On the Nernst effect in fluctuating superconductors: Serbyn, Skvortsov, and Varlamov reply

TL;DR

This paper refutes claims by Sergeev et al. regarding the Nernst effect in fluctuating superconductors, demonstrating their theoretical errors and reaffirming existing thermoelectric response theories.

Contribution

The authors provide a detailed rebuttal showing that previous criticisms are unfounded due to errors, reaffirming the validity of current theoretical models.

Findings

Sergeev et al.'s claims are based on flawed theory.

Existing theories of thermoelectric response remain valid.

The rebuttal clarifies misunderstandings in the prior comment.

Abstract

This is an extended Reply to Comment by A. Sergeev, M.Y. Reizer, and V. Mitin [arXiv:0906.2389] on our Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 067001 (2009)]. We explicitly demonstrate that all claims by Sergeev et al. are completely unfounded, because their underlying theoretical work contains multiple errors and inconsistencies. For this reason, there is no need to revise the existing theories of thermoelectric response in superconductors.