Related papers: Comment on "Disassembling the Clockwork Mechanism"

Paper has been withdrawn, see comment.

As a coauthor of the article mentioned in the title, I discuss the criticism in the comment of Aalseth et al. Part of the criticism is justified.

We respond to comments in arXiv:2502.15817v2 about our article, arXiv:2412.12282. We stand by our conclusions and defend them against the criticisms.

We make a few comments on some misleading statements in the above paper.

We have reviewed the comment in [3], posted on arXiv.org concerning our recent work in [1]. We reply to the comment in this paper.

We respond to invalid criticism in the recent Comment by Schneider et al. [arXiv:1407.4127v1]

We respond to the criticisms of a recent paper of Buchert et al. [arXiv:1505.07800]

In [arXiv:2409.00161v1 (2024)] Cavendish et al. raise three criticisms against our time of arrival proposal [L. Maccone and K. Sacha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110402 (2020)]. Here we show that all three criticisms are without merit. One of…

We briefly remind references and arguments, already discussed in the past, which confute erroneous claims in arXiv:1210.5501.

In their correspondence [arXiv:1610.07633] Drummond and Brand criticize our work [Nature Physics 12, 451-454 (2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3631]. We show that their criticism is misleading and unfounded.

In this communication we refute a criticism concerning results of our work [3] that was presented in references [1] and [2].

In this paper we criticize the attempt of Maccone [Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 080401 (2009), arXiv:0802.0438] to solve the problem of the arrow of time.

I refute the criticisms of hep-ph/0311241 raised in hep-ph/0312151.

This is a critique of cond-mat/9709195 . This paper is being submitted at this time for archiving purposes.

We show an invariance principle for rescaled clocks of positive semi-stable Markov processes, proving a conjecture presented in Remark 4 in Demni, Rouault, Zani [11], 2015.

It is shown that criticism of my paper arXiv:0801.0656 Phys. Rev. Lett, vol. 101, 163202 (2008) by the authors of Comment arXiv:0810.3243v1 is wrong and that their main arguments are in contradiction with established concepts of statistical…

This reply addresses concerns expressed in a comment (arXiv:2508.16689v1) on arXiv:submit/6841332 [physics.gen-ph] 29 Sep 2025 the paper given in the title (arXiv:2501.02022v2), hereafter referred to as the paper.

This is a reply to the Comment on 'Spin Decoherence in Superconducting Atom Chips' [arXiv:quant-ph/0610095 (2006)].

A Comment on the Letter by C. R. Galley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 174301 (2013).

We offer a brief response to the criticisms put forward by Cusin et al in arXiv:1811.03582 about our work arXiv:1810.13435 and arXiv:1806.01718, emphasising that none of these criticisms are relevant to our main results.