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

Reply to ``Comment on `Similarity between quantum mechanics and thermodynamics: Entropy, temperature, and Carnot cycle' ''

Sumiyoshi Abe

Published May 26, 2015• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

In their Comment on the paper [Abe and Okuyama, Phys. Rev. E 83, 021121 (2011)], González-Díaz and Díaz-Solórzano discuss that the initial state of the quantum-mechanical analog of the Carnot cycle should be not in a pure state but in a mixed state due to a projective measurement of the system energy. Here, first the Comment is shown to miss the point. Then, second, multiple projective measurements are discussed as a generalization of the Comment, although they are not relevant to the work commented.

DOI
10.1103/physreve.91.056102

Related papers

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:0804.1146•Apr 7, 2008•0 citations

Reply to ``Comments on `There is No Axiomatic System for the Quantum Theory'''

Koji Nagata, Tadao Nakamura

Jose Acacio de Barros discusses as follows [{Jose Acacio de Barros, Int. J. Theor. Phys. {\bf 50}, 1828 (2011)}]. Nagata claims to derive inconsistencies from quantum mechanics [{K. Nagata, Int. J. Theor. Phys. {\bf 48}, 3532 (2009)}]. Jose Acacio de Barros considers that the inconsistencies do not come from quantum mechanics, but from extra assumptions about the reality of observables. Here we discuss the fact that there is a contradiction within the quantum theory. We discuss the fact that only one expected value in a spin-1/2 pure state $\langle\sigma_x\rangle$ rules out the reality of the observable. We do not accept extra assumptions about the reality of observables. We use the actually measured results of quantum measurements (raw data). We use a single Pauli observable. We stress that we can use the quantum theory even if we give up the axiomatic system for the quantum theory.

•Sep 1, 2013•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Quantum Kaniadakis entropy under projective measurement’ ”

Kamel Ourabah, Mouloud Tribeche

We rely on our proof of the nondecreasing character of quantum Kaniadakis entropy under projective measurement [Phys. Rev. E 92, 032114 (2015)PLEEE81539-375510.1103/PhysRevE.92.032114], and we put it into perspective with the results of Bosyk et al. [Quantum Inf Process 15, 3393 (2016)10.1007/s11128-016-1329-5]. Our method, adopted for the proof that Kaniadakis entropy does not decrease under a projective measurement, is based on Jensen's inequalities, while the method proposed by the authors of the Comment represents another alternative and clearly correct method to prove the same thing. Furthermore, we clarify that our interest in Kaniadakis entropy is due to the fact that this entropy has a transparent physical significance, emerging within the special relativity.

Physical review. E•Aug 12, 2016•0 citations

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Density-matrix formulation ofab initiomethods of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics’ ’’

Antonio Redondo

A missing paragraph from the original work [A. Redondo, Phys. Rev. A 39, 4366 (1989] that is being commented upon [preceding paper, Cioslowski and Levy, Phys. Rev. A 40, 6727 (1989)] is included. The relationship between this work and a theorem by Lieb [E. Lieb, Phys. Rev. Lett. 46, 457 (1981); 47, 69 (1981)] is also noted.

Physical Review A•Dec 1, 1989•2 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Measurability of nonequilibrium thermodynamics in terms of the Hamiltonian of mean force’ ”

Philipp Strasberg, Massimiliano Esposito

We refute the criticism expressed in a Comment by P. Talkner and P. Hänggi [Phys. Rev. E 102, 066101 (2020)10.1103/PhysRevE.102.066101] on our paper Phys. Rev. E 101, 050101(R) (2020)2470-004510.1103/PhysRevE.101.050101. We first make clear that our paper is free of any technical mistakes. We then defend the statements of our paper which were claimed to be taken out of context. Finally, we give clear arguments showing that the basic concepts we rely on are meaningful and have a deep rational.

arXiv:2101.00849•Physical review. E•Dec 21, 2020•4 citations

Reply to Comment on: "Fluctuation Theorem for Many-Body Pure Quantum States"

Eiki Iyoda, Kazuya Kaneko, Takahiro Sagawa

We reply to Comment by J. Gemmer, L. Knipschild, R. Steinigeweg (arXiv:1712.02128) on our paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 100601 (2017).

arXiv:1712.05172•Dec 14, 2017•1 citation
In their Comment on the paper [Abe and Okuyama, Phys. Rev. E 83, 021121 (2011)], González-Díaz and Díaz-Solórzano discuss that the initial state of the quantum-mechanical analog of the Carnot cycle should be not in a pure state but in a mixed state due to a projective measurement of the system energy. Here, first the Comment is shown to miss the point. Then, second, multiple projective measurements are discussed as a generalization of the Comment, although they are not relevant to the work commented.
Jose Acacio de Barros discusses as follows [{Jose Acacio de Barros, Int. J. Theor. Phys. {\bf 50}, 1828 (2011)}]. Nagata claims to derive inconsistencies from quantum mechanics [{K. Nagata, Int. J. Theor. Phys. {\bf 48}, 3532 (2009)}]. Jose Acacio de Barros considers that the inconsistencies do not come from quantum mechanics, but from extra assumptions about the reality of observables. Here we discuss the fact that there is a contradiction within the quantum theory. We discuss the fact that only one expected value in a spin-1/2 pure state ⟨σx⟩\langle\sigma_x\rangle⟨σx​⟩ rules out the reality of the observable. We do not accept extra assumptions about the reality of observables. We use the actually measured results of quantum measurements (raw data). We use a single Pauli observable. We stress that we can use the quantum theory even if we give up the axiomatic system for the quantum theory.
We rely on our proof of the nondecreasing character of quantum Kaniadakis entropy under projective measurement [Phys. Rev. E 92, 032114 (2015)PLEEE81539-375510.1103/PhysRevE.92.032114], and we put it into perspective with the results of Bosyk et al. [Quantum Inf Process 15, 3393 (2016)10.1007/s11128-016-1329-5]. Our method, adopted for the proof that Kaniadakis entropy does not decrease under a projective measurement, is based on Jensen's inequalities, while the method proposed by the authors of the Comment represents another alternative and clearly correct method to prove the same thing. Furthermore, we clarify that our interest in Kaniadakis entropy is due to the fact that this entropy has a transparent physical significance, emerging within the special relativity.