Erratum to: “Comment on: ‘Electromagnetic wave propagation in single-wall carbon nanotubes’ [Phys. Lett. A 333 (2004) 303]” [Phys. Lett. A 364 (2007) 515]

Here we plot the correct form of Fig. 2 in [H. Khosravi, A. Moradi, Phys. Lett. A 364 (2007) 515].     

Erratum to “Entanglement in eight-qubit graph states” [Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 2219]

Some errors are corrected.     

Comment on: “Electromagnetic wave propagation in single-wall carbon nanotubes” [Phys. Lett. A 333 (2004) 303]

In a recent article [L. Wei, Y.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. A 333 (2004) 303], Li Wei and You-Nian Wang studied the propagation of electromagnetic wave in single-wall carbon nanotubes and presented different expressions of the dispersions relations of TE and TM modes, respectively. Here we have derived the correct form of the dispersion relation for TM mode on low-frequency electromagnetic wave. It is shown numerically that asymptotic behaviours of the TM and TE modes are quite similar in single-wall carbon nanotubes.     

Reply to “Comment on ‘Piezonuclear decay of thorium’ [Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956]” [Phys. Lett. A 374 (2009) 696]

In a Letter appearing in this issue of Physics Letters A, Kowalski raises some critical comments on the experiment [F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956] that we carried out by cavitating a solution of Thorium-228. The experiment highlighted the anomalous decay of Thorium, thus confirming the results previously obtained by Urutskoev et al. by explosion of titanium foils in solutions. In this Letter, we reply to these comments. We agree with Kowalski that critical comments are one of the key factors of the process to improve the quality of experiments and the interpretation of results. However we do hope that these comments together with the details provided in the replies will promote further and better experiments which are certainly worth performing in order to shed a brighter light on this issue, as Kowalski himself suggests in his comment.     

Reply to “Comment on ‘Piezonuclear decay of thorium’ [Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956]” [Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 3795]

In a paper appearing in this issue of Physics Letters A, Ericsson et al. raise some critical comments on the experiment [F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956] we carried out by cavitating a solution of thorium-228, which evidenced its anomalous decay behaviour, thus confirming the results previously obtained by Urutskoev et al. by explosion of titanium foils in solutions. In this Letter, we reply to these comments. In our opinion, the main shortcomings of the criticism by the Swedish authors are due to their omitting of inserting our experiment in the wider research stream of piezonuclear reactions, and to the statistical analysis they used, which does not comply with the rules generally accepted for samples with small numbers. However, apart from any possible theoretical speculation, there is the basic fact that two different experiments (ours and that by Urutskoev et al.), carried out independently and by different means, highlight an analogous anomaly in the decay of thorium subjected to pressure waves. Such a convergence of results shows that it is worth to further carry on experimental investigations, in order to get either a confirmation or a disproof of the induced-pressure anomalous behaviour of radioactive nuclides even different from thorium.     

Reply to: “Comment on: ‘From classical to modern ether-drift experiments: the narrow window for a preferred frame’ [Phys. Lett. A 333 (2004) 355]” [Phys. Lett A 361 (2007) 509]

We present some arguments that should induce to re-consider from a new perspective the interference experiments in moving media (Michelson–Morley, Fizeau, …). These considerations are useful to understand and appreciate the experimental test recently proposed by Guerra and de Abreu.     

Reply to “Comment on: ‘Questions concerning the generalized Hartman effect’ [Phys. Lett. A 375 (2011) 3259]”

Some questions on the generalized Hartman effect presented by Kudaka and Matsumoto [S. Kudaka, S. Matsumoto, Phys. Lett. A 375 (2011) 3259] and a comment on them given by Milanovi? and Radovanovi? are discussed.     

Erratum to “A new basis set for the description of electrons in superconductors” [Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1880]

Some typographical errors are corrected and three references are added.     

Note on “Domain wall universe in the Einstein–Born–Infeld theory” [Phys. Lett. B 679 (2009) 160]

The interaction between bulk and dynamic domain wall in the presence of a linear/non-linear electromagnetism make energy density, tension and pressure on the wall all variables, depending on the wall position. In Lee et al. (2009) [1] this fact seems to be ignored.