Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1309.4990 · Annals of Physics

‘Superluminal paradox’ in wave packet propagation and its quantum mechanical resolution

D. Sokolovski, Elena V. Akhmatskaya

Published Sep 14, 2013• 26 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1016/j.aop.2013.09.003

Related papers

Superluminal delays of coherent pulses in nondissipative media: A universal mechanism

Yonathan Japha, Gershon Kurizki

We identify the universal mechanism that is responsible for superluminal (faster-than-light) traversal times as well as the narrowing of wave packets transmitted through various nondissipative media. This mechanism is shown to be predominantly destructive interference between successive wave-packet components traversing all accessible causally retarded paths. It strongly depends on wave-packet coherence and width, and can cause superluminal traversal not only in evanescent-wave ``tunneling'' but also in allowed propagation. \textcopyright{} 1996 The American Physical Society.

Physical Review A•Jan 1, 1996•92 citations

Superluminal Communication in Quantum Mechanics

Daniel J. Gauthier

Compendium of Quantum Physics•Jan 1, 2009•2 citations

The Propagation of Quantum Mechanical Wavepackets

John R. Merrill

American Journal of Physics•Sep 1, 1973•7 citations

Consistent resolution of some relativistic quantum paradoxes

Robert B. Griffiths

A relativistic version of the (consistent or decoherent) histories approach to quantum theory is developed on the basis of earlier work by Hartle, and used to discuss relativistic forms of the paradoxes of spherical wave packet collapse, Bohm's formulation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, and Hardy's paradox. It is argued that wave function collapse is not needed for introducing probabilities into relativistic quantum mechanics, and in any case should never be thought of as a physical process. Alternative approaches to stochastic time dependence can be used to construct a physical picture of the measurement process that is less misleading than collapse models. In particular, one can employ a coarse-grained but fully quantum-mechanical description in which particles move along trajectories, with behavior under Lorentz transformations the same as in classical relativistic physics, and detectors are triggered by particles reaching them along such trajectories. States entangled between spacelike separate regions are also legitimate quantum descriptions, and can be consistently handled by the formalism presented here. The paradoxes in question arise because of using modes of reasoning which, while correct for classical physics, are inconsistent with the mathematical structure of quantum theory, and are resolved (or tamed) by using a proper quantum analysis. In particular, there is no need to invoke, nor any evidence for, mysterious long-range superluminal influences, and thus no incompatibility, at least from this source, between relativity theory and quantum mechanics.

arXiv:quant-ph/0207015•Physical Review A•Dec 5, 2002•16 citations

Against Krips' Resolution of Two Paradoxes in Quantum Mechanics

Clifford Alan Hooker

Once upon a time the well-known paradoxes of quantum mechanics (one might even say the “traditional” paradoxes of quantum mechanics!—I refer here to paradoxes such as the Schrödinger cat and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox) seemed especially difficult because of the rather bizarre behavior of the wave packet under the von Neumann theory of measurement, to which behavior these paradoxical situations seemed to draw especial attention. Quite recently quantum theoretical accounts of the measurement process have been appearing which sidestep direct reference to such things as “contraction” of the wave packet (see, for example, Krips and Jauch). With this development it has become increasingly popular to take a “cool” approach to these paradoxes, arguing that the new approach to measurement provides a consistent, nonbizarre account of the physical situations and that the paradoxicality was due largely to intuitive blunders—even plausible intuitive blunders—accentuated (but also disguised) by the unfortunate features of the von Neumann approach to measurement. Both Krips and Jauch, for example, adopt this approach.

Philosophy of Science•Sep 1, 1971•3 citations

Quantum wave packet propagation

J. Broeckhove, Luc Lathouwers, Piet Van Leuven

•Jan 1, 1987•0 citations
We identify the universal mechanism that is responsible for superluminal (faster-than-light) traversal times as well as the narrowing of wave packets transmitted through various nondissipative media. This mechanism is shown to be predominantly destructive interference between successive wave-packet components traversing all accessible causally retarded paths. It strongly depends on wave-packet coherence and width, and can cause superluminal traversal not only in evanescent-wave ``tunneling'' but also in allowed propagation. \textcopyright{} 1996 The American Physical Society.
A relativistic version of the (consistent or decoherent) histories approach to quantum theory is developed on the basis of earlier work by Hartle, and used to discuss relativistic forms of the paradoxes of spherical wave packet collapse, Bohm's formulation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, and Hardy's paradox. It is argued that wave function collapse is not needed for introducing probabilities into relativistic quantum mechanics, and in any case should never be thought of as a physical process. Alternative approaches to stochastic time dependence can be used to construct a physical picture of the measurement process that is less misleading than collapse models. In particular, one can employ a coarse-grained but fully quantum-mechanical description in which particles move along trajectories, with behavior under Lorentz transformations the same as in classical relativistic physics, and detectors are triggered by particles reaching them along such trajectories. States entangled between spacelike separate regions are also legitimate quantum descriptions, and can be consistently handled by the formalism presented here. The paradoxes in question arise because of using modes of reasoning which, while correct for classical physics, are inconsistent with the mathematical structure of quantum theory, and are resolved (or tamed) by using a proper quantum analysis. In particular, there is no need to invoke, nor any evidence for, mysterious long-range superluminal influences, and thus no incompatibility, at least from this source, between relativity theory and quantum mechanics.
Once upon a time the well-known paradoxes of quantum mechanics (one might even say the “traditional” paradoxes of quantum mechanics!—I refer here to paradoxes such as the Schrödinger cat and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox) seemed especially difficult because of the rather bizarre behavior of the wave packet under the von Neumann theory of measurement, to which behavior these paradoxical situations seemed to draw especial attention. Quite recently quantum theoretical accounts of the measurement process have been appearing which sidestep direct reference to such things as “contraction” of the wave packet (see, for example, Krips and Jauch). With this development it has become increasingly popular to take a “cool” approach to these paradoxes, arguing that the new approach to measurement provides a consistent, nonbizarre account of the physical situations and that the paradoxicality was due largely to intuitive blunders—even plausible intuitive blunders—accentuated (but also disguised) by the unfortunate features of the von Neumann approach to measurement. Both Krips and Jauch, for example, adopt this approach.