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

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Can Single Quantum Events Carry Superluminal Signals?

Nick Herbert

Published Dec 1, 1986• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1111/j.1749-6632.1986.tb12465.x

Related papers

Can Bessel beams carry superluminal signals?

Thilo Sauter, Fritz Paschke

Physics Letters A•Jun 1, 2001•15 citations

Superluminal signals in quantum Optics

B. A. V Eklenko

Сборник тезисов конференции «Complex Systems of Charged Particles and their Interactions with Electromagnetic Radiation»•Jan 1, 2016•1 citation

Energy, Information, and Superluminal Speed in Quantum Electrodynamics

B. A. Veklenko

Without using the perturbation theory, the article demonstrates a possibility of superluminal information-carrying signals in standard quantum electrodynamics using the example of scattering of quantum electromagnetic field by an excited atom.

Light & Engineering•Aug 1, 2020•0 citations

Is Superluminal Signaling Possible in Collapse Theories of Quantum Mechanics?

Shan Gao

Foundations of Physics•Sep 23, 2023•0 citations

Nonlocal Quantum Information Transfer Without Superluminal Signalling and Communication

Jan Walleczek, Gerhard Grössing

It is a frequent assumption that—via superluminal information transfers—superluminal signals capable of enabling communication are necessarily exchanged in any quantum theory that posits hidden superluminal influences. However, does the presence of hidden superluminal influences automatically imply superluminal signalling and communication? The non-signalling theorem mediates the apparent conflict between quantum mechanics and the theory of special relativity. However, as a ‘no-go’ theorem there exist two opposing interpretations of the non-signalling constraint: foundational and operational. Concerning Bell’s theorem, we argue that Bell employed both interpretations, and that he finally adopted the operational position which is associated often with ontological quantum theory, e.g., de Broglie–Bohm theory. This position we refer to as “effective non-signalling”. By contrast, associated with orthodox quantum mechanics is the foundational position referred to here as “axiomatic non-signalling”. In search of a decisive communication-theoretic criterion for differentiating between “axiomatic” and “effective” non-signalling, we employ the operational framework offered by Shannon’s mathematical theory of communication, whereby we distinguish between Shannon signals and non-Shannon signals. We find that an effective non-signalling theorem represents two sub-theorems: (1) Non-transfer-control (NTC) theorem, and (2) Non-signification-control (NSC) theorem. Employing NTC and NSC theorems, we report that effective, instead of axiomatic, non-signalling is entirely sufficient for prohibiting nonlocal communication. Effective non-signalling prevents the instantaneous, i.e., superluminal, transfer of message-encoded information through the controlled use—by a sender-receiver pair —of informationally-correlated detection events, e.g., in EPR-type experiments. An effective non-signalling theorem allows for nonlocal quantum information transfer yet—at the same time—effectively denies superluminal signalling and communication.

arXiv:1501.07177•Foundations of Physics•Jan 29, 2016•17 citations

Jamming Extensions of Quantum Correlations Lead to Hidden Superluminal Signaling

Ravishankar Ramanathan, Xie Sicheng, Michał Eckstein +1 more

Relativistic causality in certain spacetime configurations permits jamming - superluminal causal influences that nevertheless do not enable superluminal signaling. We fully characterize the correlations compatible with relativistic causality (RC) by extending the operator framework of PRL 104, 140404. When the underlying state is required to be quantum, we prove that any nontrivial jamming - whether state-independent or state-dependent - necessarily leads to hidden superluminal signaling. Thus, the only consistent possibilities are standard quantum correlations without jamming or the full relativistically causal correlation set, with intermediate jamming extensions of quantum correlations leading to signaling. As an application of our characterization, we investigate the security of device-independent (DI) cryptographic primitives against adversaries constrained only by relativistic causality. We construct explicit RC attacks that break DI bit commitment and DI secret sharing in jamming geometries, even when these protocols remain secure against no-signaling adversaries. Our results show that security against relativistic adversaries requires behaviors to be specified together with the spacetime locations of their measurement events; input-output statistics alone are insufficient.

quant-pharXiv:2608.20247•Aug 21, 2026•0 citations
It is a frequent assumption that—via superluminal information transfers—superluminal signals capable of enabling communication are necessarily exchanged in any quantum theory that posits hidden superluminal influences. However, does the presence of hidden superluminal influences automatically imply superluminal signalling and communication? The non-signalling theorem mediates the apparent conflict between quantum mechanics and the theory of special relativity. However, as a ‘no-go’ theorem there exist two opposing interpretations of the non-signalling constraint: foundational and operational. Concerning Bell’s theorem, we argue that Bell employed both interpretations, and that he finally adopted the operational position which is associated often with ontological quantum theory, e.g., de Broglie–Bohm theory. This position we refer to as “effective non-signalling”. By contrast, associated with orthodox quantum mechanics is the foundational position referred to here as “axiomatic non-signalling”. In search of a decisive communication-theoretic criterion for differentiating between “axiomatic” and “effective” non-signalling, we employ the operational framework offered by Shannon’s mathematical theory of communication, whereby we distinguish between Shannon signals and non-Shannon signals. We find that an effective non-signalling theorem represents two sub-theorems: (1) Non-transfer-control (NTC) theorem, and (2) Non-signification-control (NSC) theorem. Employing NTC and NSC theorems, we report that effective, instead of axiomatic, non-signalling is entirely sufficient for prohibiting nonlocal communication. Effective non-signalling prevents the instantaneous, i.e., superluminal, transfer of message-encoded information through the controlled use—by a sender-receiver pair —of informationally-correlated detection events, e.g., in EPR-type experiments. An effective non-signalling theorem allows for nonlocal quantum information transfer yet—at the same time—effectively denies superluminal signalling and communication.
Relativistic causality in certain spacetime configurations permits jamming - superluminal causal influences that nevertheless do not enable superluminal signaling. We fully characterize the correlations compatible with relativistic causality (RC) by extending the operator framework of PRL 104, 140404. When the underlying state is required to be quantum, we prove that any nontrivial jamming - whether state-independent or state-dependent - necessarily leads to hidden superluminal signaling. Thus, the only consistent possibilities are standard quantum correlations without jamming or the full relativistically causal correlation set, with intermediate jamming extensions of quantum correlations leading to signaling. As an application of our characterization, we investigate the security of device-independent (DI) cryptographic primitives against adversaries constrained only by relativistic causality. We construct explicit RC attacks that break DI bit commitment and DI secret sharing in jamming geometries, even when these protocols remain secure against no-signaling adversaries. Our results show that security against relativistic adversaries requires behaviors to be specified together with the spacetime locations of their measurement events; input-output statistics alone are insufficient.