Reply to "Comment on 'Why interference phenomena do not capture the essence of quantum theory' "

TL;DR

This paper defends the view that interference phenomena do not define quantum theory's core, presenting a classical-like 'toy field theory' that reproduces interference without abandoning classical worldview, and responds to critics.

Contribution

It introduces the 'toy field theory' as a classical framework reproducing interference phenomena, challenging the notion that interference captures quantum essence.

Findings

The toy field theory reproduces interference phenomenology.

Interference does not necessarily imply non-classicality.

The authors clarify misconceptions in their critics' claims.

Abstract

Our article [arXiv:2111.13727(2021)] argues that the phenomenology of interference that is traditionally regarded as problematic does not, in fact, capture the essence of quantum theory -- contrary to the claims of Feynman and many others. It does so by demonstrating the existence of a physical theory, which we term the "toy field theory", that reproduces this phenomenology but which does not sacrifice the classical worldview. In their Comment [arXiv:2204.01768(2022)], Hance and Hossenfelder dispute our claim. Correcting mistaken claims found therein and responding to their criticisms provides us with an opportunity to further clarify some of the ideas in our article.