In this revised reply to quant-ph/0211165, I address the question of the validity of my results in greater detail, by comparing my predictions to those of the Silberfarb-Deutsch model, and I deal at greater length with the beam area paradox. As before, I conclude that my previous results are an (order-of-magnitude) accurate estimate of the error probability introduced in quantum logical operations by the quantum nature of the laser field. While this error will typically (for a paraxial beam) be smaller than the total error due to spontaneous emission, a unified treatment of both effects reveals that they lead to formally similar constraints on the minimum number of photons per pulse required to perform an operation with a given accuracy; these constraints agree with those I have derived elsewhere.
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.
This is to reply to the comment of Kenigsberg and Mor on our previous work ``Efficient many-party controlled teleportation of multi-qubit quantum information via entanglement''[Phys. Rev. A 70, 022329 (2004)].
This is my reply to Zalka and Brun's criticism of my recent paper on quantum optimization heuristics. Essentially, this criticism is shown to be utterly irrelevant.
This paper includes two comments. The first one is a comment on 'Teleportation of two quNit entanglement: Exploiting local resources'. Two different efficient methods are presented to modify some details of N. Ba An's protocol, so that teleportation of two quNit entanglement can be successfully achieved in terms of the revised N. Ba An's protocol. The second one is a comment on 'Reply to Yang et al.'s comment'.
In this Reply we propose a modified security proof of the Quantum Dense Key Distribution protocol detecting also the eavesdropping attack proposed by Wojcik in his Comment.
In this reply, we show that the adiabatic theorem would break down in the weak coupling limit, and the definition for the subsystem geometric phase is well defined.
In their comment, de Almedia and Palazzo \cite{comment} discovered an error in my earlier paper concerning the construction of quantum convolutional codes (quant-ph/9712029). This error can be repaired by modifying the method of code construction.
Reply to the comment of H. J. Kimble [quant-ph/0210032] on the experiment realizing a "deterministic single-photon source for distributed quantum networking" by Kuhn, Hennrich, and Rempe [Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 067901 (2002), quant-ph/0204147].
We reply to comment on recent paper by Pieplow and Henkel (New J. Phys. 15 (2013) 023027) and our results made by Volokitin and Persson (arXiv: 1405.2525)
The Comment by Xiong et al. (arXiv:1610.06275) criticizing my Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 133903 (2016)] was rejected by Physical Review Letters. In this Reply, I show that all their claims are wrong.
A Reply to the Comment by C. Ciuti and P. Nataf [arXiv:1112.0986v1] on our Letter "Superradiant Phase Transitions and the Standard Description of Circuit QED" [Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 113602 (2011)].
This is the reply to a Comment by R. F. O'Connell (Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 028901) on a paper written by the author (B. Vacchini, ``Completely positive quantum dissipation'', Phys.Rev.Lett. 84 (2000) 1374, arXiv:quant-ph/0002094).
A comment by R. Schutzhold et al. raises possible concerns and questions regarding recent measurements of analogue Hawking radiation. We briefly reply to the opinions expressed in the comment and sustain that the origin of the radiation may be understood in terms of Hawking emission.
We reply to S. Coen and T. Sylvestre's comment on our paper [Phys. Rev. A 80, 045803 (2009)] and make some additional remarks on our experimental results.
