Doesn't QM allow for FTL travel?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Raap
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ftl Qm Travel
Raap
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
My knowledge of QM is far from great, but I can't figure out what I'm missing here.

When looking for e.g. an electron, it has a certain probability to be at a certain location, right? So how does *not* this allow for the electron to travel faster than light?

If I take two measurements, one taken with a tiny, tiny delay, couldn't I potentially find the electron at one spot with the first measurement, then with the second measurement find it on the completely opposite side, further away than light could have traveled within that small time-delay between the measurements?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I understand what you're saying, but I'm still not sure how this rules out ftl travel. Granted, the electron might not 'travel' as such, but if it appears at a location more distant than one which light could have traveled in the time between measurements, even if the electron itself didn't travel there but rather 'teleported' to or 'was found there', then it has effectively covered that distance faster than the speed of light, right?
 
I'm sorry, Raap and everyone else. I deleted my message since I wasn't happy with my explanation. I had hoped you hadn't read it yet, since I found it to be just confusing. Sorry for making the thread confusing by it's deletion.

I have found this past thread that may be of help to you. Check out Zapperz's post.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=97604

edit:

Here is another paper discussing "superluminal tunneling" written by an author of a paper mentioned in the thread above:

H. Winful, Phys. Rep. v.436, p.1 (2006).

I think the best I can do is to provide you with this "reading list" of threads and papers.:rolleyes: I'll leave the discussion and explanation to someone with more experience explaining the effect.
 
Last edited:
Sure, it will have 'traveled' faster than light if you see it here than there in a short time. But if your going into the muddy details remember that relativity says you cannot 'communicate' faster than light. Specific conditions can be contrived where objects appear to be traveling faster than light and that's fine, because you still cannot communicate faster than light and causality is maintained.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top