Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Gopalakrishnan, Martin, and Demler reply:.

Sarang Gopalakrishnan1, Ivar Martin2, Eugene A Demler1

  • 1Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA.

Physical Review Letters
|August 30, 2014
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Subexponential Decay of Local Correlations from Diffusion-Limited Dephasing.

Physical review letters·2026
Same author

Error Mitigation Thresholds in Noisy Random Quantum Circuits.

Physical review. B·2026
Same author

Theory of Stimulated and Spontaneous Axion Scattering.

Physical review letters·2026
Same author

Spontaneous Twirls and Structural Frustration in Moiré Materials.

Physical review letters·2026
Same author

Conditional Mutual Information and Information-Theoretic Phases of Decohered Gibbs States.

Physical review letters·2025
Same author

Superdiffusive Transport in Chaotic Quantum Systems with Nodal Interactions.

Physical review letters·2025

This reply addresses comments on our research, clarifying key aspects of our findings and methodology. We aim to foster constructive scientific dialogue and advance understanding in the field.

Area of Science:

  • * Scientific Communication and Peer Review
  • * Research Methodology and Interpretation

Background:

  • * Addressing specific points raised in commentaries by Sandbrink et al. and Lifshitz.
  • * Reiterating the foundational principles and data supporting our original work.

Discussion:

  • * Detailed responses to critiques regarding theoretical frameworks and experimental validation.
  • * Elucidating potential misunderstandings of our published results.

Key Insights:

  • * Confirmation of the robustness of our findings despite the raised concerns.
  • * Reinforcement of the significance of our contribution to the scientific discourse.

Outlook:

  • * Encouraging continued rigorous scientific debate and collaborative advancement.

Related Experiment Videos

  • * Highlighting the importance of precise interpretation in scientific publications.