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/9811185

Reply to a Comment on "Quantum Decoherence in Disordered Mesoscopic Systems" (cond-mat/9808078, cond-mat/9808053)

Dmitry S. Golubev, Andrei D. Zaikin

Published Nov 13, 1998• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We reply to the critique of our results raised by Aleiner, Altshuler and Gershenzon (AAG) in cond-mat/9808078 and cond-mat/9808053. We demonstrate that our path integral analysis fully reproduces the results of AAG if analyzed on a perturbative level. This should settle the issue of "missing diagrams" in our calculation. We, furthermore, demonstrate that our approach allows us to proceed beyond the Golden-rule-type perturbation theory employed by AAG. This explains the difference between our and AAG's results. We also comment on the comparison of our results with the experiments presented by AAG.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.cond-mat/9811185

Related papers

Reply to “Comment on ‘Coherent-state path integrals in the continuum’”

G. Kordas, S. I. Mistakidis, A. I. Karanikas

In this Reply we briefly clarify the main points of our method to construct coherent-state path integrals in the continuum and we reply to the critique raised by in the preceding Comment by Kochetov [Phys. Rev. A 99, 026101 (2019)]. By using definite examples, we prove that our approach is capable of resolving the inconsistencies accompanying the standard coherent-state path-integral representation of interacting systems.

Physical Review A•Feb 13, 2019•3 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

Reply to Comment on " Universal Fluctuations in Correlated Systems"

S. T. Bramwell, Kim Christensen, Jean-Yves Fortin +7 more

Reply to the comment, cond-mat/0209398 by by N.W. Watkins, S.C. Chapman, and G. Rowlands

arXiv:cond-mat/0209416•Sep 17, 2002•3 citations

Reply to the Comment on "Bound States in the One-dimensional Hubbard Model"

Daniel Braak, Natan Andrei

We reply to the comment (cond-mat/9806125) by Essler, Goehmann and Korepin, and show that their points are unfounded.

arXiv:cond-mat/9806225•Jun 18, 1998•0 citations

Reply to Comment on "Quantum Coherence between High Spin Superposition States of Single Molecule Magnet Ni$_4$"

Enrique del Barco, Andrew D. Kent

Here we respond briefly to a comment on our work in arXiv:cond-mat/0405501.

arXiv:cond-mat/0405541•May 23, 2004•1 citation

Reply to the Comment by A.A. Nersesyan and A.M. Tsvelik on the "Non--Zero Fermi Level Density of States for a Disordered d-Wave Superconductor in Two Dimensions" (PRL 77, 3013 (1996)) by K. Ziegler, M.H. Hettler and P.J. Hirschfeld

K. Ziegler, Matthias H. Hettler, P. J. Hirschfeld

In a recent Comment (cond-mat/9701197) on our Letter (PRL 77, 3013 (1996), cond-mat/9604176) Nersesyan and Tsvelik questioned the relevance of our exact calculation of the density of states (DOS) of a 2D d-wave superconductor using a Lorentzian disorder distribution, claiming ``that models with Lorentzian and Gaussian disorder belong to different universality classes'', on grounds of a comparison with a straightforward perturbation expansion in the disorder potential. We showed in a very recent paper (cond-mat/9703047) that a rigorous nonzero lower bound for DOS can be established without relying on the tails of the disorder distribution, i.e. both the Gaussian and Lorentzian distributions belong to a large class of distributions which give a nonzero lower bound for the DOS. This proves that the result of our Letter is generic.

arXiv:cond-mat/9703048•Mar 5, 1997•0 citations
We reply to the critique of our results raised by Aleiner, Altshuler and Gershenzon (AAG) in cond-mat/9808078 and cond-mat/9808053. We demonstrate that our path integral analysis fully reproduces the results of AAG if analyzed on a perturbative level. This should settle the issue of "missing diagrams" in our calculation. We, furthermore, demonstrate that our approach allows us to proceed beyond the Golden-rule-type perturbation theory employed by AAG. This explains the difference between our and AAG's results. We also comment on the comparison of our results with the experiments presented by AAG.
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.
Reply to Comment on "Quantum Coherence between High Spin Superposition States of Single Molecule Magnet Ni4_44​"
In a recent Comment (cond-mat/9701197) on our Letter (PRL 77, 3013 (1996), cond-mat/9604176) Nersesyan and Tsvelik questioned the relevance of our exact calculation of the density of states (DOS) of a 2D d-wave superconductor using a Lorentzian disorder distribution, claiming ``that models with Lorentzian and Gaussian disorder belong to different universality classes'', on grounds of a comparison with a straightforward perturbation expansion in the disorder potential. We showed in a very recent paper (cond-mat/9703047) that a rigorous nonzero lower bound for DOS can be established without relying on the tails of the disorder distribution, i.e. both the Gaussian and Lorentzian distributions belong to a large class of distributions which give a nonzero lower bound for the DOS. This proves that the result of our Letter is generic.