Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Phase-difference operator’ ’’

Reply to "Comment on 'Phase-difference operator' "

Reply to the Comment

In the comment [1], Zanardi and Rasetti argue that several claims in our recent letter [2] are questionable. Here we show these claims remain true. Our points are that (i) the Hamiltonian (1) in Ref. [2] describes amplitude damping as well as phase damping; (ii) the free-Hamiltonian-elimination (FHE) has feasible implementation in practice and there exists a simple FHE procedure which is design...

Reply to comment.

on " Disentangling residence time and temperature sensitivity of microbial decomposition in a global soil carbon model " The authors used a reduced complexity model (one pool soil decomposition with a temperature and moisture dependency) to study the sensitivity of the carbon stock projections to first order uncertainties. The relative contributions of decomposition (k) and temperature sensitiv...

Reply to Rachlin’s comment

The primary purpose of our article was to demonstrate unambiguously that matching does not necessarily follow from maximization of overall reinforcement rate, as appears to have been suggested by some writers. Evidently, Rachlin (1979) now accepts that as some slight contribution, since he raises the question, "But are there switching patterns for which matching and maximizing are the same?" wh...

Reply to the Comment

In their comment to the paper “Theory of the evaporation/condensation transition of equilibrium droplets in finite volumes” [Physica A319, 99 (2003)], Biskup et al. claim that in finite systems at fixed density “the physical significance of the conjugate thermodynamic variable is of dubious value”. This claim is critically discussed.