Does Quantum tunneling prove speeds greater than light?

[No-where-man]

Quantum tunneling and other experiments(for experimental experts)...

Please read on this website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

So,what does it mean-does it mean we can start to hope for traveling faster than light?
I also found,what some others wrote about this,from other websites:
Posted by Cangas:"We must remember this: Special Relativity was based on a postulate ( just another word for "unproven theory" ) that lightspeed is the same for all observers, which strongly implies that lightspeed is the maximum speed possible. SR does not PROVE c is maximal. It ASSUMES it.

In actual practice, particle accelerators have driven matter to speeds barely under c, and it does seem to be impossible to reach or exceed c. I have read that electrons have reached 10 mph less than c.

On the other hand, particles have been observed to execute quantum tunneling exceeding c. Entangled particles have been observed to reportedly interact exceeding c. Atomic electrons are said to instantaneously jump orbits when emitting or absorbing a photon. Although the subject is highly controversial, a contingent claims that gravity ( not gravitational waves ) must propagate at much over c.

When devising his famous set of equations, Maxwell started with standard wave mathematics and discovered that electromagetic disturbance should move through space at a speed exactly depending upon the electric permitivity and magnetic permeability of vacuum. A puzzling question is why anything else, charged particles, neutral matter, gravity, so on, would be obedient to the electromagnetic quality of space?"

Any thoughts?

 

[No-where-man]

Also,I found on other websites,that are APPARENTLY found superluminal motions of quasars,blazars and radio-galaxies:
http://en.freepedia.org/FTL.html

 

[ZapperZ]

Please read on this website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
So,what does it mean-does it mean we can start to hope for traveling faster than light?
I also found,what some others wrote about this,from other websites:
Posted by Cangas:"We must remember this: Special Relativity was based on a postulate ( just another word for "unproven theory" ) that lightspeed is the same for all observers, which strongly implies that lightspeed is the maximum speed possible. SR does not PROVE c is maximal. It ASSUMES it.

A "postulate" means something you assume in the beginning and then figure out all the consequences logically (mathematically). So far (i) all experiment have verified SR's postulates and (ii) all consequences have been verified. It isn't just an unverfied assumption.

Remember, this is physics, not mathematics. A number of principle that we use are NEVER derived via first principles, but rather a "law" that came from observation. So why pick only SR? Did someone derived the conservation of momentum?

On the other hand, particles have been observed to execute quantum tunneling exceeding c.

Be VERY careful at citing such things that have not been clearly verified. I will quote something that I've posted before:

The generally similar argument is given to the recent claim of a possible "superluminal barrier tunneling" as observed in several experiments, a claim made recently by H. Winful.[1] In this week's
Nature, M. Buttiker and S. Washburn wrote a News and Views article discussing this claim.[2] They presented what I thought to be an excellent explanation on why such claims of superluminal motion is highly misleading (people working on "quantum teleportation" should take heed). They explore what we actually mean by a pulse of light, when we actually define where the location of a pulse is, and what happens during a tunneling process that severely attenuates this pulse.

[1] H. Winful, PRL v.90, p.023901 (2003).
[2] M. Buttiker and S. Washburn, Nature v.422, p.271 (2003).

Entangled particles have been observed to reportedly interact exceeding c. Atomic electrons are said to instantaneously jump orbits when emitting or absorbing a photon.

Yet, in none of these have physicists claim that c has been violated. Why is that? Could it be you understood them wrong? Atomic orbital transition does NOT imply a change in the CLASSICAL orbits. I would hope that picture is no longer taken seriously in a more advanced forum such as this. And NO ONE working in the Bell-type experiments have ever claimed superluminal transfer of info.

Zz.

P.S. Why is a question on basic SR/QM like this posted in a "Stellar Astrophysics" forum?

 

[No-where-man]

A "postulate" means something you assume in the beginning and then figure out all the consequences logically (mathematically). So far (i) all experiment have verified SR's postulates and (ii) all consequences have been verified. It isn't just an unverfied assumption.

Remember, this is physics, not mathematics. A number of principle that we use are NEVER derived via first principles, but rather a "law" that came from observation. So why pick only SR? Did someone derived the conservation of momentum?




Be VERY careful at citing such things that have not been clearly verified. I will quote something that I've posted before:






Yet, in none of these have physicists claim that c has been violated. Why is that? Could it be you understood them wrong? Atomic orbital transition does NOT imply a change in the CLASSICAL orbits. I would hope that picture is no longer taken seriously in a more advanced forum such as this. And NO ONE working in the Bell-type experiments have ever claimed superluminal transfer of info.

Zz.

P.S. Why is a question on basic SR/QM like this posted in a "Stellar Astrophysics" forum?

Jeez,thanks a lot!