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:quant-ph/0610251

Reply to Comment on 'Spin Decoherence in Superconducting Atom Chips'

Bo-Sture Skagerstam, Ulrich Hohenester, Asier Eiguren, Per Kristian Rekdal

Published Oct 30, 2006• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

This is a reply to the Comment on 'Spin Decoherence in Superconducting Atom Chips' [arXiv:quant-ph/0610095 (2006)].
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0610251

Related papers

Comment on `Spin Decoherence in Superconducting Atom Chips'

Stefan Scheel, E. A. Hinds, P. L. Knight

We comment on a recent paper [Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 070401 (2006): quant-ph/0603229] concerning rubidium atoms trapped near a superconducting niobium surface at ~4K. This seeks to calculate the rate of atomic spin flips induced by thermal magnetic noise. We point out that the calculation is in error by a large factor because it is based on the two-fluid model of superconductivity. This model gives a poor description of electromagnetic dissipation just below the critical temperature because it cannot incorporate the case II coherences of a fuller quantum theory.

arXiv:quant-ph/0610095•Oct 12, 2006•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Consistent Quantization of Nearly Singular Superconducting Circuits’”

David Peter Divincenzo, Martin Rymarz

•Jan 1, 2025•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Consistent Quantization of Nearly Singular Superconducting Circuits’”

David Peter Divincenzo, Martin Rymarz

Physical Review X•May 15, 2025•0 citations

Reply to Comment on "Deterministic six states protocol for quantum communication" [arXiv:1107.4435v1 [quant-ph] / Phys. Lett. A 374 (2010) 1097]

Jesni Shamsul Shaari, Marco Lucamarini, Asmaʼ Ahmad Bahari

We reply to the Comment made in arXiv:1107.4435v1 [quant-ph] (Phys. Lett. A \textbf{374} (2010) 1097) by noting some erroneous considerations therein resulting in a misleading view of the quantum key distribution protocol in question. We then correct the rates provided for the Intercept-and-Resend attack and we complete the analysis of Eve's attack based on a double CNOT gate.

arXiv:1110.1170•Oct 6, 2011•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Consistent Quantization of Nearly Singular Superconducting Circuits’”

David Peter Divincenzo, Rymarz, Martin

Physical Review X•Jan 1, 2025•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
We comment on a recent paper [Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 070401 (2006): quant-ph/0603229] concerning rubidium atoms trapped near a superconducting niobium surface at ~4K. This seeks to calculate the rate of atomic spin flips induced by thermal magnetic noise. We point out that the calculation is in error by a large factor because it is based on the two-fluid model of superconductivity. This model gives a poor description of electromagnetic dissipation just below the critical temperature because it cannot incorporate the case II coherences of a fuller quantum theory.
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.