A critique of relativity and localization

William Clemard Wineland

John Lighton Synge

Joy Christian

In this paper, I respond to a critique of one of my papers previously published in this journal, entitled “Bell’s Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space.” That paper presents a local-realistic model of quantum correlations based on a quaternionic 3-sphere, taken as a physical space in which we are confined to perform all our experiments. The critique, on the other hand, considers two entirely different models within a flat Euclidean space, neither related to my quaternionic 3-sphere model. It then criticizes its own flat space models and claims that it has thereby criticized the model presented in my paper. Along the way, without providing evidence or proof, it claims that the results in my paper are based on mistakes. I demonstrate that there are no mistakes of any kind in my paper. On the contrary, I bring out a number of elementary mathematical and conceptual mistakes from the critique and the critiques it relies on.

Arthur Stanley Eddington

Jonte R. Hance, Sabine Hossenfelder, T. N. Palmer

In a recent paper (arXiv:2107.04761), Sen critiques a superdeterministic model of quantum physics, Invariant Set Theory, proposed by one of the authors. He concludes that superdeterminism is `unlikely to solve the puzzle posed by the Bell correlations'. He also claims that the model is neither local nor $ψ$-epistemic. We here detail multiple inaccuracies with Sen's arguments - notably that the hidden-variable model of quantum physics he uses to critique Invariant Set Theory bares no relation to Invariant Set Theory - and use this opportunity to lay out the properties of Invariant Set Theory as clearly as possible.

Jay Lawrence, Markiewicz, Marcin, Marek Żukowski

In this comment we answer to the recent critique of our article [arXiv:2208.11793] about Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) by Aurélien Drezet [arXiv:2209.01237]. Here we point out that our critical analysis of RQM was precisely based on the most recent formulation of RQM, and that the theses found in the critique are based on neither RQM assumptions nor on our arguments.