Quantum vacuum as origin of light speed?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around an article titled "The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light," published in the European Physical Journal D. Participants explore the implications of the article's claims regarding the statistical nature of photon propagation and its potential effects on the speed of light, including the concept of fluctuations in time of flight over distance.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference the article's claim that the propagation of a photon is a statistical process, suggesting that its time of flight may fluctuate.
  • One participant inquires about the predicted percentage of statistical fluctuation in relation to the speed of light.
  • Another participant cites a prediction from the article regarding the variance of propagation time for photons over a distance, noting that fluctuations depend on the square root of the distance crossed.
  • A participant expresses skepticism about the theory, labeling it as "crackpottery" and referencing an earlier paper by the same authors that purportedly contradicts general relativity.
  • In contrast, another participant argues against the "crackpottery" label, suggesting the theory is more "fringe" but attempts to align with existing measurements, while questioning the feasibility of the proposed dispersion affecting astronomical measurements.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the validity of the theory presented in the article, with some labeling it as fringe or crackpottery, while others defend its attempts at consistency with measurements. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of the theory on established physics.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific predictions and measurements from the article, but there are unresolved questions about the implications of these predictions on existing theories, such as general relativity. The discussion includes varying interpretations of the article's claims and their scientific validity.

lightarrow
Messages
1,966
Reaction score
64
Physics news on Phys.org
abstract says "the propagation of a photon is a statistical process at scales much larger than the Planck scale. Therefore we expect its time of flight to fluctuate." How much statistical fluctuation (what % of c) do they predict?
 
The link I quoted is to the complete paper, not just the abstract, so you can read it for yourself. They predict that the variance of the propagation time T for a photon over a distance L is σT ≈ 5 10-2 fs.m−1/2

"We note that the fluctuations vary as the square root of the distance L of vacuum crossed by the photons and are a priori independent of the energy of the photons."
 
Bill_K said:
The link I quoted is to the complete paper, not just the abstract, so you can read it for yourself. They predict that the variance of the propagation time T for a photon over a distance L is σT ≈ 5 10-2 fs.m−1/2

"We note that the fluctuations vary as the square root of the distance L of vacuum crossed by the photons and are a priori independent of the energy of the photons."

So how does the theory match your post # 4 in this thread



https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=642675
 
That other post was to correct a misunderstanding someone had about SI units.

This theory is total crackpottery. According to an earlier paper by the same authors, their theory also does away with general relativity.
 
I wouldn't necessarily say crackpottery, although I might agree with "fringe". It at least makes an attempt to be consistent with existing measurements.

That said, I can't see how they can introduce a dispersion this large and have astronomical VLBI measurements work at all. HBT might also be a problem.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K