unification of relativity with quantum mechanics?

I tried my best to read and understand this, which although sounds like an interesting way to unify relativity with quantum mechanics, I confess I find an extremely difficult read and don't understand it and especially wherever it says the words "subluminal" and "superluminal" which makes me completely clueless of what they are saying.

https://phys.org/news/2020-04-relativity-source-quantum-exoticism.html

So, to any real physics experts here, my questions are:
Do you think they are really on to something there?
Or do you say they are just talking BS?
I honestly cannot tell myself and for all I know its all just BS and I would know because I don't understand it which is why I ask.

@humy said
I tried my best to read and understand this, which although sounds like an interesting way to unify relativity with quantum mechanics, I confess I find an extremely difficult read and don't understand it and especially wherever it says the words "subluminal" and "superluminal" which makes me completely clueless of what they are saying.

https://phys.org/news/2020-04-relativity ...[text shortened]... nd for all I know its all just BS and I would know because I don't understand it which is why I ask.

According to the article "subluminal" and "superluminal" are velocities... slower than light and faster than light?

Edit: I'm just guessing because 'luminosity' by itself does not suggest velocity.

@lemon-lime said
According to the article "subluminal" and "superluminal" are velocities... slower than light and faster than light?

Edit: I'm just guessing because 'luminosity' by itself does not suggest velocity.

Like you, I did wonder if it meant slower or faster than c but just wasn't sure.
It actually says 'luminal' not 'luminosity' as the postfix.
When I first googled this I got nothing.
But I just now googled it again but in a different way and this time at last found its definition and, yes, the word "subluminal" means having a speed less than c and the word "superluminal" means having a speed more than c.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subluminal#English
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/superluminal#English

They should have said in the article what it means because many readers wouldn't know.
I still am having a hard time understanding what much of the article is saying but at least that one part of it now clarified.

@humy said
I tried my best to read and understand this, which although sounds like an interesting way to unify relativity with quantum mechanics, I confess I find an extremely difficult read and don't understand it and especially wherever it says the words "subluminal" and "superluminal" which makes me completely clueless of what they are saying.

https://phys.org/news/2020-04-relativity ...[text shortened]... nd for all I know its all just BS and I would know because I don't understand it which is why I ask.

The first part is a claim that the constancy of the speed of light is not required as an axiom in Special Relativity. I'll comment on that when I've read the paper which is free to download [1].

What the Phys.org article is claiming is that the apparent non-determinism of quantum mechanics is actually due to faster than light signalling, c.f. what we were talking about in the EPR thread. Whether that's what the authors of the paper mean is another matter, although glancing at their conclusion they do seem to want to take faster than light observers seriously, at least in a theoretical sense. I'll give the paper a read over the next couple of days, it's pretty short and doesn't look especially difficult.

[1] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/ab76f7

@humy said
I tried my best to read and understand this,

I grudgingly think you are smarter than me so ....
but I've dreamt of a unification of QM and GR and
of someone being able to explain it in layman's terms.
It would be a milestone in mankind's understanding
of the Universe.

I don't know what this might mean for the OP link theory but, I find it interesting to note that, for anything (hypothetically) moving at superluminal velocities (i.e. over c), according to the time dilation equations of special relativity, it would be moving backwards in time.
This if, hypothetically (VERY hypothetically) a clock is moving over c then it would be ticking backwards! I can't think of all the true implications of that.

@humy said
Like you, I did wonder if it meant slower or faster than c but just wasn't sure.
It actually says 'luminal' not 'luminosity' as the postfix.
When I first googled this I got nothing.
But I just now googled it again but in a different way and this time at last found its definition and, yes, the word "subluminal" means having a speed less than c and the word "superluminal" means ...[text shortened]... ime understanding what much of the article is saying but at least that one part of it now clarified.

It actually says 'luminal' not 'luminosity' as the postfix.

I don't mean to nitpick (yes I do) but the word "superluminosity" shows up in the link you provided.
Anywho, I suspect luminal is used as an abbreviated way of saying light speed or speed of light.

I'm okay with new terminology just so long as they don't go crazy with it. But if I see something like
"superluminalisticexpialidocious" in my readings I shall immediately send a strongly worded letter of protest to Professor Proton... or whoever is in charge of physics these days.