English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In a comment on our article Time delays in molecular photoionization [1],Baykusheva & W\"orner reproduce canonical scattering theory, and assert thatour results are inconsistent with this well-established theory [2]. Weabsolutely refute this assertion and the spirit of the comment, although we doagree with Baykusheva & W\"orner that the textbook theory is correct. In ashort response, Response to Comment on "Time delays in molecularphotoionization" [3], we have already provided a clear rebuttal of the comment,but gave no technical details. In this fuller response we extend those briefcomments in the spirit of completeness and clarity, and provide three clearrebuttals to Baykusheva & W\"orner based on (1) logical fallacy (categoryerror), (2) theoretical details of the original article, (3) textural contentof the original article. In particular, rebuttal (1) clearly and triviallypoints to the fact that there is no issue here whatsoever, with recourse totheoretical details barely required to demonstrate this, as outlined in theshort version of our response. Our numerical results are correct and reproduceknown physical phenomena, as discussed in the original article hence, ascareful readers will recognise, the formalism used is canonical scatteringtheory, and cannot be anything other. In fact, there is no new fundamentalphysics here to dispute whatsoever, and nor was this the raison d'etre of theoriginal article. Additionally, rebuttal (2) provides the opportunity todiscuss, at length, some of these textbook aspects of photoionization theory,and we hope this discussion might be of service to new researchers enteringthis challenging field.

Response to 'Comment on "Time delays in molecular photoionization"': Extended Discussion & Technical Notes