Advertisement

Are Faster-Than-Light Influences Necessary?

  • Henry P. Stapp
Part of the Physics of Atoms and Molecules book series (PAMO)

Abstract

The question of whether influences act instantaneously over finite distances is as old as modern science itself. Newton, when he proposed his universal law of gravitation, was asked how the postulated force was transmitted. He declined to frame a hypothesis regarding the mechanism, but declared that anyone who believed that the force could act over a finite distance without an intervening medium had a mind not fit for the contemplation of such matters. But in spite of Newton’s conviction, no significant progress was made on the question of action-at-a-distance for two centuries. Then Maxwell propounded his theory for the analogous problem of electric and magnetic forces. This theory entailed the existence of light, and correctly predicted its velocity. It also entailed that no electric or magnetic influence of a sufficiently tangible kind could be transmitted faster than light. During the present century Einstein, generalizing this result, formulated the principle that no “signal” could propagate faster than light.

Keywords

Quantum Theory Light Cone Physical Reality Concrete Model External Reality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Bohm and Y. Aharonov, Phys. Rev. 103, 1070 (1957).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. Bohr, Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, p. 60, Wiley, New York (1963).MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    N. Bohr, Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, p. 71, Wiley, New York (1958).MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, Chap. 3, Harper and Rowe, New York (1958).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. Heisenberg, The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory, p. 39, Dover, New York (1930).MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. Rosenfeld, in: Quantum Theory and Measurement (J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek, eds.), p. 142, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J. (1983).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    N. Bohr, Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. S. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Home, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. 23, 880 (1969).ADSGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. F. Clauser and M. A. Home, Phys. Rev. 10D, 526 (1974).ADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. F. Clauser and A. Shimony, Rep. Prog. Phys. 41, 1881 (1978).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. P. Stapp, Phys. Rev. 30, 1303 (1971).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. P. Stapp, Am. J. Phys. 53, 306 (1985).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. Kraus, in: Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics (P. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt, eds.), World Scientific, Singapore (1985).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry P. Stapp
    • 1
  1. 1.Lawrence Berkeley LaboratoryBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations