Doesn't QM allow for FTL travel?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Raap
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ftl Qm Travel
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of quantum mechanics (QM) and its implications for faster-than-light (FTL) travel, particularly in relation to electron behavior. Participants explore the idea that measuring an electron's position at two different times could suggest it has "traveled" faster than light, even if it does not physically move through space. However, the consensus emphasizes that while certain measurements may imply superluminal effects, relativity maintains that no information can be transmitted faster than light, preserving causality. Relevant literature, including a paper by H. Winful on "superluminal tunneling," is referenced for further exploration.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with the concept of superluminal tunneling
  • Knowledge of Einstein's theory of relativity
  • Ability to interpret scientific papers and discussions
NEXT STEPS
  • Read H. Winful's paper on "superluminal tunneling" in Phys. Rep. v.436, p.1 (2006)
  • Explore the previous thread by Zapperz on Physics Forums regarding FTL travel
  • Study the implications of quantum entanglement on information transfer
  • Investigate the concept of causality in the context of quantum mechanics and relativity
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, researchers in quantum mechanics, and anyone interested in the theoretical limits of speed and information transfer in the universe.

Raap
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
My knowledge of QM is far from great, but I can't figure out what I'm missing here.

When looking for e.g. an electron, it has a certain probability to be at a certain location, right? So how does *not* this allow for the electron to travel faster than light?

If I take two measurements, one taken with a tiny, tiny delay, couldn't I potentially find the electron at one spot with the first measurement, then with the second measurement find it on the completely opposite side, further away than light could have traveled within that small time-delay between the measurements?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I understand what you're saying, but I'm still not sure how this rules out ftl travel. Granted, the electron might not 'travel' as such, but if it appears at a location more distant than one which light could have traveled in the time between measurements, even if the electron itself didn't travel there but rather 'teleported' to or 'was found there', then it has effectively covered that distance faster than the speed of light, right?
 
I'm sorry, Raap and everyone else. I deleted my message since I wasn't happy with my explanation. I had hoped you hadn't read it yet, since I found it to be just confusing. Sorry for making the thread confusing by it's deletion.

I have found this past thread that may be of help to you. Check out Zapperz's post.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=97604

edit:

Here is another paper discussing "superluminal tunneling" written by an author of a paper mentioned in the thread above:

H. Winful, Phys. Rep. v.436, p.1 (2006).

I think the best I can do is to provide you with this "reading list" of threads and papers.:rolleyes: I'll leave the discussion and explanation to someone with more experience explaining the effect.
 
Last edited:
Sure, it will have 'traveled' faster than light if you see it here than there in a short time. But if your going into the muddy details remember that relativity says you cannot 'communicate' faster than light. Specific conditions can be contrived where objects appear to be traveling faster than light and that's fine, because you still cannot communicate faster than light and causality is maintained.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K