34,805 research outputs found

    Comment on "Mass and K Lambda coupling of N*(1535)"

    Full text link
    It is argued in [1] that when the strong coupling to the K Lambda channel is considered, Breit-Wigner mass of the lightest orbital excitation of the nucleon N(1535) shifts to a lower value. The new value turned out to be smaller than the mass of the lightest radial excitation N(1440), which effectively solved the long-standing problem of conventional constituent quark models. In this Comment we show that it is not the Breit-Wigner mass of N(1535) that is decreased, but its bare mass. [1] B. C. Liu and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 042002 (2006).Comment: 3 pages, comment on "Mass and K Lambda coupling of N*(1535)", B. C. Liu and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 042002 (2006

    Dynamical formation of stable irregular transients in discontinuous map systems

    Full text link
    Stable chaos refers to the long irregular transients, with a negative largest Lyapunov exponent, which is usually observed in certain high-dimensional dynamical systems. The mechanism underlying this phenomenon has not been well studied so far. In this paper, we investigate the dynamical formation of stable irregular transients in coupled discontinuous map systems. Interestingly, it is found that the transient dynamics has a hidden pattern in the phase space: it repeatedly approaches a basin boundary and then jumps from the bundary to a remote region in the phase space. This pattern can be clearly visualized by measuring the distance sequences between the trajectory and the basin boundary. The dynamical formation of stable chaos originates from the intersection points of the discontinuous boundaries and their images. We carry out numerical experiments to verify this mechanism.Comment: 5 pages, 5 figure

    Reply to "Comment on 'Semiquantum-key distribution using less than four quantum states' "

    Full text link
    Recently Boyer and Mor pointed out the first conclusion of Lemma 1 in our original paper is not correct, and therefore, the proof of Theorem 5 based on Lemma 1 is wrong. Furthermore, they gave a direct proof for Theorem 5 and affirmed the conclusions in our original paper. In this reply, we admit the first conclusion of Lemma 1 is not correct, but we need to point out the second conclusion of Lemma 1 is correct. Accordingly, all the proofs for Lemma 2, Lemma 3, and Theorems 3--6 are only based on the the second conclusion of Lemma 1 and therefore are correct.Comment: 1 pag
    corecore