Comment on: “Quantum exam” [Phys. Lett. A 350 (2006) 174]

In the Letter [B.A. Nguyen, Phys. Lett. A 350 (2006) 174], a quantum exam protocol was presented. Here we show a cheating protocol, by which any student can get the other students' solution without being detected. Then we propose a possible modified protocol against this attacking strategy.     

Comment on: “Secure quantum sealed-bid auction” [Opt. Comm. 282 (2009) 1939]

In a recent paper [Opt. Comm. 282 (2009) 1939], a quantum sealed-bid auction protocol was proposed. However, in this comment, it is shown that the protocol does not complete the task of a sealed-bid auction fairly when any bidder colludes with the auctioneer.     

Comment on: “Protective measurements and Bohm trajectories” [Phys. Lett. A 263 (1999) 137]

In the above Letter, it is claimed that Bohm's mechanics can be challenged by a simple gedanken experiment involving a protecting measurement. Here we show that this gedanken experiment can be justified without problem and without contradicting the axiom attributing a physical meaning to the Bohmian trajectory.     

Comment on “A simple experiment to test Bell’s inequality”, J.-M. Vigoureux

In the above paper, it is claimed that with a particular use of the Bell inequality, a simple single photon experiment could be performed to show the impossibility of any deterministic hidden variable theory in quantum optics. A careful analysis of the concept of probability for hidden variables and a detailed discussion of the hidden variable model of de Broglie–Bohm show that the reasoning and main conclusion of this paper are not correct.     

Comment on “Questioning the Recent Observation of Quantum Hawking Radiation” [Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 2018, 530, 1700114]

The observation of quantum Hawking radiation and its entanglement in an analogue black hole was recently reported. A subsequent article presented critical comments of the study. The article suffers from technical difficulties which invalidate its claims. These include the misunderstanding of a simple Fourier transform, the unnecessary modification of experimental data, and the assertion that the experiment measured a strictly‐zero population.     

Corrections to “Space-like submanifolds in de Sitter spaces”: [J. Geom. Phys. 40 (2002) 370–378]

In this paper, we corrected some errors in [J. Geom. Phys. 40 (2002) 370]. In [J. Geom. Phys. 40 (2002) 370], the errors in Eqs. (32) and (44) influenced the conclusion of Theorem 3.1, Corollary 3.1 and Theorem 3.2.     

Erratum to “Bayesian methods for parameter estimation in effective field theories” [Ann. Phys. 324 (2009) 682–708]

We have discovered an error in the numerical calculations for the extraction of parameters from the nucleon mass “data” presented in Sections 4 and 5 of our paper [M.R. Schindler, D.R. Phillips, Ann. Phys. 324 (2009) 682. Available from: <hep-ph/0808.3643>]. We present the corrected results and discuss the implications. We stress that the material presented in Sections 1–3 of our paper [M.R. Schindler, D.R. Phillips, Ann. Phys. 324 (2009) 682. Available from: <hep-ph/0808.3643>] is unaffected.     

Comment on “Energy levels of a spherical quantum dot in a confining potential” [Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 679]

We discuss a model for a spherical quantum dot proposed recently. Our analysis shows that the quasi-exact analytical solutions derived by the authors do not support their conclusions about the validity of the model. Besides, we show that the excitation energy calculated by the authors does not appear to be physically meaningful.