Yanget al.Reply:

Abstract

Yang et al. Reply: In the Comment, Corral points out that ''the only conclusion that can be drawn from this (i.e., our results presented in [1]) is that the seismicity time series is not uncorrelated, and there exists some dependence between magnitudes and recurrence times.'' We agree with Corral's view on how to explain our results of earthquake data analysis and the notion that a system of self-organized criticality (SOC) does not necessarily have an exponential distribution of recurrent times. In fact, the latter has been known to the geophysical community for quite a long time [2,3]. In [1] we should have stated that earthquake does not exhibit sandpile-type SOC.Corral proceeds to identify possible reasons why reshuffling the earthquake catalog will change the recurrence statistics. One of his findings is that ''when an earthquake starts, its magnitude is undetermined.'' This finding is not consistent with our analysis [1] nor with what has been well known for aftershocks: the higher the magnitude of an aftershock, the less frequently the aftershock will occur [4]. In other words, for aftershocks, the magnitude is not totally undetermined, but, rather, the magnitude is to some extent dependent on the magnitude of the main shock [4].Two separate data analyses are made in [1]. In the first one the seismicity time series is rearranged in the following way: the new time series consists of earthquakes occurring at the same instants as in the actual catalog, but the magnitudes of all quakes are drawn randomly from the Gutenberg-Richter distribution. The first-return-time probability distribution calculated from the rearranged catalog is clearly different from what is obtained from the actual catalog, strongly suggesting that the magnitude of an earthquake is not random but constrained by other quakes.The objective of [1] is to express our concerns that earthquakes being of SOC have two important implications: (i) earthquake can occur randomly anywhere at any PRL 95, 159802 (2005) P H Y S I C A L

Experimental Demonstration of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Steering Game Based on the All-Versus-Nothing Proof

“…In the AVN demonstration, inequalities are not needed [13,14], and so has been used to test nonlocality using a hyperentangled source [15][16][17]. An AVN proof for EPR steering was recently proposed for two-qubit entangled states [18], in which the different pure normalized conditional states (NCS) in one qubit were used as a criterion along with a given projective measurement on the other.…”

Birth and Death of Invading Standing Waves in the BZ‐AOT Reaction‐diffusion System

“…This is reminiscent of the backfiring behavior observed in numerics and experiments on chemical systems. [15][16][17][18] Modulated standing waves (MSW) are observed to evolve from the standing waves as a difference of phase develops within the domain. The antinodes of the lattice of standing waves are oscillating and annihilate with the waves of the neighboring antinodes.…”

Exotic superfluid of trapped Fermi gases with spin–orbit coupling in dimensional crossover

“…In general, FFLO state emerges with mismatched fermi surface of imbalanced Fermi gas. Therefore, it has been viewed as one of the most interesting superconduction phases, and is studied in various field, ranging from heavy fermions [36][37][38], organic superconductor [39] to ultracold atomic gases [40][41][42][43][44][45]. However, due to the small pairing phase space in 2D and 3D, only phase separation is observed in experiments rather than FFLO state.…”