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:2301.07802 · New Journal of Physics

Comment on ‘Quantum principle of relativity’

Ryszard Horodecki

Published Nov 30, 2023• 7 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.1088/1367-2630/ad10ff

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

Quantum principle of relativity

Andrzej Dragan, Artur Ekert

Abstract Quantum mechanics is an incredibly successful theory and yet the statistical nature of its predictions is hard to accept and has been the subject of numerous debates. The notion of inherent randomness, something that happens without any cause, goes against our rational understanding of reality. To add to the puzzle, randomness that appears in non-relativistic quantum theory tacitly respects relativity, for example, it makes instantaneous signaling impossible. Here, we argue that this is because the special theory of relativity can itself account for such a random behavior. We show that the full mathematical structure of the Lorentz transformation, the one which includes the superluminal part, implies the emergence of non-deterministic dynamics, together with complex probability amplitudes and multiple trajectories. This indicates that the connections between the two seemingly different theories are deeper and more subtle than previously thought.

arXiv:1910.02780•New Journal of Physics•Feb 17, 2020•28 citations

Comment on ‘Quantum principle of relativity’

Flavio Del Santo, Sebastian Horvat

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.

arXiv:2203.03661•New Journal of Physics•Dec 1, 2022•9 citations

From Kinematics to Interference: Operational Requirements for the Quantum Principle of Relativity

Mikołaj Sienicki, Krzysztof Sienicki

The quantum principle of relativity (QPR) puts forward an ambitious idea: extend special relativity with a formally superluminal branch of Lorentz-type maps, and treat the resulting consistency constraints as hints about why quantum theory has the structure it does [1]. The discussion that followed has emphasized a basic point: writing down coordinate maps is not the same thing as providing a physical theory. In particular, quantum superposition is not operationally defined by drawing multiple paths on paper: it is defined by what happens when alternatives recombine in an interference loop [2, 3]. In parallel, careful 1+1 analyses have clarified how sign conventions and time-orientation choices enter the superluminal formulas [4]. Finally, tachyonic QFT proposals suggest a possible mathematical bridge via an enlarged (twin) Hilbert space [5], although this proposal remains contested (e.g., on commutator covariance and microcausality grounds) [6]. The aim of this short note is organizational. We keep three layers separate: (K) kinematics (which maps exist and what they preserve), (O) operational content (what an experiment must actually reproduce, especially closed-loop interference), and (D/B) dynamics and bridges (how amplitudes and probabilities are generated, and how subluminal and superluminal sectors might be linked). The goal is not relativity derives quantum theory, but a clear checklist of what must be added for that ambition to become a well-posed programme.

quant-pharXiv:2512.05164•Dec 5, 2025•0 citations

Quantum Principle of Relativity

Quantum mechanics is an incredibly successful theory and yet the statistical nature of its predictions is hard to accept and has been the subject of numerous debates.The notion of inherent randomness, something that happens without any cause, goes against our rational understanding of reality.To add to the puzzle, randomness that appears in non-relativistic quantum theory tacitly respects relativity, for example, it makes instantaneous signaling impossible.Here, we argue that this is because the special theory of relativity can itself account for such a random behavior.We show that the full mathematical structure of the Lorentz transformation, the one which includes the superluminal part, implies the emergence of non-deterministic dynamics, together with complex probability amplitudes and multiple trajectories.This indicates that the connections between the two seemingly different theories are deeper and more subtle than previously thought.

WORLD SCIENTIFIC (EUROPE) eBooks•Dec 1, 2021•1 citation

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are compatible, and have a common origin: the expanding (hyper) balloon universe

Subhajit Waugh

Please download the paper and then read the abstract (since crucial formulas are not appearing in this window, and also hyperlinks are not working). This is just a brief overview: Relativity is inside the light cone phenomena, while Quantum Mechanics is outside the light cone phenomena, dictated just by the scale (i.e. whether we use classical/human scale or sub-atomic scale). This recent paper [ ‘ Quantum principle of relativity’; Andrzej Dragan, Artur Ekert, New. J. Phys. 22 (2020) 033098] has shown that every exotic Quantum effect like superposition, entanglement, probabilistic behavior, multiple paths etc. can be explained just by allowing super-luminal possibility. The 'inside the light cone' phenomena, and the 'outside the light cone' phenomena together span the entire region within the space and time axes. Only in unison they complete the entire picture. We failed to realize that the same spacetime is getting split into 'space like' and 'time like’ regions based on scale. And the reason behind this is not the magical ( ? ) speed of light. That would have turned both relativity and quantum mechanics into mere branches of electromagnetism. The true reason is much deeper and at a very fundamental level of our universe. It turns out that the c is the radial expansion velocity of our universe. But why does the transition from Relativity to Quantum Mechanics happens with decreasing size scale? That’s because, this is what is happens to spatial and temporal dimensions at different scales: 3+1 (Classical regime) <=> 2+2 (Compton regime) <=> 1+3 (Planck regime). Just as space and time exchange roles at the event horizon of a Black Hole, similarly, spatial and temporal dimensions switch roles for extremely small scales (although due to a completely different mechanism). Why this happens is difficult to expalin without the true model of our universe. But, once explained, it becomes "Why didn't I think about it before? I was plain silly!" From the center of universe viewpoint, simultaneity is absolute (as demanded by Sagnac effect), and there is indeed absolute universal time (as demanded by quantum mechanics). From our viewpoint (located at an awkward position in the universe), locality is absolute, and velocity c is the upper limit, and remains constant for every observer. This turns (our) space and time into inseparable twins, and makes (our) time a relative concept. This solves the time problem which had so stubbornly resisted the reconciliation of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity are like two sides of the same coin. But understanding the relation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity is a bit tricky, because according to General Relativity, gravity is the warping/curvature of the 4 dimensional spacetime itself. At first sight, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity seem to be utterly incompatible! But actually, Special Relativity’s big brother General Relativity only complicates things a bit, but does not become inconsistent with Quantum Mechanics altogether. The only difference between the warped spacetime of General Relativity, and the flat spacetime of Special Relativity is very similar to the difference between a stretched rubber membrane, with and without a metal ball placed on it. This paper does not sacrifice any of the spectacular success of General Relativity and also does not compromise with any of the stunningly accurate predictions of Quantum Mechanics. And yet, this paper harmoniously brings Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity together. Just bear in mind that Nature simply cannot afford to make our two greatest theories incompatible. After all, both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were based on what nature was actually telling us, and nature herself would be accountable for any genuine contradiction (but not for the breakdown of our physics due to our misunderstanding!). And, by the way, this paper solves some of the most pressing problems in both Physics & Cosmology. The 'Principle of Least Action' which comes closest to a 'Theory of Everything' arises as a direct consequence of better SpaceTime theory proposed in this paper. Also, we can see why the symmetries of nature (which gives rise to the crucial conservation principles in Physics according to the Noether's theorems) arises in the first place. Gentle reminder: Please download the paper and then read the abstract.

•Sep 28, 2022•0 citations
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.
Abstract Quantum mechanics is an incredibly successful theory and yet the statistical nature of its predictions is hard to accept and has been the subject of numerous debates. The notion of inherent randomness, something that happens without any cause, goes against our rational understanding of reality. To add to the puzzle, randomness that appears in non-relativistic quantum theory tacitly respects relativity, for example, it makes instantaneous signaling impossible. Here, we argue that this is because the special theory of relativity can itself account for such a random behavior. We show that the full mathematical structure of the Lorentz transformation, the one which includes the superluminal part, implies the emergence of non-deterministic dynamics, together with complex probability amplitudes and multiple trajectories. This indicates that the connections between the two seemingly different theories are deeper and more subtle than previously thought.
The quantum principle of relativity (QPR) puts forward an ambitious idea: extend special relativity with a formally superluminal branch of Lorentz-type maps, and treat the resulting consistency constraints as hints about why quantum theory has the structure it does [1]. The discussion that followed has emphasized a basic point: writing down coordinate maps is not the same thing as providing a physical theory. In particular, quantum superposition is not operationally defined by drawing multiple paths on paper: it is defined by what happens when alternatives recombine in an interference loop [2, 3]. In parallel, careful 1+1 analyses have clarified how sign conventions and time-orientation choices enter the superluminal formulas [4]. Finally, tachyonic QFT proposals suggest a possible mathematical bridge via an enlarged (twin) Hilbert space [5], although this proposal remains contested (e.g., on commutator covariance and microcausality grounds) [6]. The aim of this short note is organizational. We keep three layers separate: (K) kinematics (which maps exist and what they preserve), (O) operational content (what an experiment must actually reproduce, especially closed-loop interference), and (D/B) dynamics and bridges (how amplitudes and probabilities are generated, and how subluminal and superluminal sectors might be linked). The goal is not relativity derives quantum theory, but a clear checklist of what must be added for that ambition to become a well-posed programme.
Quantum mechanics is an incredibly successful theory and yet the statistical nature of its predictions is hard to accept and has been the subject of numerous debates.The notion of inherent randomness, something that happens without any cause, goes against our rational understanding of reality.To add to the puzzle, randomness that appears in non-relativistic quantum theory tacitly respects relativity, for example, it makes instantaneous signaling impossible.Here, we argue that this is because the special theory of relativity can itself account for such a random behavior.We show that the full mathematical structure of the Lorentz transformation, the one which includes the superluminal part, implies the emergence of non-deterministic dynamics, together with complex probability amplitudes and multiple trajectories.This indicates that the connections between the two seemingly different theories are deeper and more subtle than previously thought.
Please download the paper and then read the abstract (since crucial formulas are not appearing in this window, and also hyperlinks are not working). This is just a brief overview: Relativity is inside the light cone phenomena, while Quantum Mechanics is outside the light cone phenomena, dictated just by the scale (i.e. whether we use classical/human scale or sub-atomic scale). This recent paper [ ‘ Quantum principle of relativity’; Andrzej Dragan, Artur Ekert, New. J. Phys. 22 (2020) 033098] has shown that every exotic Quantum effect like superposition, entanglement, probabilistic behavior, multiple paths etc. can be explained just by allowing super-luminal possibility. The 'inside the light cone' phenomena, and the 'outside the light cone' phenomena together span the entire region within the space and time axes. Only in unison they complete the entire picture. We failed to realize that the same spacetime is getting split into 'space like' and 'time like’ regions based on scale. And the reason behind this is not the magical ( ? ) speed of light. That would have turned both relativity and quantum mechanics into mere branches of electromagnetism. The true reason is much deeper and at a very fundamental level of our universe. It turns out that the c is the radial expansion velocity of our universe. But why does the transition from Relativity to Quantum Mechanics happens with decreasing size scale? That’s because, this is what is happens to spatial and temporal dimensions at different scales: 3+1 (Classical regime) <=> 2+2 (Compton regime) <=> 1+3 (Planck regime). Just as space and time exchange roles at the event horizon of a Black Hole, similarly, spatial and temporal dimensions switch roles for extremely small scales (although due to a completely different mechanism). Why this happens is difficult to expalin without the true model of our universe. But, once explained, it becomes "Why didn't I think about it before? I was plain silly!" From the center of universe viewpoint, simultaneity is absolute (as demanded by Sagnac effect), and there is indeed absolute universal time (as demanded by quantum mechanics). From our viewpoint (located at an awkward position in the universe), locality is absolute, and velocity c is the upper limit, and remains constant for every observer. This turns (our) space and time into inseparable twins, and makes (our) time a relative concept. This solves the time problem which had so stubbornly resisted the reconciliation of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity are like two sides of the same coin. But understanding the relation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity is a bit tricky, because according to General Relativity, gravity is the warping/curvature of the 4 dimensional spacetime itself. At first sight, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity seem to be utterly incompatible! But actually, Special Relativity’s big brother General Relativity only complicates things a bit, but does not become inconsistent with Quantum Mechanics altogether. The only difference between the warped spacetime of General Relativity, and the flat spacetime of Special Relativity is very similar to the difference between a stretched rubber membrane, with and without a metal ball placed on it. This paper does not sacrifice any of the spectacular success of General Relativity and also does not compromise with any of the stunningly accurate predictions of Quantum Mechanics. And yet, this paper harmoniously brings Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity together. Just bear in mind that Nature simply cannot afford to make our two greatest theories incompatible. After all, both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were based on what nature was actually telling us, and nature herself would be accountable for any genuine contradiction (but not for the breakdown of our physics due to our misunderstanding!). And, by the way, this paper solves some of the most pressing problems in both Physics & Cosmology. The 'Principle of Least Action' which comes closest to a 'Theory of Everything' arises as a direct consequence of better SpaceTime theory proposed in this paper. Also, we can see why the symmetries of nature (which gives rise to the crucial conservation principles in Physics according to the Noether's theorems) arises in the first place. Gentle reminder: Please download the paper and then read the abstract.