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:2206.15247

Reply to the comment on "Quantum priniple of relativity"

Andrzej Dragan, ARTUR K. EKERT

Published Jun 30, 2022• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We refute criticisms by Del Santo and Horvat towards our paper "Quantum principle of relativity": most of their counterarguments can be dismissed, and the rest provides further evidence to our claims.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2206.15247

Related papers

Reply to Comment on ‘Quantum principle of relativity’

Andrzej Dragan, ARTUR K. EKERT

We refute criticisms by Del Santo and Horvat towards our paper "Quantum principle of relativity": most of their counterarguments can be dismissed, and the rest provides further evidence to our claims.

New Journal of Physics•Aug 1, 2023•7 citations

Reply to Comment on ‘Quantum principle of relativity’

Andrzej Dragan, ARTUR K. EKERT

We refute criticisms by Del Santo and Horvat towards our paper "Quantum principle of relativity": most of their counterarguments can be dismissed, and the rest provides further evidence to our claims.

New Journal of Physics•Sep 1, 2022•8 citations

Reply to the comment on "Quantum principle of relativity"

Andrzej Dragan, ARTUR K. EKERT

We discuss critical remarks raised by Horodecki towards our work on the connection between superluminal extension of special relativity and fundamental aspects of quantum theory.

arXiv:2309.00020•Aug 31, 2023•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

Reply to “Comment on ‘Physics without determinism: Alternative interpretations of classical physics’ ”

Flavio Del Santo, Nicolas Gisin

In this short note we reply to a Comment by Callegaro et al. [Callegaro, Pennecchi, and Bich, Phys. Rev. A 102, 036201 (2020)] that points out some weakness of the model of indeterministic physics that we proposed in our work [Del Santo and Gisin, Phys. Rev. A 100, 062107 (2019)], based on what we named ``finite information quantities'' (FIQs). While we acknowledge the merit of their criticism, we maintain that it applies only to a concrete example that we discussed in our work, whereas the main concept of FIQ remains valid and suitable for describing indeterministic physical models. We hint at a more sophisticated way to define FIQs which, taking inspiration from intuitionistic mathematics, would allow the criticisms in the preceding Comment to be overcome.

arXiv:2009.12284•Physical Review A•Sep 30, 2020•2 citations

Some remarks on quantum mechanics and relativity

E. R. Caianiello

Lettere al nuovo cimento della societa italiana di fisica/Lettere al nuovo cimento•Jan 1, 1980•41 citations
In this short note we reply to a Comment by Callegaro et al. [Callegaro, Pennecchi, and Bich, Phys. Rev. A 102, 036201 (2020)] that points out some weakness of the model of indeterministic physics that we proposed in our work [Del Santo and Gisin, Phys. Rev. A 100, 062107 (2019)], based on what we named ``finite information quantities'' (FIQs). While we acknowledge the merit of their criticism, we maintain that it applies only to a concrete example that we discussed in our work, whereas the main concept of FIQ remains valid and suitable for describing indeterministic physical models. We hint at a more sophisticated way to define FIQs which, taking inspiration from intuitionistic mathematics, would allow the criticisms in the preceding Comment to be overcome.