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

arXiv:cond-mat/0102064

Comment on ``Specific heat of a Fermi system near ferromagnetic quantum phase transition'' by Grosu, Bodea, and Crisan (cond-mat/0101392)

D. Belitz, T. R. Kirkpatrick

Published Feb 5, 2001• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We comment on various incorrect claims made in a recent paper by Grosu et al. (cond-mat/0101392).
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.cond-mat/0102064

Related papers

Reply to "Comment on equivalence between quantum phase transition phenomena in radiation-matter and magnetic systems"

Liberti, Giuseppe, Rosa Letizia Zaffino

A short Reply to the Comment of Brankov, Tonchev and Zagrebnov, quant-ph/0506207, is given.

arXiv:cond-mat/0507019•Jul 1, 2005•0 citations

Reply to "Comment on `Orbital-selective Mott transitions in the anisotropic two-band Hubbard model at finite temperatures'"

C. Knecht, Nils Blümer, P. G. J. van Dongen

In a Comment [cond-mat/0506138] on our recent e-print [cond-mat/0505106] Liebsch claimed "excellent correspondence" between our high-precision quantum Monte-Carlo (QMC) data for the anisotropic two-band Hubbard model with Ising type exchange couplings and his earlier QMC results. Liebsch also claimed that the sequence of two orbital-selective Mott transitions, identified by us in this model, had already been reported in his earlier work. Here we demonstrate that both claims are incorrect. We establish that Liebsch's previous QMC estimates for the quasiparticle weight Z have relative errors exceeding 100% near transitions and cannot be used to infer the existence of a second Mott transition (for U_{c2}~2.5). We further show that Liebsch's attribution of our findings to his own earlier work is disproved by the published record. Consequently, the Comment is unwarranted; all results and formulations of our e-print remain valid.

arXiv:cond-mat/0506450•Jun 17, 2005•0 citations

On the Low‐Temperature Specific Heat of a Finite Fermi System with Random Levels Belonging to a Unitary Ensemble

Jerzy Czerwonko

physica status solidi (b)•Jan 1, 1969•1 citation

Comment on ``On loss of quantum coherence in an interacting Fermi gas'' (cond-mat/9810297)

Dmitry S. Golubev, Andrei D. Zaikin

In a recent paper \cite{EH} Eriksen and Hedegard (EH) claimed that they ``clarified'' our path integral calculation \cite{GZ1} and found an error in our analysis. Here we will demonstrate that this claim is based on mathematically incorrect and physically meaningless procedure invented by the authors \cite{EH}. The main problem in the EH analysis is due to their erroneous calculation of Gaussian path integrals and has nothing to do with the momentum recoil of a particle interacting with an external bath.

arXiv:cond-mat/9810368•Oct 27, 1998•0 citations

Reply to Brankov et al.'s "Comment on equivalence between quantum phase transition phenomena in radiation-matter and magnetic systems"

Jose Reslen, Luis Quiroga, Neil F. Johnson

Reply to Comment quant-ph/0506207 by J.G.Brankov et al.

arXiv:quant-ph/0507164•Jul 18, 2005•0 citations

Comment on ``Influence Functional for Decoherence of Interacting Electrons in Disordered Conductors'' (cond-mat/0510563v1) and on related papers (cond-mat/0510556v1 and cond-mat/0510557v1)

Dmitry S. Golubev, Andrei D. Zaikin

Recently von Delft (cond-mat/0510563v1)(JvD) has successfully re-derived our influence functional for interacting electrons and claimed that within our approach he was able to obtain the electron decoherence rate that vanishes at T=0. In this Comment we demonstrate that this JvD's claim is in error, as it is based on ambiguous and uncontrolled manipulations violating basic principles of quantum theory, such as energy-time uncertainty relation, causality, fluctuation-dissipation theorem, detailed balance and the like. We also briefly address insufficient approximations employed by Marquardt {\it et al.} (cond-mat/0510556v1) and by von Delft {\it et al.} (cond-mat/0510557v1) and demonstrate that the results of all three papers in the limit T=0 are inconsistent with simple rules of algebra.

arXiv:cond-mat/0512411•Dec 16, 2005•1 citation
In a Comment [cond-mat/0506138] on our recent e-print [cond-mat/0505106] Liebsch claimed "excellent correspondence" between our high-precision quantum Monte-Carlo (QMC) data for the anisotropic two-band Hubbard model with Ising type exchange couplings and his earlier QMC results. Liebsch also claimed that the sequence of two orbital-selective Mott transitions, identified by us in this model, had already been reported in his earlier work. Here we demonstrate that both claims are incorrect. We establish that Liebsch's previous QMC estimates for the quasiparticle weight Z have relative errors exceeding 100% near transitions and cannot be used to infer the existence of a second Mott transition (for U_{c2}~2.5). We further show that Liebsch's attribution of our findings to his own earlier work is disproved by the published record. Consequently, the Comment is unwarranted; all results and formulations of our e-print remain valid.
In a recent paper \cite{EH} Eriksen and Hedegard (EH) claimed that they ``clarified'' our path integral calculation \cite{GZ1} and found an error in our analysis. Here we will demonstrate that this claim is based on mathematically incorrect and physically meaningless procedure invented by the authors \cite{EH}. The main problem in the EH analysis is due to their erroneous calculation of Gaussian path integrals and has nothing to do with the momentum recoil of a particle interacting with an external bath.
Recently von Delft (cond-mat/0510563v1)(JvD) has successfully re-derived our influence functional for interacting electrons and claimed that within our approach he was able to obtain the electron decoherence rate that vanishes at T=0. In this Comment we demonstrate that this JvD's claim is in error, as it is based on ambiguous and uncontrolled manipulations violating basic principles of quantum theory, such as energy-time uncertainty relation, causality, fluctuation-dissipation theorem, detailed balance and the like. We also briefly address insufficient approximations employed by Marquardt {\it et al.} (cond-mat/0510556v1) and by von Delft {\it et al.} (cond-mat/0510557v1) and demonstrate that the results of all three papers in the limit T=0 are inconsistent with simple rules of algebra.