We show that the vacuum permeability and permittivity may originate from the magnetization and the polarization of continuously appearing and disappearing fermion pairs. We then show that if we simply model the propagation of the photon in vacuum as a series of transient captures within these ephemeral pairs, we can derive a finite photon velocity. Requiring that this velocity is equal to the speed of light constrains our model of vacuum. Within this approach, the propagation of a photon is a statistical process at scales much larger than the Planck scale. Therefore we expect its time of flight to fluctuate. We propose an experimental test of this prediction.
Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.
In the conversation
Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels
The hard part for physicists to accept is that the theory requires the speed of light to change.
It would be interesting to see how the theory behind the Unruh radiation works with "The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light" (http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165#)
Or also MOND (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics) Which also has predictions based on very low accelerations.
It seems like the theories could be related.
(says an ex Nuclear physicist who's now doing computers).
The article does ask this:
"Why not faster? Why not slower?"
Certainly a lot of physicists are content with leaving it at "because it is." They're not searching for purpose, they're searching for explanation. The article doesn't just ask the question either, it explores a possible avenue for seeking the answer.
Experiments over the past few years seem to indicate that the speed of light can be derived by measuring electric and magnetic properties of the vacuum. This leads to the question: is it possible that the speed of light is the value it is because the vacuum restricts it to this value? This would mean the speed of light is not a fundamental constant, but an…
Read the full comment
observable parameter of the vacuum.
The article is light on links, but here is a paper that I think the article was referring to, by Marcel Urban and colleagues at the University of Paris-Sud:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165
From the paper:
"When a real photon propagates in vacuum, it interacts
with and is temporarily captured by an ephemeral pair.
As soon as the pair disappears, it releases the photon to
its initial energy and momentum state. The photon continues to propagate with an infinite bare velocity. Then the photon interacts again with another ephemeral pair and so on. The delay on the photon propagation produced by these successive interactions implies a renormalisation of this bare velocity to a finite value.
This “leapfrog” propagation of photons, with instantaneous leaps between pairs, seems natural since the only length and time scales in vacuum come from fermion pair lifetimes and Compton lengths."
The paper claims that the speed of light might fluctuate as a consequence, and proposes possible experiments to test this.
"The propagation of a photon being a statistical
process, we predict fluctuations of its time of flight of the order of 0.05fs/√m. This could be within the grasp of
modern experimental techniques and we plan to assemble
such an experiment."
This could answer the question, why is light so slow?
arXiv preprints at [0,1]. While interesting results, this is by no means groundbreaking work, and as long as we don’t understand the relation between gravity and quantum mechanics, it is impossible to draw conclusions regarding the sort-of-obvious FTL travel lurking here.
[0] http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165
[1] http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3923
The Fermi paradox is the conflict between an expectation of a high {\em ex ante} probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and the apparently lifeless universe we in fact observe.
Despite their massive size, successful deep artificial neural networks can exhibit a remarkably small difference between training and test performance.
In honor of Alan Turing's hundredth birthday, I unwisely set out some thoughts about one of Turing's obsessions throughout his life, the question of physics and free will.