A.Einstein held an opposite attitude towards Quantum Mechanics(QM),which first appeared in 1926 and reached the top in 1935 when he,together with B.Podolsky,N.Rosen published the EPR thesis and it promotes science development in an opposite side.The EPR thesis is based on Special Relativity(SR).Both SR and EPR deny the possibility of faster-than-light.But QM allows the existence of faster-than-light,agreeing to non-locality of QM is the premise of researching in faster-than light.In 1965,during the interview John Bell confided that his unequality was the outcome of EPR thinking,which denied ultra-space effect under EPR thesis,conditions resulted in quite peculiar correlations that QM predicted.The results of Aspect’s experiments were within expectation that QM has never been wrong now and will not in the future despite of strict requirements.Undoubtedly,the experiments proved that Einstein’s ideas didn’t hold water.In Bell’s opinion,to get rid of the difficulties after the announcement of the Aspect’s experiments,it intends to go back to Lorentz and Poincare,and assume that ether existed as a referential system in which matters went faster than light.Bell repeatedly pointed out that be wanted to go back to ether because EPR had predicted there was something faster than light in the background.…… Since 1992,it is reported that there have been many successful faster than light experiments.Some of them are based on quantum tunneling effect;some are based on classic physical phenomena such as evanescent waves,anomalous dispersion.And in 2008,D.Salart et.al.performed a experiment using entangled photons between two villages separated by 18km.In conclusion,the speed of the influence of quantum entanglement would have to exceed than of light by at least four orders of magnitude,i.e.10 4 c ～ 10 7 c.Anyway,this experiment was the summation of discussions about the EPR thesis for a long time.For the past 25 years Quantum Superluminality was one subject of my chief study.In 1985,we proposed the model of quantum potential barrier equivalent circuit.In 1991,we first indicated that there could be the wave velocity v p 0 and v g 0 in the evanescent waves mode of the waveguide below cut off and the book An Introduction to the Theory of waveguide Below Cut-off made me get the First National Scientific and Technology Book Award of China.Moreover,in 2003 we through an experiment in the coaxial photonic crystal,a superluminal group velocity of(1.5 ～ 2.4) c are observed in the stop-band of frequency.In 2005,we suggested the term of General Information Velocity(GIV);and in 2010,we suggested the term of Quantum Superluminality(QS),and also suggested remodel the existing accelerator to discover the superluminal strange electron.Now,this paper discusses some problems of Quantum Superluminality profoundly,such as the velocity definition of the microscopic particles,the relation between the EPR thinking and the faster-than-light research,the interaction speed of the quantum entangle-state,superluminality of the quantum tunneling,the negative wave velocity,QS of the Casimir effect.We show that the unite of Quantum Optics(QO) and classical physical sujects are becoming more important.Since 2000,the negative group velocity experiments are always employing some atomic metal(such as Cs、Ka、Rb) vapor for tests.It make full use of the latest achievement in laser science and technology,then it was modern physical experiment in QO,not the classical physical experiment.The negative group velocity not only the special situation of faster-than-light,but also has the features: the exiting pulse’s peak can appear to exit the medium before the peak of the input pulse enters.So it was different that of classical causality.Although that knowledges and discovers of QS are widen and lively,then it greatly inspired us;but it is not the immediate conclusion that answers some questions about the possibility of material,energy and information according to faster-than-light propagation.To design the ingenious and convincing superluminal experiments are also basic task of scientists.
A.Einstein held an opposite attitude towards Quantum Mechanics(QM),which first appeared in 1926 and reached the top in 1935 when he,together with B.Podolsky,N.Rosen published the EPR thesis and it promotes science development in an opposite side.The EPR thesis is based on Special Relativity(SR).Both SR and EPR deny the possibility of faster-than-light.But QM allows the existence of faster-than-light,agreeing to non-locality of QM is the premise of researching in faster-than light.In 1965,during the interview John Bell confided that his unequality was the outcome of EPR thinking,which denied ultra-space effect under EPR thesis,conditions resulted in quite peculiar correlations that QM predicted.The results of Aspect’s experiments were within expectation that QM has never been wrong now and will not in the future despite of strict requirements.Undoubtedly,the experiments proved that Einstein’s ideas didn’t hold water.In Bell’s opinion,to get rid of the difficulties after the announcement of the Aspect’s experiments,it intends to go back to Lorentz and Poincare,and assume that ether existed as a referential system in which matters went faster than light.Bell repeatedly pointed out that be wanted to go back to ether because EPR had predicted there was something faster than light in the background.…… Since 1992,it is reported that there have been many successful faster than light experiments.Some of them are based on quantum tunneling effect;some are based on classic physical phenomena such as evanescent waves,anomalous dispersion.And in 2008,D.Salart et.al.performed a experiment using entangled photons between two villages separated by 18km.In conclusion,the speed of the influence of quantum entanglement would have to exceed than of light by at least four orders of magnitude,i.e.10 4 c ～ 10 7 c.Anyway,this experiment was the summation of discussions about the EPR thesis for a long time.For the past 25 years Quantum Superluminality was one subject of my chief study.In 1985,we proposed the model of quantum potential barrier equivalent circuit.In 1991,we first indicated that there could be the wave velocity v p 0 and v g 0 in the evanescent waves mode of the waveguide below cut off and the book An Introduction to the Theory of waveguide Below Cut-off made me get the First National Scientific and Technology Book Award of China.Moreover,in 2003 we through an experiment in the coaxial photonic crystal,a superluminal group velocity of(1.5 ～ 2.4) c are observed in the stop-band of frequency.In 2005,we suggested the term of General Information Velocity(GIV);and in 2010,we suggested the term of Quantum Superluminality(QS),and also suggested remodel the existing accelerator to discover the superluminal strange electron.Now,this paper discusses some problems of Quantum Superluminality profoundly,such as the velocity definition of the microscopic particles,the relation between the EPR thinking and the faster-than-light research,the interaction speed of the quantum entangle-state,superluminality of the quantum tunneling,the negative wave velocity,QS of the Casimir effect.We show that the unite of Quantum Optics(QO) and classical physical sujects are becoming more important.Since 2000,the negative group velocity experiments are always employing some atomic metal(such as Cs、Ka、Rb) vapor for tests.It make full use of the latest achievement in laser science and technology,then it was modern physical experiment in QO,not the classical physical experiment.The negative group velocity not only the special situation of faster-than-light,but also has the features: the exiting pulse’s peak can appear to exit the medium before the peak of the input pulse enters.So it was different that of classical causality.Although that knowledges and discovers of QS are widen and lively,then it greatly inspired us;but it is not the immediate conclusion that answers some questions about the possibility of material,energy and information according to faster-than-light propagation.To design the ingenious and convincing superluminal experiments are also basic task of scientists.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
A.Einstein and others,who demonstrated by EPR proof revealed inherent quantum mechanics allow Superluminal exist—which is contradiction with the theory of relativity,as opposed to N.Bohr explanation which is the representative of the Copenhagen School that is quantum mechanics comprehensive.But for several years,after a series of test around Bell's inequality experiments show that microscopic particles do exist Superluminal related phenomena,which leads to the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics incompatible.On the debate on the issue and later inspired a generation of scientists,philosophers,encouraging them to the physical concept of the past for deep thinking,it also reflects the development of science is a relative truth to the absolute truth process.
The possible connection between EPR correlations and superluminal interactions, as suggested by Bell and Bohm, is discussed using simple and palpable arguments: (a) It is shown how an experiment based on time-like events can allow us to answer the question "Can a measurement performed on one of the photons of an entangled pair change the state of the other?" (b) The theorem on superluminal finite-speed causal influences and superluminal signaling, introduced by Scarani and Gisin, is reexamined. (c) It is shown how faster-than-light interactions and Lorentz transformations might peacefully coexist.
In the 80 years since the seminal Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paper, physicists and philosophers have mused about the `spooky action at a distance' aspect of quantum mechanics that so bothered Einstein. In his formal analysis of EPR-type entangled quantum states, Bell (1964) concluded that any hidden variable theory designed to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics must necessarily be nonlocal and allow superluminal interactions. This doesn't immediately imply that nonlocality is a characteristic feature of quantum mechanics let alone a fundamental property of nature; however, many physicists and philosophers of science do harbor this belief. Experts in the field often use the term `nonlocality' to designate particular non-classical aspects of quantum entanglement and do not confuse the term with superluminal interactions. However, many physicists seem to take the term more literally. I endeavor to disabuse the latter of this notion by emphasizing that the correlations of Bell-type entanglement are a result of ordinary quantum superposition with no need to introduce nonlocality. The conclusion of the EPR paper wasn't that quantum mechanics is nonlocal but rather that it is an incomplete description of reality. For different reasons, many physicists, including me, agree with Einstein that quantum mechanics is necessarily an incomplete description of reality.
As shown in the famous EPR paper (Einstein, Podolsky e Rosen, 1935), Quantum Mechanics is non-local. The Bell theorem and the experiments by Aspect and many others, ruled out the possibility of explaining quantum correlations between entangled particles using local hidden variables models (except for implausible combinations of loopholes). Some authors (Bell, Eberhard, Bohm and Hiley) suggested that quantum correlations could be due to superluminal communications (tachyons) that propagate isotropically with velocity v t > c in a preferred reference frame. For finite values of v t , Quantum Mechanics and superluminal models lead to different predictions. Some years ago a Geneva group and our group did experiments on entangled photons to evidence possible discrepancies between experimental results and quantum predictions. Since no discrepancy was found, these experiments established only lower bounds for the possible tachyon velocities v t . Here we propose an improved experiment that should lead us to explore a much larger range of possible tachyon velocities V t for any possible direction of velocity of the tachyons preferred frame.