Vladimir S. Mashkevich
We argue that the claim given in quant-ph/9801014 is untenable. The fallacy in the proof is a misinterpretation of the no-cloning theorem, which does not allow quantum jumps, specifically measurements.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
继续探索
This paper shows that ordinary quantum mechanics is not consistent with the superluminal transmission of classical information.
We argue that the claim given in quant-ph/9801014 remains untenable in the revised version. The fallacy in the proof is a misinterpretation of the no-cloning and teleportation theorems, which do not involve time and reference frames.
We analyze critically a recent proposal of faster than light communication.
In a recent comment [arXiv:2112.05658], Grudka and Wójcik object to some of our earlier claims concerning a link between fundamental postulates of quantum theory and special relativity extended to superluminal frames of reference. In this short reply we refute these criticisms.
We comment on Tabesh Qureshi, "Understanding Popper's Experiment," AJP 73, 541 (June 2005), in particular on the implications of its section IV. We show, in the situation envisaged by Popper, that analysis solely with conventional non-relativistic quantum mechanics suffices to exclude the possibility of superluminal communication.
Wang, Kuzmich and Dogariu, in their 20 July, 2000, Nature article, describe an experiment ostensibly measuring superluminal speeds of 310c via a few percent shift in time of an optical pulse undergoing anomalous dispersion in a pumped medium. This paper seems to have become part of the superluminal lore and is often referenced as a profound example of superluminality. We have closely examined the article and find serious flaws that need to be addressed.
The possibility that time can be regarded as a discrete parameter is re-examined. We study the dynamics of the free particle and find in some cases superluminal propagation.
I argue that quantum mechanics is a realistic theory, but it violates either strong locality (no superluminal influences) or strict causality (diiferent effects cannot follow from the same cause).
Reply to the comment on "Quantum principle of relativity"
本文回应Horodecki的批评，讨论狭义相对论超光速扩展与量子理论基本方面的联系。
In a recent Letter (Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 010503) Barrett, Hardy and Kent (BHK) considered a very interesting question which of the fundamental laws of physics ensure security of quantum cryptographic protocols. In particular, they presented quantum key distribution protocol and claimed its security in a very general framework, which allows - what they call - postquantum eavesdropping strategies i.e. which "allows for eavesdroppers who can break the laws of quantum mechanics, as long as nothing they can do implies the possibility of superluminal signaling". In this Comment, however, we sh…
A recent claim (Deutsch and Hayden (2000)), that non-locality can be refuted by considering the evolution of the system in the Heisenberg picture, is denied. What they demonstrated was not the falsity of non-locality but the no-superluminal-signalling principle.
The title of this article is misleading. The authors have investigated a resonator but not a tunneling barrier see also Refs.\cite{Winful2} The measured superluminal group velocity and discussed is that studied on a Lorentz-Lorenz oscillator by Sommerfeld and Brillouin a hundred years ago \cite{Brillouin}. It is similar to the faster than light experiment by Wang et al. based also on anomalous dispersion with a complex refractive index of a resonator \cite{Wang}. Tunneling, however, is understood and performed by electromagnetic evanescent modes or by tunneling solutions of the Schrödinger equ…
Comment on 'Quantum principle of relativity'
本文评论 Dragan 和 Ekert 提出的量子相对性原理，指出其超光速与亚光速分支在数学上无法统一，因而该原理不完备。
A. Dragan and A. Ekert [New Journal of Physics, 22(3), p.033038.] have recently claimed that fundamental properties of quantum physics (e.g. fundamental indeterminism and the principle of superposition) can be derived solely from relativistic considerations, if one takes as physically meaningful superluminal reference frames. In this comment we show that their arguments are flawed and their claims therefore unwarranted.
In Phys. Rev. A 101, 022117 (2020), it was argued that Bell inequalities are based on classical, not quantum, physics, and hence their violation in experiments provides no support for the claimed existence of peculiar nonlocal and superluminal influences in the real (quantum) world. This Reply to Lambare's Comment, Phys. Rev. A 104, 066201 (2021), on that paper seeks to clarify some issues related to the correct use of Hilbert space quantum mechanics for identifying the microscopic causes of later macroscopic measurement outcomes, a matter not properly addressed by Bell, who used classical hid…
If YES, then we can look forward to physical realization of superluminal communication, as the original considerations of the ``no-cloning'' theorem were motivated in part as an explanation of why certain schemes for superluminal signaling cannot work. If NO, then it would seem that some aspects of the ``hidden'' variables must be ``intrinsically hidden'', i.e., ``unknowable'', such that ``hidden-variable'' theories belong more to the ``idealist'' than to the ``realist'' school of thought. I pose this question without proposing a definite answer. I am unaware of any commentary on this topic du…
Contrary to the opinion of J. Polchinski [Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 66}, 397-400 (1991)], the phenomenon of superluminal messages in nonlinear versions of quantum mechanics is not a specific difficulty in a class of theories formulated by S. Weinberg [Ann.Phys. (N.Y.), {\bf 194}, 336-386 (1989)]. It appears in all schemes which try to enlarge the orthodox class of observables, while conserving the traditional structure of the pure and mixed states.
We comment on the article of Ch. Simon, V. Buzek and N. Gisin: ``No-Signaling Condition and Quantum Dynamics'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 170405, which argues that linearity of quantum mechanics follows from lack of superluminal signals and some usual hypotheses about measurements. We argue that such assumptions in the end are ineffective as an explanation of the linearity of quantum mechanics.
A recent paper by G. Nimtz and A. A. Stahlhofen [arXiv:0708.0681v1] makes the following claims: (1) that the authors have observed a macroscopic violation of special relativity, (2) that they have demonstrated quantum mechanical behavior of evanescent modes on a meter-length scale, and (3) that barriers are crossed in zero time, implying superluminal (faster than light), and indeed, infinite tunneling velocity. Here I suggest that all these claims are erroneous and are based on a misinterpretation of a purely classical measurement accurately described by Maxwell's equations.
扫码添加微信好友，提出您的宝贵建议 👇
💡 备注请填写：网站反馈
发表机构由 AI 从论文文本抽取，如发现错误，欢迎反馈修正建议。