MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377100535 · doi:10.1103/physreva.107.052212

Superluminal tunneling times without superluminal signaling: Fading of the MacColl-Hartman effect at early times

2023· article· en· W4377100535 on OpenAlexaff
R. Dumont, Tom Rivlin

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum optics and atomic interactions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersIsrael Science Foundation
KeywordsSuperluminal motionFadingPhysicsQuantum tunnellingQuantum mechanicsComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A curious feature of quantum tunneling known as the MacColl-Hartman effect results in the numerical observation that particles can traverse a barrier with effective superluminal speed. However, because tunneling is never certain, any attempt to use this effect to send a signal faster than light would require sending many particles. In this work, we consider sending---in parallel, without interactions between particles---sufficiently many particles to ensure at the least one of them tunnels. In this case, in spite of the time advance of the mean time for a single tunneling particle, the mean time to send one bit of information is larger for tunneling particles than for the same number of free photons. This removes any possibility of superluminal signaling. We show that the mean time to send one bit using $N$ particles is determined by the early-time tail of the distribution of tunneling times for one particle and that, when this early-time tail is highly accurately modeled using steepest descent, the MacColl-Hartman effect is seen to fade away.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicQuantum optics and atomic interactionsFrench-language works237,207