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:hep-ph/0204362

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

Abdulaziz D Alhaidari

Published Apr 30, 2002• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.hep-ph/0204362

Related papers

Reply to "Comment on `Winding around non-Hermitian singularities' by Zhong et al., Nat. Commun. 9, 4808 (2018)"

Qi Zhong, Mercedeh Khajavikhan, Demetrios N. Christodoulides +1 more

A comment has been recently posted on the arXiv (arXiv:1902.07504) that discuss our recent work on encircling multiple exceptional points in Nat. Commun. 9, 4808 (2018). In that comment, the authors claim that our approach is prone to errors. In discussing their findings, they also indicate that a method presented by their team in Phys. Rev. A 98, 023818 (2018) (presumed to give correct results in all situations) was published prior to our work. First, we would like to note that both their work and ours were posted on the arXiv within a week from each other. Second and more importantly, as we will show below, their analysis and conclusion concerning the validity of our approach as presented in the comment article (arXiv:1902.07504) are not correct. As we will demonstrate, a proper application of our method does indeed provide the correct results.

arXiv:1903.07580•Mar 18, 2019•0 citations

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Zero angular momentum turns’ ’’

Martin H. Edwards

American Journal of Physics•Jan 1, 1988•0 citations

Reply to Comments on ‘Defining the electromagnetic potentials’

Art Davis

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.

European Journal of Physics•Oct 19, 2020•2 citations

Comment on the Note on “Orbital angular momentum and parity’’

Eugen Merzbacher

American Journal of Physics•Oct 1, 1980•5 citations

Reply to "Comment on `Noise, not squeezing, boosts synchronization in the deep quantum regime' "

Wai‐Keong Mok, L. C. Kwek, Hermanni Heimonen

In this reply we clarify the main points of our manuscript and respond to the critique in the Comment arXiv:2002.11514. In particular, we emphasize that our conclusion "squeezing loses effectiveness in the deep quantum regime" does not contradict the previous work arXiv:1801.10383, but instead adds to it, and raises fundamental questions on classifying parameter regimes for quantum synchronization. Moreover, we address the concern brought up on the validity of the master equation in the deep quantum regime, and show that our noise-enhanced synchronization differs from previous literature. Through numerical examples, we also demonstrate that the choice of ansatz, while appearing inconsistent, does not lead to erroneous conclusions. Lastly, we expound on the physics of noise-boosted synchronization, and show that it is indeed a genuine feature unique to the deep quantum regime. However, we note that single photon dissipation is a more accurate term, and will move to using that.

arXiv:2004.08827•Apr 19, 2020•1 citation

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

Yves Gingras

American Journal of Physics•Jan 1, 1980•6 citations
A comment has been recently posted on the arXiv (arXiv:1902.07504) that discuss our recent work on encircling multiple exceptional points in Nat. Commun. 9, 4808 (2018). In that comment, the authors claim that our approach is prone to errors. In discussing their findings, they also indicate that a method presented by their team in Phys. Rev. A 98, 023818 (2018) (presumed to give correct results in all situations) was published prior to our work. First, we would like to note that both their work and ours were posted on the arXiv within a week from each other. Second and more importantly, as we will show below, their analysis and conclusion concerning the validity of our approach as presented in the comment article (arXiv:1902.07504) are not correct. As we will demonstrate, a proper application of our method does indeed provide the correct results.
In this reply we clarify the main points of our manuscript and respond to the critique in the Comment arXiv:2002.11514. In particular, we emphasize that our conclusion "squeezing loses effectiveness in the deep quantum regime" does not contradict the previous work arXiv:1801.10383, but instead adds to it, and raises fundamental questions on classifying parameter regimes for quantum synchronization. Moreover, we address the concern brought up on the validity of the master equation in the deep quantum regime, and show that our noise-enhanced synchronization differs from previous literature. Through numerical examples, we also demonstrate that the choice of ansatz, while appearing inconsistent, does not lead to erroneous conclusions. Lastly, we expound on the physics of noise-boosted synchronization, and show that it is indeed a genuine feature unique to the deep quantum regime. However, we note that single photon dissipation is a more accurate term, and will move to using that.