A little puzzled about superluminality

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter phys12345
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of superluminal transport of electromagnetic (EM) energy as reported in various mainstream journals. Participants explore the implications of these claims, particularly in relation to quantum theory and the nature of photons, while also addressing the challenges of experimental validation and theoretical rebuttals.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference papers suggesting that superluminal transport of EM energy is a quantum effect, questioning how this aligns with the probabilistic nature of quantum theory.
  • Others argue that the theoretical evidence presented in these papers lacks experimental validation and has faced rebuttals, indicating skepticism about the claims of superluminality.
  • One participant emphasizes the difficulty of conducting experiments to test EM energy velocity, suggesting that this contributes to ongoing disputes regarding the constancy of light speed.
  • Another participant asserts that without experimental evidence, claims of superluminal energy transfer remain speculative and should not be conflated with established scientific understanding.
  • Some participants reflect on the historical context of light theories, noting the evolution of concepts from Newton's particle theory to modern interpretations, which complicates the assessment of current theories.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with some supporting the idea of superluminal effects as theoretical possibilities, while others firmly reject these claims based on the lack of experimental evidence and adherence to established models. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the absence of consensus on the validity of theoretical claims regarding superluminality, the dependence on experimental evidence for establishing scientific claims, and the ongoing nature of debates surrounding the interpretation of quantum mechanics and light speed consistency.

phys12345
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Recently I read some main-stream journals reporting about superluminal transport of EM energy; they say that is a quantum effect. For example,

Phys. Rev. A 75, 042105 (2007) [4 pages]
"Theoretical evidence for the superluminality of evanescent modes"
http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v75/i4/e042105

Annalen der Physik, Volume 17, Issue 5, pages 319–325, May 2008
"Superluminal propagation of evanescent modes as a quantum effect"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=71EA4DFAA213DD3DB158976C861E2690.d04t01

If the EM energy propagates at faster-than-light speed, then the photon moves at faster-than-light speed because the photon is the carrier of energy. But in the quantum theory, they say there are no concepts about particle's location and velocity, but just probability, or energy eigen states. How to understand the results reported in the above papers?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
phys12345 said:
Recently I read some main-stream journals reporting about superluminal transport of EM energy; they say that is a quantum effect. For example,

Phys. Rev. A 75, 042105 (2007) [4 pages]
"Theoretical evidence for the superluminality of evanescent modes"
http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v75/i4/e042105

Annalen der Physik, Volume 17, Issue 5, pages 319–325, May 2008
"Superluminal propagation of evanescent modes as a quantum effect"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=71EA4DFAA213DD3DB158976C861E2690.d04t01

If the EM energy propagates at faster-than-light speed, then the photon moves at faster-than-light speed because the photon is the carrier of energy. But in the quantum theory, they say there are no concepts about particle's location and velocity, but just probability, or energy eigen states. How to understand the results reported in the above papers?

OK. If you have access to these papers, then you should also have access to the citation index. You could have done just one simple step further and look at such citation. You would have seen several rebuttals to these papers.

For example, the Phys. Rev. A paper already has several rebuttals disputing its "theoretical evidence". Read, for example, H.G. Winful Phys. Rev. A 76, 057803 (2007).

You also need to realize that "theoretical evidence" really does not have that much of a weight when it is trying to propose something new and has no experimental evidence. After all, the whole of String Theory is nothing but "theoretical evidence".

Zz.
 
ZapperZ said:
OK. If you have access to these papers, then you should also have access to the citation index. You could have done just one simple step further and look at such citation. You would have seen several rebuttals to these papers.

For example, the Phys. Rev. A paper already has several rebuttals disputing its "theoretical evidence". Read, for example, H.G. Winful Phys. Rev. A 76, 057803 (2007).

You also need to realize that "theoretical evidence" really does not have that much of a weight when it is trying to propose something new and has no experimental evidence. After all, the whole of String Theory is nothing but "theoretical evidence".

Zz.

Such experiments for testing EM energy velocity probably are extremely difficult. That is why there are still a lot of disputes about the constency of light speed so far. To tell the truth, I don't understand the details from both sides, and I just have some straightforward judgement based on fundamental principles, but I don't know if it is correct.

Sometime it is hard to say if a theory is correct or not. For example, light particle theory, which first proposed by Newton (although quite different from Einstein's photon), particle-->wave--->photon--->both.
 
phys12345 said:
Such experiments for testing EM energy velocity probably are extremely difficult. That is why there are still a lot of disputes about the constency of light speed so far. To tell the truth, I don't understand the details from both sides, and I just have some straightforward judgement based on fundamental principles, but I don't know if it is correct.

Sometime it is hard to say if a theory is correct or not. For example, light particle theory, which first proposed by Newton (although quite different from Einstein's photon), particle-->wave--->photon--->both.

There are NO disputes if you base it on what we can experimental measure. As far as I'm concerned, that is the only thing that will determine the validity of anything. Beyond that, what you have are SPECULATIONS. Are there disputes on those speculations? Sure there are! But do not confused those disputes to what we understand right now.

Besides, you should also heed what you wrote. If it is true that it is "sometime hard" to say if a theory is correct, then let's just wait till there ARE valid experimental evidence to support a theory one way or the other. And until there ARE experimental evidence to show otherwise, there are no superluminal energy transfer.

Zz.
 
The standard model does not allow superluminal energy or information transfer, and no experiment saw a deviation from that. I don't see how a theoretical paper could contribute anything surprising - you can propose thousands of new models with superluminal energy transfer (in violation of the current models of physics), but there is no indication that any of those models would be true.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Falsifications and constraints due to GW measurements
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K