziz D Alhaidari

The points raised in the Comment are addressed and except for one error, which will be corrected, the conclusion is that all of our findings are accurate.

arXiv:hep-ph/0204362•Apr 30, 2002•0 citations

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:1508.00743•Physical Review A•Aug 31, 2015•34 citations

Reply to Comment on ‘Electromagnetic potentials without gauge transformation’

Andrew E. Chubykalo, Augusto Espinoza, Rolando Alvarado Flores

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.

Physica Scripta•Mar 22, 2012•1 citation

Comments on ’’What the electromagnetic vector potential describes’’

M. G. Calkin

American Journal of Physics•Jan 1, 1979•4 citations

Reply by N. Dinh Dang to the Comment by A. Rabhi

Nguyen Dinh Dang

It is pointed out that the ``exact'' solutions given in the recent Comment by A. Rabhi on the paper [N. Dinh Dang ``Energies of the ground state and first excited $0^{+}$ state in an exactly solvable pairing model'', Eur. Phys. Jour. A 16 (2003) 18] do not correspond to the standard exact solution of the well-known two-level pairing model. Other issues raised in the Comment reiterate the discussions already published in the original paper by N. Dinh Dang.

arXiv:nucl-th/0307077•Jul 18, 2003•0 citations

Comment on ’’What the electromagnetic vector potential describes’’

Yves Gingras

American Journal of Physics•Jan 1, 1980•6 citations
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.
It is pointed out that the ``exact'' solutions given in the recent Comment by A. Rabhi on the paper [N. Dinh Dang ``Energies of the ground state and first excited 0+0^{+}0+ state in an exactly solvable pairing model'', Eur. Phys. Jour. A 16 (2003) 18] do not correspond to the standard exact solution of the well-known two-level pairing model. Other issues raised in the Comment reiterate the discussions already published in the original paper by N. Dinh Dang.