Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

As far as I know, according to quantum field theory, there are some photons that go faster than c, which is the speed of light in vacuum.

However, there seems to be a paper and a corresponding experiment that show every photon obeys the speed limit of c. (http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.243602)

So, my question is:

  1. Is this experiment accepted universally?

  2. Regardless of the acceptance of the experiment, if every single photon is shown to obey the speed limit of c, what does this mean for quantum field theory?

Thanks.

share|improve this question
3  
Can you please give a reference to QFT source, which says that photons propagate faster than $c$? –  Alexey Bobrick Mar 17 '12 at 2:23
    
This question (v3) seems to be off-topic, because the non-mainstream controversial claim of faster-than-$c$ photons in vacuum has so far not been backed up by a published reference. –  Qmechanic Aug 4 '13 at 20:12

3 Answers 3

As far as I know, according to quantum field theory, there are some photons that go faster than c, which is the speed of light in vacuum.

No, this is not correct. Photons always travel at $c$. This is an accepted fact throughout the physics community, and it is based on many different experiments.

Regardless of the acceptance of the experiment, if every single photon is shown to obey the speed limit of c, what does this mean for quantum field theory?

It means that quantum field theory works - or rather, that it can work. The alternative, that photons might travel faster than $c$, would mean that Lorentz invariance fails, and since QFT relies on that invariance, it would mean that QFT would not be a generally valid theory.

share|improve this answer
    
I downvoted this answer. Sorry. –  Anixx May 29 '12 at 13:53
3  
@Anixx that's really a useless comment unless you explain why... –  David Z May 29 '12 at 14:42

you're terribly mistaken. But i understand the source of your confusion. It is more or less well known, and not from QFT per se, that light can be sped up faster than c IN SOME SENSE and I stress this carefully: ONLY IF YOU CONSIDER "PHASE VELOCITY" as the speed of this light, then it is correct that this can happen. HOWEVER, GROUP VELOCITY (A different concept) is the speed at which any information or physical "pulses" travel. According to relativity (and therefore, also according to QFT) group velocity can never violate the speed limit c. Now, take into account as you look up the definitions of phase velocity and group velocity, that the concept of wave packet is important and essential if you want to talk about group velocity and phase velocity. Also, the experiment you mention in that link says something new but not surprising: a single photon (would you consider it a wave packet?) obeys the speed limit... not much of a punch, anyway...Well, one more remark: there are actually some cases when the group velocity exceeds c but in these cases physical information travels at a lower speed called signal velocity and still obeys the speed limit.

share|improve this answer

Special Relativity only requires that light travel at c in vacuum. In any normal dielectric the speed of light will be less than c. This is what gives rise to Cherenkov radiation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

If you consider phase and group velocity, the issue is really only straightforward in homogeneous dielectrics. Without going into a lot of details, there exist real media in which the permittivity is negative. Near a resonance of the dispersion relation the phase and group velocity can be anything. In metals, below the plasma frequency the permittivity is negative. Finally, in random media quantities like wavevector and velocity are not well defined. You have to look at average phase and group delay, etc. But I suspect, just the first paragraph is what you're after.

share|improve this answer

protected by Qmechanic Aug 4 '13 at 20:09

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.