Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2203.03661 · New Journal of Physics

Comment on ‘Quantum principle of relativity’

Flavio Del Santo, Sebastian Horvat

Published Dec 1, 2022• 9 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Abstract Dragan and Ekert (New J. Phys. 22 033038) have recently claimed that fundamental properties of quantum physics (e.g. fundamental indeterminism and the principle of superposition) can be derived solely from relativistic considerations, if one takes as physically meaningful superluminal reference frames. In this comment we show that their arguments are flawed and their claims therefore unwarranted.

DOI
10.1088/1367-2630/acae3b

Related papers

Comment on ‘Quantum principle of relativity’

Andrzej Grudka, Antoni Wójcik

Abstract Recently Dragan and Ekert (2020 New. J. Phys. 22 033038) presented arguments that probabilistic dynamics inherent in the realm of quantum physics is related to the propagation of superluminal particles. Moreover they argue that existence of such particles is a natural consequence of the principle of relativity. We show that the proposed extension of the Lorentz transformation can be interpreted in a natural way without invoking superluminal phenomena.

arXiv:2112.05658•New Journal of Physics•Sep 1, 2022•8 citations

Comment on ‘Quantum principle of relativity’

Ryszard Horodecki

Abstract Dragan and Ekert in the paper (2020 New. J. Phys. 22 033038) presented ‘quantum principle of relativity’ (QPR) based on Galilean principle of relativity, which involves both superluminal GS and subluminal Gs families of observers and argue that then they are considered on the same footing it ‘implies the emergence of non-deterministic dynamics, together with complex probability amplitudes and multiple trajectories.’ Here we discuss QPR in the context of Heisenberg’s classification of the fundamental physical theoretical models under the role universal constants of nature: Planck’s constant h and speed of light c. We point out that both the superluminal and subluminal branches are separable in the sense that there is no mathematical coherent formalism that connect both branches. This, in particular, implies that the QPR is incomplete.

arXiv:2301.07802•New Journal of Physics•Nov 30, 2023•7 citations

Causal Trade-Offs in Superluminal Extensions of Relativity. A no-go theorem

Amrapali Sen, Matthias Salzger, V. Vilasini

Extensions of relativity that include superluminal reference frames have recently been proposed by Dragan and Ekert as a way to reconcile relativistic symmetry with quantum uncertainty. In this work, we develop a causal modelling framework to formally study this proposal and prove a no-go theorem demonstrating that a theory permitting superluminal reference frames can avoid superluminal signalling only if it severely constrains which spacetime regions are accessible to operational protocols, if the choice of reference frame has observable consequences or if free variables do not exist or their existence depends on the reference frame. Crucially, our result goes beyond the familiar intuition that superluminal transformations may lead to superluminal signalling; our no-go result shows that Dragan and Ekert's proposal of introducing objective uncertainty does not, by itself, eliminate this conflict. In fact, because superluminal signalling might instead be avoided by relaxing other fundamental assumptions in the presence of superluminal reference frames, the proposed objective uncertainty may not be necessary at all. Our results clarify the limitations of uncertainty-based resolutions and the causal trade-offs faced by superluminal extensions of relativity.

quant-pharXiv:2610.00494•Oct 2, 2026•0 citations

Reply to Galilean invariance without superluminal particles

Andrzej Dragan, ARTUR K. EKERT

In a recent comment [arXiv:2112.05658], Grudka and Wójcik object to some of our earlier claims concerning a link between fundamental postulates of quantum theory and special relativity extended to superluminal frames of reference. In this short reply we refute these criticisms.

arXiv:2203.04141•Mar 8, 2022•0 citations

Comment on ‘Limitations on the superposition principle: superselection rules in non-relativistic quantum mechanics’

Namit Anand

This is a comment to the paper, Limitations on the superposition principle: superselection rules in non-relativistic quantum mechanics by C Cisneros et al 1998 Eur. J. Phys. 19 237. doi:10.1088/0143-0807/19/3/005. The proof that the authors construct for the limitation on the superposition of state vectors corresponding to different sectors of the Hilbert space, partitioned by a superoperator has a flaw as outlined below.

arXiv:1507.00544•European Journal of Physics•Jun 15, 2016•0 citations

Superluminal quantum reference frames

Amrapali Sen, Matthias Salzger, Łukasz Rudnicki

Abstract Particles cannot travel faster than the speed of light, nor can information. Nonetheless, this assumption has been frequently questioned over the years. This includes radical proposals like tachyons that can be observed in particle accelerators to more subtle ideas like studying superluminal causation to find classical explanations for quantum correlations. Most recently, it has been argued (Dragan and Ekert 2020 New J. Phys. 22 033038) that in a world with superluminal observers local determinism is impossible, linking the two pillars of physics-quantum theory and relativity-suggesting that the latter serves as the foundation for the former. Motivated by this approach, in this work, we extend the framework of quantum reference frames to incorporate superluminal Lorentz transformations. We apply this conceptual result to examine an apparent paradox where particles acquire negative energies after undergoing a superluminal Lorentz boost and propose a resolution within our framework. A consequence of this resolution is that different observers no longer agree whether a particle is incoming or outgoing or in a superposition of the two. We further find a similar apparent paradox for the entropy and/or temperature under superluminal Lorentz boosts and resolve it in an analogous fashion. Finally, we discuss Bell experiments under superluminal quantum reference frame transformations, showing that the involved probabilities still remain conserved. By applying the toolbox of quantum reference frames, we start charting an unexplored territory of superpositions between sub-and-superluminal quantum observers which gives rise to new conceptual questions.

New Journal of Physics•Apr 1, 2026•0 citations
Abstract Dragan and Ekert (New J. Phys. 22 033038) have recently claimed that fundamental properties of quantum physics (e.g. fundamental indeterminism and the principle of superposition) can be derived solely from relativistic considerations, if one takes as physically meaningful superluminal reference frames. In this comment we show that their arguments are flawed and their claims therefore unwarranted.
Abstract Dragan and Ekert in the paper (2020 New. J. Phys. 22 033038) presented ‘quantum principle of relativity’ (QPR) based on Galilean principle of relativity, which involves both superluminal GS and subluminal Gs families of observers and argue that then they are considered on the same footing it ‘implies the emergence of non-deterministic dynamics, together with complex probability amplitudes and multiple trajectories.’ Here we discuss QPR in the context of Heisenberg’s classification of the fundamental physical theoretical models under the role universal constants of nature: Planck’s constant h and speed of light c. We point out that both the superluminal and subluminal branches are separable in the sense that there is no mathematical coherent formalism that connect both branches. This, in particular, implies that the QPR is incomplete.
Extensions of relativity that include superluminal reference frames have recently been proposed by Dragan and Ekert as a way to reconcile relativistic symmetry with quantum uncertainty. In this work, we develop a causal modelling framework to formally study this proposal and prove a no-go theorem demonstrating that a theory permitting superluminal reference frames can avoid superluminal signalling only if it severely constrains which spacetime regions are accessible to operational protocols, if the choice of reference frame has observable consequences or if free variables do not exist or their existence depends on the reference frame. Crucially, our result goes beyond the familiar intuition that superluminal transformations may lead to superluminal signalling; our no-go result shows that Dragan and Ekert's proposal of introducing objective uncertainty does not, by itself, eliminate this conflict. In fact, because superluminal signalling might instead be avoided by relaxing other fundamental assumptions in the presence of superluminal reference frames, the proposed objective uncertainty may not be necessary at all. Our results clarify the limitations of uncertainty-based resolutions and the causal trade-offs faced by superluminal extensions of relativity.
Abstract Particles cannot travel faster than the speed of light, nor can information. Nonetheless, this assumption has been frequently questioned over the years. This includes radical proposals like tachyons that can be observed in particle accelerators to more subtle ideas like studying superluminal causation to find classical explanations for quantum correlations. Most recently, it has been argued (Dragan and Ekert 2020 New J. Phys. 22 033038) that in a world with superluminal observers local determinism is impossible, linking the two pillars of physics-quantum theory and relativity-suggesting that the latter serves as the foundation for the former. Motivated by this approach, in this work, we extend the framework of quantum reference frames to incorporate superluminal Lorentz transformations. We apply this conceptual result to examine an apparent paradox where particles acquire negative energies after undergoing a superluminal Lorentz boost and propose a resolution within our framework. A consequence of this resolution is that different observers no longer agree whether a particle is incoming or outgoing or in a superposition of the two. We further find a similar apparent paradox for the entropy and/or temperature under superluminal Lorentz boosts and resolve it in an analogous fashion. Finally, we discuss Bell experiments under superluminal quantum reference frame transformations, showing that the involved probabilities still remain conserved. By applying the toolbox of quantum reference frames, we start charting an unexplored territory of superpositions between sub-and-superluminal quantum observers which gives rise to new conceptual questions.