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/0503502

Comment on the "Comment by Schwab, Blencowe, Roukes, Cleland, Girvin, Milburn, and Ekinci: quant-ph/0503018"

A. Gaidarzhy, Guiti Zolfagharkhani, Robert L. Badzey, Pritiraj Mohanty

Published Mar 19, 2005• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We show that arguments in the comment by Schwab et al. quant-ph/0503018 on our recent work are invalid.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.cond-mat/0503502

Related papers

Reply to the comment "quant-ph/9710002"

Luming Duan, Guang‐Can Guo

In the comment, Zanardi and Rasetti argue that several claims in our recent letter (Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1953, 1997) are questionable. The reply shows these claims remain true.

arXiv:quant-ph/9710014•Oct 3, 1997•1 citation

Comments on quant-ph/0609176

Wu, XiaoDi

In this note, we show the mistake which has been made in quant-ph/0609176. Further more, we provide a sketch of proof to show the impossibility of the effort of such kind toward improving the efficiency of Grover's Algorithm.

arXiv:quant-ph/0701035•Jan 8, 2007•0 citations

Reply to Comment

Ping‐Xing Chen, Lin-Mei Liang, Cheng-Zu Li +1 more

In the comment(quant-ph/0103003) Eggeling,Vollbrecht and Wolf suspect our method in quant-ph/0102133 is not practical. Here we explain our result and method and show that our example can tell one how to judge a separable state, and so our method is practical, at least for many mixed states.

arXiv:quant-ph/0103104•Mar 17, 2001•0 citations

Reply to Comment

Ping‐Xing Chen, Lin-Mei Liang, Cheng-Zu Li +1 more

In the comment(quant-ph/0103003) Eggeling,Vollbrecht and Wolf suspect our method in quant-ph/0102133 is not practical. Here we explain our result and method and show that our example can tell one how to judge a separable state, and so our method is practical, at least for many mixed states.

•Mar 17, 2001•0 citations

Comment on "Operator Quantum Error Correction"

Gerald N. Gilbert, Michael Hamrick, F. Javier Thayer +1 more

The attempt to equate operator quantum error correction (quant-ph/0504189v1) with the quantum computer condition (quant-ph/0507141) in version two of quant-ph/0504189 is shown to be invalid.

arXiv:quant-ph/0510116•Oct 17, 2005•0 citations

Reply to Comment on "Quantum mechanics for non-inertial observers"

Toro\v{s}, Marko, Gro{\ss}ardt, Andr\'e, Angelo Bassi

Our recent paper (arXiv:1701.04298 [quant-ph]) discussed the occurrence of a coupling of centre of mass and internal degrees of freedom for complex quantum systems in non-inertial frames. There, we pointed out that an external force supporting the system against gravity plays a crucial role for the coupling between center of mass position to the internal degrees of freedom. In a comment (arXiv:1702.06670 [quant-ph]) to our paper, Pikovski et al. question our conclusion and present the argument that the lack of the coupling term would be in contradiction with the observation of gravitational time dilation using atomic clocks. Here, we elaborate on our results in reply to their criticism and clarify why our arguments remain valid.

arXiv:1704.02285•Apr 7, 2017•2 citations
Our recent paper (arXiv:1701.04298 [quant-ph]) discussed the occurrence of a coupling of centre of mass and internal degrees of freedom for complex quantum systems in non-inertial frames. There, we pointed out that an external force supporting the system against gravity plays a crucial role for the coupling between center of mass position to the internal degrees of freedom. In a comment (arXiv:1702.06670 [quant-ph]) to our paper, Pikovski et al. question our conclusion and present the argument that the lack of the coupling term would be in contradiction with the observation of gravitational time dilation using atomic clocks. Here, we elaborate on our results in reply to their criticism and clarify why our arguments remain valid.