相关论文: Reply to the comment on "Quantum priniple of relat…

In this short note I reply to criticisms of an argument in my paper [1] that appear in comment [2]. I refer the reader to section 4 of [1] in which I described the scenario of a Gedankenexperiment on which is based the argument criticized…

A. Dragan and A. Ekert [New Journal of Physics, 22(3), p.033038.] have recently claimed that fundamental properties of quantum physics (e.g. fundamental indeterminism and the principle of superposition) can be derived solely from…

We show that, contrarily to the claims in [K. Bradler, (2011), arXiv:1108.5553] (and arXiv:1201.1045), the reference [Phys. Rev. A 83, 062323 (2011)] is devoid of flaws or mistakes. We show that the criticism comes from a misunderstanding…

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.

There are some points in the reply of Horton et al. [http://stacks.iop.org/JPhysA/35/7963] to my comment [quant-ph/0202140] on their paper [quant-ph/0103114] which I cannot let stand without a response. I provide here some clarification of…

In this short paper we reply to the Comment [arXiv:1108.4543] by M. J. T. F. Cabbolet on Villata's theory of antigravity [arXiv:1103.4937]. The criticisms of methodological and ontological kind presented by that author come from a…

In a recent comment [arXiv:2112.05658], Grudka and W\'ojcik 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…

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

We address the three points raised by the authors of the above Comment.

In this manuscript we reply to the criticisms of our paper [Eur. Phys. J. A 24, 437 (2005)] raised in a recent preprint by Achasov and Kiselev [hep-ph/0606268] and demonstrate that all their criticisms are completely irrelevant and…

We develop a purely quantum theory based on the novel principle of relativity, termed the quantum principle of relativity, instead of directly applying the diffeomorphism invariance. We demonstrate that the essence of the principle can be…

A recent Comment [arXiv:0811.2790] on the Letter 'Quantum Bounce and Cosmic Recall' by the authors is shown to arise from an incorrect understanding of the issues at hand and of our analysis. The conclusions of Bojowald's Comment are shown…

The question raised by [Bastin and Martin 2003 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 36, 4201] is examined and used to explain in more detail a key point of our calculations. They have sought to rebut criticisms raised by us of certain techniques…

In this comment we answer to the recent critique of our article [arXiv:2208.11793] about Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) by Aur\'elien Drezet [arXiv:2209.01237]. Here we point out that our critical analysis of RQM was precisely based on…

Dragan and Ekert in the paper (2020 \emph{New. J. Phys.} \textbf{22} 033038) presented 'quantum principle of relativity' (QPR) based on Galilean principle of relativity, which involves both superluminal $G_S$ and subluminal $G_s$ families…

We reply to the recent comments on our published papers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 152005 and Phys. Lett. B717 (2012) 214. We point out that the criticisms about the transverse polarization parton sum rule we obtained are invalid.

We show that the local and deterministic mode of description is not only in conflict with the quantum theory, but also with relativity. We argue that elementary relativistic properties of spacetime lead to the emergence of a…

This is my reply to Zalka and Brun's criticism of my recent paper on quantum optimization heuristics. Essentially, this criticism is shown to be utterly irrelevant.

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 [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…