Scharnhorst, faster than light

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter exponent137
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Faster than light Light
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the Scharnhorst effect, which proposes modifications to the speed of light in the presence of Casimir plates. Participants explore theoretical implications, potential divergences in speed at very small distances, and the relationship between light propagation and causality, with references to quantum electrodynamics (QED) calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the speed of light converges or diverges at very small distances, particularly in the context of Scharnhorst's calculations.
  • Others propose that light propagating between Casimir plates is affected by gravitational wells, suggesting it travels slower than the speed of light in a vacuum, potentially mitigating concerns about causality violations.
  • A participant notes that the increase in speed of light does not occur abruptly at a specific distance but varies as the inverse fourth power of plate separation.
  • Some contributions reference the work of Drummond and Hathrell, indicating that under certain conditions, photons may travel faster than light in a vacuum without violating causality.
  • There are discussions about the implications of measuring the speed of light at extremely small distances, with one participant suggesting that the microscopic speed of light could be infinite, influenced by virtual particles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the implications of the Scharnhorst effect, with no consensus on whether the speed of light diverges or converges at small scales. The discussion includes competing theories regarding causality and the behavior of light in various contexts.

Contextual Notes

Some claims depend on specific assumptions about the nature of light propagation and the effects of virtual particles, which remain unresolved. The applicability of certain theoretical models may also be limited to particular conditions or scales.

exponent137
Messages
563
Reaction score
35
In http://www.nat.vu.nl/~scharnh/m16newsc.htm
it is described correction to the speed of light, if a measurement is made on 1 um. But, let us ignore practical problems: what happens at very small distances. Does speed of light converge or diverge? What QED calculations show?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
BTW I have another explanation why it won't break causality.
Light (between 2 plates) is in gravitational well (because plates can't be massless in order to resist Casimir tension), hence it is propagating SLOWER than C. Magnitude of this effect is superior than Scharnhors effect itself
 
Maybe it is so.
But I asked only about theory of Scharnhors. Is it his calculation of c convergent or divergent. At 1 um it is larger 1 part in 10^36. How it is at still smaller distances?
 
exponent137 said:
In http://www.nat.vu.nl/~scharnh/m16newsc.htm
it is described correction to the speed of light, if a measurement is made on 1 um. But, let us ignore practical problems: what happens at very small distances. Does speed of light converge or diverge? What QED calculations show?

Hello exponent;
I took an interest in this some years ago...

First; the article is misleading. The increase in c doesn't just kick in at 1 u-meter; it goes as the inverse 4th power of plate separation.

I haven't reviewed recently Scharnhorst's derivation (derived independently also by G. Barton), (I have it somewhere among a gazillion files), but I can tell you that the resultant formula for the velocity of light, v, between two Casimir conducting plates goes as c plus a constant times the cos^2 times the inverse of the 4th power of the plate separation, (your interesting question forced me to look it up among my hard copies).

Obviously, this formula shows an increased c based on the modified vacuum energy density between the plates and shows that the max. velocity is normal to the plates, (cos^2 factor being the angle between the light ray propagation direction and the normal to the plates).

So in that sense any convergence is somewhat of a moot point.

(There is a factor of the inverse of the mass of electron to the 4th power in there also, making its value very tiny; and its applicablility is for the low frequency range).

More if interested.

Creator
 
Last edited:
Dmitry67 said:
BTW I have another explanation why it won't break causality.
But why are you afraid of breaking causality in the first place? If you accept the block-universe view of relativity (which you do), then the break of causality does not make any troubles.
 
Demystifier said:
An effect similar to the Scharnhost effect can also be obtained when Casimir plates are replaced by finite-temperature effects:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0301275 [Phys.Rev.D68:085008,2003]

Thanks for the link, that was one of the best reads (in QM) I've had in a while.
 
Dmitry67 said:
BTW I have another explanation why it won't break causality.
Light (between 2 plates) is in gravitational well (because plates can't be massless in order to resist Casimir tension), hence it is propagating SLOWER than C. Magnitude of this effect is superior than Scharnhors effect itself

It may interest you to know that in an oft quoted seminal paper Drummod and Hathrell have shown that in a gravitational background just the opposite can be true.

http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.22.343

"We calculate in QED the contribution to the photon effective action from one-loop vacuum polarization on a general curved background manifold, and use it to investigate the corrections to the local propagation of photons. We find that the quantum corrections introduce tidal gravitational forces on the photons which in general alter the characteristics of propagation, so that in some cases photons travel at speeds greater than unity. The effect is nondispersive and gauge invariant."

Furthermore, there is no need to make a supposition based on presumed causality violation. Here's an interesting note from CERN referencing Drummond and Hathrell and stating why it doesn't necessarily imply causality violation...
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28606

Others have come to a similar QED conclusion...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVN-3YMWNY4-8S&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F09%2F1995&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1436245201&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ee22b3b79052164d06751dbad6ef2db4

Creator
 
Last edited:
Çreator, thanks for answer.
So this divergent(!) speed of light needs similar renormalisation as mass in charge.

Feynman proposes also other aspects of changed speed of light. He also uses it at calculation of renormalisation. He mentioned this also in his book "strange theory of matter and light". He uses only a few sentences.

What happens if we measure speed of light on a very tiny distance (let say 10^-30 m) without Casimir plates. What the measurements will give?

My opinion is that microscopic speed of light is infinite. Virtual particles give it finite speed.
This variable c gives also different view on Duff, that speed of light does not exist.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
exponent137 said:
Çreator, thanks for answer.
So this divergent(!) speed of light needs similar renormalisation as mass in charge.

Feynman proposes also other aspects of changed speed of light. He also uses it at calculation of renormalisation. He mentioned this also in his book "strange theory of matter and light". He uses only a few sentences.

What happens if we measure speed of light on a very tiny distance (let say 10^-30 m) without Casimir plates. What the measurements will give?

My opinion is that microscopic speed of light is infinite. Virtual particles give it finite speed.
This variable c gives also different view on Duff, that speed of light does not exist.

If that is the case, I wouldn't expect to see the divergence until or beyond the Planck scale.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
7K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K