Notices
Results 1 to 93 of 93
Like Tree7Likes
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By Kerling

Thread: Quantum Tunneling

  1. #1 Quantum Tunneling 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    22
    How is Quantum Tunneling being approached by current scientists? And how is this a benefit to the human race ( if there is any ) as far as military, daily life, and advancement as the human race?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    It is used in various semiconductor devices (Josephson junctions, SQUIDs, for example). It is also becoming a problem to be avoided as transistors get smaller; you have to take the leakage due to tunnelling into account.

    SQUID = superconducting quantum interference device.


    msafwan likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    22
    Thanks I just looked up SQUID. It kind of looks like a squid. Derp. It says SQUID is used a lot in biology ex. MRI's and Neural activity in the brain.. What are it's uses relating to Physics?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    I am only familiar with its use in MRIs. But I'm sure there are other uses for measuring small magnetic fields...
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by NewbieAlert View Post
    How is Quantum Tunneling being approached by current scientists? And how is this a benefit to the human race ( if there is any ) as far as military, daily life, and advancement as the human race?
    It is known that quantum tunneling is a fact, but explanations of how it happens still remains theoretical. Aside from a better understanding of quantum tunneling of photons and electrons, the scientific understandings of it coming from pure research might test present understanding and related theory which could result in many presently unforeseeable practical applications, and/or improvements of theory which could broaden future possibilities in general.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    22
    Thanks Strange, I looked all over your right almost everything relates to medical uses and STM. But there is some articles where it talked about Sun and its heat.. I thought it would have mind blowing uses :/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NewbieAlert View Post
    How is Quantum Tunneling being approached by current scientists? And how is this a benefit to the human race ( if there is any ) as far as military, daily life, and advancement as the human race?
    It is known that quantum tunneling is a fact, but explanations of how it happens still remains theoretical. Aside from a better understanding of quantum tunneling of photons and electrons, the scientific understandings of it coming from pure research might test present understanding and related theory which could result in many presently unforeseeable practical applications, and/or improvements of theory which could broaden future possibilities in general.
    I feel you. Hopefully applications come in my lifetime
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    It is known that quantum tunneling is a fact, but explanations of how it happens still remains theoretical.
    Sod it. I logged off to get on with some work but....

    Tunnelling is extraordinarily well understood. There is no doubt at all about how it works.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    It is known that quantum tunneling is a fact, but explanations of how it happens still remains theoretical.
    Sod it. I logged off to get on with some work but....

    Tunnelling is extraordinarily well understood. There is no doubt at all about how it works.
    I love how FN uses the term "theoretical" in a pejorative way, right after acknowledging that tunneling is a fact.

    FN: A Nobel prize was awarded to Esaki Leona for using tunneling to explain anomalous current flow in heavily-doped diodes.

    Nobel Prize - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    We actually encounter tunneling daily, but most people are oblivious. Tunnel theory helps us understand why ordinary switch contacts behave poorly over time -- there really is no such thing as metal-to-metal contact. Every such junction is actually a tunnel junction. When enough oxide (or other crud) builds up, the probability of conduction drops enough to give us trouble.

    As Strange mentioned, we worry about undesired tunnel currents in chip technology. Transistors have shrunk enough that tunneling is no longer a second-order phenomenon.

    Leakage (electronics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The scanning-tunneling microscope works, as its name suggests, thanks to tunneling. The proliferation of STMs has enabled nanotechnology to progress in leaps and bounds. We can "see" atoms, thanks to the STM.

    Scanning tunneling microscope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanner
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microscope

    Yes, tunneling is explained "theoretically." And that is a good thing, not a weakness. See first sentence of:

    Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Strange and NewbieAlert like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    It is known that quantum tunneling is a fact, but explanations of how it happens still remains theoretical.
    Sod it. I logged off to get on with some work but....

    Tunnelling is extraordinarily well understood. There is no doubt at all about how it works.
    Einstein, shroedinger, de Broglie and many others, had serious doubts about the validity of Quantum Mechanics and its related explanations. Although predictions of quantum mechanics in this case are strictly probabilistic and are generally not in doubt, to say that "quantum tunneling is extraordinarily well understood and that there is no doubt at all about how it works," is a misstatement since there are those that continue to have doubts concerning the proposed explanations of Quantum Mechanics, and the lack of logic therein.

    ...There is a widespread belief that Quantum Theory is universal. In my view, while perhaps true, is just a prejudice, born of hubris in the 1920’s, and certainly not proved today. Recall that Newton mechanics was universally thought universal until the late 19th century. Even Maxwell thought it necessary to provide a mechanical model of the electromagnetic field.
    http://faculty.luther.edu/~macdonal/QTIS.pdf

    The following is a critical summary and opinion of the possible problems with Quantum Mechanics concerning its explanations of quantum tunneling.

    http://milesmathis.com/tunnel.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,896
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The following is a critical summary and opinion of the possible problems with Quantum Mechanics concerning its explanations of quantum tunneling.

    http://milesmathis.com/tunnel.pdf
    For Jebus Geist's sake, develop some judgment, Forrest. Citing a guy who offers a proof that pi=4 is not only desperate, but pathetic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    22
    So does this mean along with the good things it has brought and could bring, there also some dangers that tunneling brings? I'm not sure if danger is the right word though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    to say that "quantum tunneling is extraordinarily well understood and that there is no doubt at all about how it works," is a misstatement
    Bollocks.

    [I might make that my standard response to everything you say from now on. It is shorter and just as effective as attempting to explain why you are an ignorant dolt who doesn't understand anything he says.]
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The following is a critical summary and opinion of the possible problems with Quantum Mechanics concerning its explanations of quantum tunneling.

    http://milesmathis.com/tunnel.pdf
    For Jebus Geist's sake, develop some judgment, Forrest. Citing a guy who offers a proof that pi=4 is not only desperate, but pathetic.
    As I said, it is a summary and opinion concerning a number of different possibilities of what might be wrong with present explanations of quantum tunneling. Yes, he is caustic and pulls no punches, but he offers no explanations of his own concerning the mechanics of quantum tunneling, only a criticism of the present interpretations and explanations. I have seen many of these same arguments from others and think that many of his points may be valid. Most are just opinions, granted, but there have been the same or similar opinions expressed by notable physicists in the past and some present, that have criticized quantum mechanic's explanations over its history. I think his summary of possible problems concerning present explanations of quantum tunneling is very comprehensive and generally all inclusive. Of course some or many of his criticisms may not be valid, but at least some criticisms relate to alternative opinions of at least some quantum physicists in the field today.

    The main point was that the related theory and explanations concerning quantum tunneling are not universally accepted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Hey Forrest, why aren't you contributing your brilliant insights to the latest aether-crackpot thread (now in the Trash Can for unaccountable reasons). I'm sure the proponent would be happy to know there are other deluded cranks out there.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I said it is a summary and opinion ...
    Opinions are not science.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,896
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    [
    As I said, it is a summary and opinion
    I understood that, obviously. It's just that you cited a source that is reliably wrong. Or to put it into terms you might possibly understand, his "summary and opinion" are wrong. And by extension, so are yours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    to say that "quantum tunneling is extraordinarily well understood and that there is no doubt at all about how it works," is a misstatement
    Bollocks.

    [I might make that my standard response to everything you say from now on. It is shorter and just as effective as attempting to explain why you are an ignorant dolt who doesn't understand anything he says.]
    Common Strange, to the particulars please. Ad hominums are not allowed according to the rules of any forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    It's just that you cited a source that is reliably wrong.
    I think Forrest should change his sig to "Reliably wrong", just so everyone knows what they are reading.
    tk421 likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,896
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The main point was that the related theory and explanations concerning quantum tunneling are not universally accepted.
    So what? "Universal acceptance" is not a criterion. It is not "universally accepted" that you are sentient. What of it?

    You do like to make up nonsense, don't you?

    We can predict, to many significant digits, the probability of tunneling. And when we run the experiment, that's what we observe, to many significant digits. That's the mark of a successful ("right") theory. Just because you and "Miles Mathis" don't like it doesn't impress me one bit. And it certainly doesn't diminish the theory at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    [
    As I said, it is a summary and opinion
    I understood that, obviously. It's just that you cited a source that is reliably wrong. Or to put it into terms you might possibly understand, his "summary and opinion" are wrong. And by extension, so are yours.
    But that is just your opinion too, right or wrong. As you well know by now, I am not fond of definite statement of fact, concerning what is just theory. I might accept such "statements of fact" concerning evolution theory, but not too many other theories -- since I believe many are suspect concerning at least some of their tenets, at the least.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Common Strange, to the particulars please. Ad hominums are not allowed according to the rules of any forum.
    a) It isn't an ad hominem.
    b) As noted multiple times, it is pointless going into details to explain why you are wrong because you just dismiss any criticisms because you are incapable of understanding them.

    A typical dialog goes:

    Forrest Noble: "Waffle, blah, aether, waffle handwave, waffle"
    Someone Else: "No that is wrong for the following reasons. <long detailed analysis of the flaws of FN's comments follows, complete with math and references to peer reviewed journals>"
    FN: "It is correct in my opinion"
    SE:

    <later>

    FN: "Waffle, blah, aether, waffle handwave, waffle"
    SE: "No, as explained previously, that is incorrect"
    FN: "Well, if you can't show exactly where it is wrong ..."
    SE:

    Repeat ad-nauseum or ad-infinitum, whichever comes sooner.
    NewbieAlert likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    But that is just your opinion too, right or wrong.
    The value of pi is a matter of opinion?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    It's just that you cited a source that is reliably wrong.
    I think Forrest should change his sig to "Reliably wrong", just so everyone knows what they are reading.
    Now I can accept that suggestion as a good pun , even if it is at my expense. But in fact I won't do it unless you bribe me It will take a six pack of beer of my choice for me to change my sig to the one you suggested, and after a year I will take it off unless you send my another six pack, and so on ........

    This is a firm proposal and commitment, no joke, if you or anyone wishes to take me up on it.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 21st, 2012 at 07:47 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    But that is just your opinion too, right or wrong.
    The value of pi is a matter of opinion?
    Yes, according to Riemann geometry, but it is not my opinion My opinion is that Pi is not a matter of opinion
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Common Strange, to the particulars please. Ad hominums are not allowed according to the rules of any forum.
    a) It isn't an ad hominem.
    b) As noted multiple times, it is pointless going into details to explain why you are wrong because you just dismiss any criticisms because you are incapable of understanding them.

    A typical dialog goes:

    Forrest Noble: "Waffle, blah, aether, waffle handwave, waffle"
    Someone Else: "No that is wrong for the following reasons. <long detailed analysis of the flaws of FN's comments follows, complete with math and references to peer reviewed journals>"
    FN: "It is correct in my opinion"
    SE:

    <later>

    FN: "Waffle, blah, aether, waffle handwave, waffle"
    SE: "No, as explained previously, that is incorrect"
    FN: "Well, if you can't show exactly where it is wrong ..."
    SE:

    Repeat ad-nauseum or ad-infinitum, whichever comes sooner.
    That was rather creative!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Common Strange, to the particulars please. Ad hominums are not allowed according to the rules of any forum.
    a) It isn't an ad hominem.
    b) As noted multiple times, it is pointless going into details to explain why you are wrong because you just dismiss any criticisms because you are incapable of understanding them.

    A typical dialog goes:

    Forrest Noble: "Waffle, blah, aether, waffle handwave, waffle"
    Someone Else: "No that is wrong for the following reasons. <long detailed analysis of the flaws of FN's comments follows, complete with math and references to peer reviewed journals>"
    FN: "It is correct in my opinion"
    SE:

    <later>

    FN: "Waffle, blah, aether, waffle handwave, waffle"
    SE: "No, as explained previously, that is incorrect"
    FN: "Well, if you can't show exactly where it is wrong ..."
    SE:

    Repeat ad-nauseum or ad-infinitum, whichever comes sooner.

    Ha Ha Ha , if you keep the Ad hominems up I'll just black-mail you into sending me a six pack, else I'll blow the whistle to the mods Remember here in the colonies we will be celebrating Thanksgiving this Thursday, and a six pack gratis thereafter would be nice
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The main point was that the related theory and explanations concerning quantum tunneling are not universally accepted.
    So what? "Universal acceptance" is not a criterion. It is not "universally accepted" that you are sentient. What of it?

    You do like to make up nonsense, don't you?

    We can predict, to many significant digits, the probability of tunneling. And when we run the experiment, that's what we observe, to many significant digits. That's the mark of a successful ("right") theory. Just because you and "Miles Mathis" don't like it doesn't impress me one bit. And it certainly doesn't diminish the theory at all.
    Yes, I agree, but not about me making up non-sense, of course and the part about a "right" theory, even if it was in parenthesis. That such things do not impress you is OK by me, though
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 21st, 2012 at 07:59 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,896
    Quote Originally Posted by NewbieAlert View Post
    That was rather creative!
    Not only is Strange very creative, he was actually describing history with great accuracy and concision. If you stick around here (or just review prior exchanges with FN), you'll learn just how accurate Strange's description was.
    NewbieAlert likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,896
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Yes, I agree, but not about me making up non-sense, of course
    But it is self-evident nonsense to insist on universal acceptance of an idea. I can think of very few ideas that enjoy universal acceptance. Such unanimity is neither likely, nor useful for science. There will always be crackpots and the mentally infirm. We shouldn't wait for them to come on board before declaring a theory valid, should we?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    272
    There is nothing random in practices, not in the world and not in tunneling, but if you do not know them you can do statistics, except that the movement " was " movement back and forth in time
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Nosfim View Post
    There is nothing random in practices, not in the world and not in tunneling, but if you do not know them you can do statistics, except that the movement " was " movement back and forth in time
    Well, it turns out not to matter much whether you think that things are truly random, or just apparently so. Experimentally, the results are fully in accord with randomness, so as far as measurable outcomes are concerned, we can treat them as random just fine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Well, it turns out not to matter much whether you think that things are truly random, or just apparently so. Experimentally, the results are fully in accord with randomness, so as far as measurable outcomes are concerned, we can treat them as random just fine.
    Thats understanding
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    NewbieAlert, if you're interested in physics, and the answers to your questions, pay no attention to anything posted by Forrest.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    But it is self-evident nonsense to insist on universal acceptance of an idea. I can think of very few ideas that enjoy universal acceptance. Such unanimity is neither likely, nor useful for science. There will always be crackpots and the mentally infirm. We shouldn't wait for them to come on board before declaring a theory valid, should we?
    Even more importantly, there will always be incredibly intelligent and perceptive people who challenge the theory and make it stronger. This could be for all sorts of reasons. For example, Forrest like to point out that Einstein (and others) had doubts about parts of quantum theory; his pushing at the theory forced it to be developed further and new tests to be created that only improved the theory (*). Others may just play devil's advocate and argue against various ideas in order to test them.

    (*) Of course, as with everything else to do with science, Forrest totally misunderstands this and thinks that because someone like Einstein didn't accept the theory that it must therefore somehow be in doubt. Duh. How dumb can you get.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    NewbieAlert, if you're interested in physics, and the answers to your questions, pay no attention to anything posted by Forrest.
    Pay no attention to anything posted by Forrest. Even when he attempts to explain some aspect of mainstream physics or cosmology, he inevitably mucks it up because his understanding is so shallow. Good grief, the guy knows less than the average science journalist. That is really bad.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Yes, I agree, but not about me making up non-sense, of course
    But it is self-evident nonsense to insist on universal acceptance of an idea. I can think of very few ideas that enjoy universal acceptance. Such unanimity is neither likely, nor useful for science. There will always be crackpots and the mentally infirm. We shouldn't wait for them to come on board before declaring a theory valid, should we?
    It's not about who objects to something; it's all about the possible merit of what these dissidents are saying. To explain my point let's assume that there really might be an aether (an undiscovered entity like dark matter) but we could not discover it for some reason. In this case there would be variables in the quantum world which would influence particles but we would not know of their existence. So what do we do? We need to develop a system of prediction for technology's sake, so we develop a history of all such observations and develop a system based upon probabilities and statistics since even if we knew of the aether (based upon its real existence) we could not predict its behavior anyway because its particulates would be too small. OK, now we've developed a statistical system that works. Should we not have developed the system because we did not understand the aether mechanics or be able to predict how it worked mechanically? No, you develop the system then try to explain how it really works afterwards. The system would work great, but the understandings of it would be mostly wrong.

    This is how I think Quantum Mechanics was developed, without any knowledge of an aether that really exists (the aether could simply be dark matter of some kind, for instance). Yes, some will never get on board as long as the logic is missing. There will always be educated dissidents whose opinions are contrary to the mainstream. Many will have invalid ideas and a few will have superior ideas that the mainstream may not realize for decades. This is how it has been and how it will continue to be in the future, in my opinion.

    Dissidents have different opinions. Obviously they don't all agree upon what is right, but most can agree upon what might be wrong with QM, that it lacks a logical bases as explained by a great many dissidents. Quantum tunneling is just one of a great many quantum behaviors that may not be understood concerning its mechanics.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 22nd, 2012 at 01:43 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    but most can agree upon what might be wrong with QM, that it lacks in a logical bases
    The only people who agree with that are ignorant crackpots. Can you point to a single peer reviewed paper that supports this idiocy?

    Quantum tunneling is just one of a great many quantum behaviors that may not be understood at all concerning its mechanics.
    The mechanics are perfectly well understood.

    p.s. I notice that, once again, you have ruined a perfectly good thread with your ignorant drivel. Please stop doing that. Please keep all your posts in the Trash forum where they belong.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    but most can agree upon what might be wrong with QM, that it lacks in a logical bases
    The only people who agree with that are ignorant crackpots. Can you point to a single peer reviewed paper that supports this idiocy?
    Hence this quantum logic is a static logic expressing uncertainty but not progress. In addition the uncertainty so represented is not full Heisenberg uncertainty, in that it obeys no complementary tradeoff. And the logic is not a real logic in that it lacks an implication with a deductive theorem or currying principle.

    ……That is, what propositional logic of Quantum Mechanics incorporates not only QM’s uncertainty but also its central dynamic qualities? While such a question would have had no precedent in 1936, today we have a great variety of logics combining the elements of truth and behavior, making our problem a very reasonable one.

    http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ql.pdf

    (my quote)
    Quantum tunneling is just one of a great many quantum behaviors that may not be understood at all concerning its mechanics.
    The mechanics are perfectly well understood.
    There are some that would disagree with your statement, whereby I gave two links concerning alternative opinions, one being a peer reviewed paper.

    p.s. I notice that, once again, you have ruined a perfectly good thread with your ignorant drivel. Please stop doing that. Please keep all your posts in the Trash forum where they belong.
    Stay with particulars, Ad Hominems are not allowed as you well know. There are alternative mainstream opinions concerning the mechanics of quantum tunneling which has been the point of my postings. I've already given the links. There certainly is not just one single interpretation of quantum mechanics, or how it might relate to the mechanics of quantum tunneling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I assume this is just another paper you found because it has the words "quantum" and "logic" in it. You haven't read. You don't know what it is about. You wouldn't be able to understand if you tried to read it. Why do you keep doing that?

    There are some that would disagree with your statement, whereby I gave two links concerning alternative opinions, one being a peer reviewed paper.
    I'm sorry you will have to be more specific. I see nothing in any of the papers you have posted that casts doubt on the mechanism of quantum tunnelling. Please explain in your own words providing specific references (page and line number) to the appropriate papers.

    Stay with particulars, Ad Hominems are not allowed as you well know.
    Not an ad-hominem. Just a statement of fact.

    There are alternative mainstream opinions concerning the mechanics of quantum tunneling which has been the point of my postings.
    You have not demonstrated any such thing (see above).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    NewbieAlert, if you're interested in physics, and the answers to your questions, pay no attention to anything posted by Forrest.
    Pay no attention to anything posted by Forrest. Even when he attempts to explain some aspect of mainstream physics or cosmology, he inevitably mucks it up because his understanding is so shallow. Good grief, the guy knows less than the average science journalist. That is really bad.
    If I said, consider all postings by Strange suspect since he presents only one point of view, right or wrong. He makes assertions that are single minded and is not able to consider the possibility that some of his statements may be wrong -- but I wouldn't make such a statement because it would be an ad hominem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    If I said, consider all postings by Strange suspect since he presents only one point of view, right or wrong. He makes assertions that are single minded and is not able to consider the possibility that some of his statements may be wrong -- but I wouldn't make such a statement because it would be an ad hominem.
    I would hope you couldn't make any such statement because it isn't true. I have frequently had my errors and misunderstandings pointed out to me. I always apologise and thank the person for correcting me. When was the last time you accepted a correction from anyone. Despite the fact that pretty much everything you say is either slightly or totally wrong. Even when gross errors of fact are pointed out to you you never admit it, you just fudge the issue and change the subject.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Not an ad-hominem. Just a statement of fact.
    Ad hominems can be fact. "Your mother wears red suspenders" may be true but such statements are an attack on the other person's class, character, parentage, intelligence, etc. rather than addressing what he is saying or the issues at hand -- which is a classical form of false logic in an argument.

    Please stay with the quantum tunneling discussion: How is Quantum Tunneling being approached by current scientists? ..............................................

    Note the word scientists is plural meaning that there may be more than one opinion to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Note the word scientists is plural meaning that there may be more than one opinion to it.
    Forget opinions.

    Can you provide a peer-reviewed paper that casts doubt on the mechanisms of tunnelling?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Yes, according to Riemann geometry,
    What does the value of Pi have to do with Riemann geometry
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Yes, according to Riemann geometry,
    What does the value of Pi have to do with Riemann geometry
    It is just Forrest showing off his awesome grasp of mathematics again.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    If I said, consider all postings by Strange suspect since he presents only one point of view, right or wrong. He makes assertions that are single minded and is not able to consider the possibility that some of his statements may be wrong -- but I wouldn't make such a statement because it would be an ad hominem.
    I would hope you couldn't make any such statement because it isn't true. I have frequently had my errors and misunderstandings pointed out to me. I always apologise and thank the person for correcting me. When was the last time you accepted a correction from anyone. Despite the fact that pretty much everything you say is either slightly or totally wrong. Even when gross errors of fact are pointed out to you you never admit it, you just fudge the issue and change the subject.
    I must admit that I ain't perfect either and neither are some of my postings, but they are rarely assertions without qualifications, such as "in my opinion," "according to," "some, many, most, etc.", not just supposed statements of fact. But as I'm certain you realize, respect and manners I consider to be very important behavior face to face, and within forum discussions. You will see no lack of it in any of my postings anywhere. I hold you in high regard, but I will object to unqualified statements of certitude by anyone, when in reality there are more than a few mainstream opinions to the contrary.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 23rd, 2012 at 01:13 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Yes, according to Riemann geometry,
    What does the value of Pi have to do with Riemann geometry
    Riemann describes how to deal with geometries that contain regions of positive ........ by drawing circles of differing sizes and seeing how the value of pi changes.
    (bold added)

    Mathematics Illuminated | Unit 8 | 8.7 General Relativity
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 22nd, 2012 at 03:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    That article is extremely misleading, if not bordering on the downright wrong.
    While it is true that the ratios between measurements on a circle can change in a curvilinear coordinate system, the value of Pi is a fundamental constant and does not ever change. Rather, that ratio will take on another multiplicative factor, but Pi is defined to be constant and does not change. In particular, it is not a function of the metric tensor.

    Or would you like present to us a functional



    which relates Pi to a particular system of coordinates ? I would be quite interested in seeing that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    That article is extremely misleading, if not bordering on the downright wrong.
    While it is true that the ratios between measurements on a circle can change in a curvilinear coordinate system, the value of Pi is a fundamental constant and does not ever change. Rather, that ratio will take on another multiplicative factor, but Pi is defined to be constant and does not change. In particular, it is not a function of the metric tensor.

    Or would you like present to us a functional



    which relates Pi to a particular system of coordinates ? I would be quite interested in seeing that.
    I read a long ago that Riemann geometry can vary the degrees in a triangle more or less than 180 degrees and vary the value of pi. Of course this is Riemann geometry and not reality.

    You asked the question, I provided the link. If you think the link is wrong then that's great. I was never fond of Riemann geometries anyway concerning any application of it to reality
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 23rd, 2012 at 12:52 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I read a long ago that Riemann geometry can vary the degrees in a triangle more or less than 180 degrees
    That's correct.

    and vary the value of pi
    That is not correct.

    I was never fond of Riemann geometries anyway concerning any application of it to reality
    We can tell. But then again, you aren't very fond of any part of mainstream science, are you ? You seem to prefer to live in your own little world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Kerling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by NewbieAlert View Post
    How is Quantum Tunneling being approached by current scientists? And how is this a benefit to the human race ( if there is any ) as far as military, daily life, and advancement as the human race?
    Well your advancements are really broad. But maybe you shouldn't be thinking of it as an invention. It is a natural process. And it existed long before we humans thought of it. Quantum tunnelling is probably the most common of the quantum effects. It is for instance very important in photosynthesis. Quantum biology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    And on that basically all of the planets land-based life is based.

    Also try not to rely too much on unscientific claims made by some people on this forum. Wikipedia is a good friend because it cites it sources well. Otherwise it is just opinion.

    But quantum tunnelling is actually very easily doable in your own little laboratory. If I connect a strong current to 2 parrallel plates, and you differ the thickness of the isolater in between you'll see the tunnelling effect by yourself. Make sure an adult is around though cause the power of the current can be lethal! (that is because a really thin isolater of only a few dozen micrometer is a bit thick in comparison to normal barriers.

    But in General it is used by us in many different ways, just not on such a massive scale as in nature
    In the information age ignorance is a choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Kerling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    440
    Also hooking on the pi debate...
    Come on, Pi is defined as the connection between the radius and circumference of a perfect circle. It is a mathematical concept. And not subject to 'variation'
    It would be the same as saying that 0 is subject to variation. That sometimes it isn't entirely zero. That is ridicioulous as it first of all breaks down any system of algebra whatsoever.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    In the information age ignorance is a choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Note the word scientists is plural meaning that there may be more than one opinion to it.
    Forget opinions.

    Can you provide a peer-reviewed paper that casts doubt on the mechanisms of tunnelling?
    I'll take that as a no, then.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I read a long ago that Riemann geometry can vary the degrees in a triangle more or less than 180 degrees
    That's correct.

    and vary the value of pi
    That is not correct.

    I was never fond of Riemann geometries anyway concerning any application of it to reality
    We can tell. But then again, you aren't very fond of any part of mainstream science, are you ? You seem to prefer to live in your own little world.
    Quite fond of natural selection theory (evolution in general), chemical theory, the evolving theory of plate tectonics, but not any other major theories that I can think of.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Strange,

    Can you provide a peer-reviewed paper that casts doubt on the mechanisms of tunnelling?
    There are a number of different hypothesis concerning the possible processes/ mechanisms involved in quantum tunneling and related calculations, not just one consensus opinion. Different mechanisms involve different time periods, etc. Here's the links.

    .......we try to give an answer to the question: how a particle tunneling through a classically forbidden region behaves? Working out the quantum mechanical analysis in a particular case.........
    On the problem of the quantum mechanical tunneling - Abstract - Physica Scripta - IOPscience

    A long-standing argument in elementary quantum mechanics concerns the prescription which specifies how long it takes for a particle to tunnel through a classically forbidden region. In this paper, the controversy is reviewed by analyzing a selection of principal contenders........
    The quantum mechanical tunnelling time problem-revisited - Abstract - Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics - IOPscience
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0403/0403010.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    There are a number of different hypothesis concerning the processes involved in quantum tunneling
    Can you please explain, exactly (i.e. page and line numbers) where in the linked papers "different hypothesis concerning the processes involved in quantum tunneling" are presented.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Kerling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    There are a number of different hypothesis concerning the possible processes/ mechanisms involved in quantum tunneling and related calculations, not just one consensus opinion. Different mechanisms involve different time periods, etc. Here's the links.

    On the problem of the quantum mechanical tunneling - Abstract - Physica Scripta - IOPscience

    The quantum mechanical tunnelling time problem-revisited - Abstract - Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics - IOPscience
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0403/0403010.pdf
    Did you just typed down 'problems quantum tunneling' in at google Scholar?

    Well I looked over the articles and most are just wondering about the time it takes to traverse a barrier. and how it's phase is changed. I don't see in any way whatsoever how these would mean that we have problems understanding things? What is the point of you posting these? Pointing out that our understanding isn't complete?

    Well you succeeded there. No understanding is ever complete. Of anything for that matter. If we don't define it, then the understanding is never complete! But understandings can be more then sufficient the way they are. I mean you don't completely understand how microwaves work. And yet you use them. Even the people that design them don't know how every component works. And even people that make the components don't know how all the materials work. And even the people that make the materials don't know who all the materials work the way they do.

    Knowledge is never complete.
    In the information age ignorance is a choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerling View Post
    Also hooking on the pi debate...
    Come on, Pi is defined as the connection between the radius and circumference of a perfect circle. It is a mathematical concept. And not subject to 'variation'
    It would be the same as saying that 0 is subject to variation. That sometimes it isn't entirely zero. That is ridiculous as it first of all breaks down any system of algebra whatsoever.
    There is no debate; I think all who have commented here agree that Pi is a constant. Mine was just a "joking" comment concerning the curves of Rienmann geometry and others ideas concerning how it might relate to hypothetically increasing values of pi.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 24th, 2012 at 01:41 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Nosfim View Post
    There is nothing random in practices, not in the world and not in tunneling, but if you do not know them you can do statistics, except that the movement " was " movement back and forth in time
    Yes, I agree, but such ideas as movement back and forth in time would itself have theoretical problems in the real world. Even in QM it is a hypothesis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Nosfim View Post
    ...
    Yes, I agree
    Things are getting really bad if you are agreeing with Water.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Yeah, my point was in response this statement by Strange whereby he stated certitude.

    (Strange's quote posting #8))
    Tunnelling is extraordinarily well understood. There is no doubt at all about how it works.
    I objected to the certainty expressed in his statements without the proper qualifications such as in your own related qualified statements
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Nosfim View Post
    ...
    Yes, I agree
    Things are getting really bad if you are agreeing with Water.
    I sometimes agree with your statements too, you know But only on two postings/ occasions do I recall that you have ever expressed any possible doubt concerning mainstream interpretations/ explanations. I suggest that from time to time you read some alternative mainstream ideas/ theories if it is anathema for you to read criticisms of mainstream theory. Doing so might broaden your scope concerning alternative possibilities and certainties of theory in general.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 24th, 2012 at 02:25 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Yeah, my point was in response this statement by Strange whereby he stated certitude.
    I didn't actually.

    But the question is about what you said:
    • a number of different possibilities of what might be wrong with present explanations of quantum tunneling
    • Quantum tunneling is just one of a great many quantum behaviors that may not be understood concerning its mechanics.
    • There are alternative mainstream opinions concerning the mechanics of quantum tunneling which has been the point of my postings
    • There are a number of different hypothesis concerning the possible processes/ mechanisms involved in quantum tunneling
    • etc.


    You were asked to provide some support for these claims. You posted some links to papers which do not appear to support these statements in any way. If you think they do, then kindly point out the specific parts of those papers that do so. (You have read them all, haven't you?)

    If you cannot provide any support, then would you consider retracting these claims? (I know the answer is "no" because you never withdraw a statement, no matter how egregiously wrong it is.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Only on two postings/ occasions do I recall that you have ever expressed any possible doubt concerning mainstream interpretations/ explanations.
    Al theories are provisional and subject to change based on evidence. Good enough?

    It gets a little tedious, and seems unnecessary on a web forum, to precede every statement with, "as far as is known", "our best theory says", "the evidence suggests", etc. I assume that an intelligent reader understands that science is tentative and rarely about certainties. However, when responding to you, perhaps they are required.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    There are a number of different hypothesis concerning the processes involved in quantum tunneling
    Can you please explain, exactly (i.e. page and line numbers) where in the linked papers "different hypothesis concerning the processes involved in quantum tunneling" are presented.
    There was just one main point. The point is/was that there are those in the mainstream that have different opinions and hypothesis concerning the mechanics/ processes of quantum tunneling and just about everything else in Quantum Theory. This can be seen in the collective links and quotes that I have presented/ posted. If you continue to think otherwise after reading these link papers then that is your prerogative.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 24th, 2012 at 02:59 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    There was just on main point. The point is that there are those in the mainstream that have different opinions and hypothesis concerning the mechanics/ processes of quantum tunneling. This can be seen in the collective links and quotes that I have presented/ posted. If you do not agree then that is your prerogative.
    As Kerling said, those papers show no such thing. Looks like once again you prefer your own beliefs to what scientific papers actually say.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Only on two postings/ occasions do I recall that you have ever expressed any possible doubt concerning mainstream interpretations/ explanations.
    All theories are provisional and subject to change based on evidence. Good enough?
    Yes, that is all that needs to be said. I also agree that always qualifying your statements is not necessary concerning mainstream theory. But expressing certitude of theory is generally not advisable concerning blanket statements, in my opinion, since it is too contentious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Yeah, my point was in response this statement by Strange whereby he stated certitude.
    I didn't actually.

    But the question is about what you said:
    • a number of different possibilities of what might be wrong with present explanations of quantum tunneling
    • Quantum tunneling is just one of a great many quantum behaviors that may not be understood concerning its mechanics.
    • There are alternative mainstream opinions concerning the mechanics of quantum tunneling which has been the point of my postings
    • There are a number of different hypothesis concerning the possible processes/ mechanisms involved in quantum tunneling
    • etc.


    You were asked to provide some support for these claims. You posted some links to papers which do not appear to support these statements in any way. If you think they do, then kindly point out the specific parts of those papers that do so. (You have read them all, haven't you?)

    If you cannot provide any support, then would you consider retracting these claims? (I know the answer is "no" because you never withdraw a statement, no matter how egregiously wrong it is.)

    I think I have done so. None are definitive statements. All have qualifiers such as (explanations) "might be wrong," "may not be understood," "alternative mainstream opinion," "different hypothesis." Some mainstream papers, now and in the past, have expressed alternative ideas concerning the processes/ mechanics of quantum tunneling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Some mainstream papers, now and in the past, have expressed alternative ideas concerning the processes/ mechanics of quantum tunneling.
    You keep saying this, and keep providing nothing.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Some mainstream papers, now and in the past, have expressed alternative ideas concerning the processes/ mechanics of quantum tunneling.
    You keep saying this, and keep providing nothing.
    "Some mainstream papers, now and in the past, have expressed alternative ideas concerning the proposed models/ processes/ mechanics of quantum tunneling," according to the many links that I have already provided on this thread.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 24th, 2012 at 10:56 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Some mainstream papers, now and in the past, have expressed alternative ideas concerning the processes/ mechanics of quantum tunneling.
    Would you like to provide links to some of those?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    "Some mainstream papers, now and in the past, have expressed alternative ideas concerning the processes/ mechanics of quantum tunneling," according to the many links that I have already provided on this thread.
    As I and others have noted, the papers you have posted say no such thing. If you think they do, please be more specific.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,420
    Well from reading the Wiki page it seems a rather simple idea, but how it actually works in practice looks rather more complicated. One thing I really didn't understand though was this whole possibility, not possibility to exceed light speed point. So does this mean, that theorically at least, during quantum tunneling a particle can simultaneously end up in more than one physical location?
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    "Some mainstream papers, now and in the past, have expressed alternative ideas concerning the processes/ mechanics of quantum tunneling," according to the many links that I have already provided on this thread.
    As I and others have noted, the papers you have posted say no such thing. If you think they do, please be more specific.
    All the papers explain either different calculations, methods, mechanics, processes etc.

    Quantum also has non-local tunneling models which calculate tunneling current by ...................
    Models here refers to more than one model.

    Band to Band tunneling models
    Models is plural referring to more than one model.

    Oxide tunneling models
    Models is plural involving more than one model.

    Again quantum tunneling models differ based upon types of tunneling mechanisms, processes, calculations, and probably other possible variables as indicated in all the links. Here's more links that generally summarize some of the numerous differing models and hypothesis based upon different types of quantum tunneling.

    http://www.silvaco.com/products/vwf/...antum2d_07.pdf

    http://www.iue.tuwien.ac.at/phd/entner/node23.html
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 24th, 2012 at 08:18 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,896
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Again quantum tunneling models differ based upon types of tunneling mechanisms, processes, calculations, and probably other possible variables as indicated in all the links. Here's more links that generally summarizes some of the numerous differing models and hypothesis based upon different types of quantum tunneling.

    http://www.silvaco.com/products/vwf/...antum2d_07.pdf

    5.3 Quantum Mechanical Tunneling
    Oh good grief, Forrest. You can't even link to sources that say what you claim. The pdf from silvaco is an advert for their CAD tool. It doesn't offer "numerous hypothesis" (btw, the plural is hypotheses). It offers support for different boundary conditions. There's a world of difference between the two!

    You are confusing "different models" with "different hypotheses." Doesn't fly. The other link merely describes different applications of QM to different scenarios (again, arising from different boundary conditions, among other things). But you don't understand QM, so you don't understand why the link actually contradicts what you've been saying!

    It is painfully obvious -- once again -- that you don't know what you're talking about to the extent that you can't even understand the meaning of the references you cite in alleged support of your ignorant statements.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Again quantum tunneling models differ based upon types of tunneling mechanisms, processes, calculations, and probably other possible variables as indicated in all the links. Here's more links that generally summarizes some of the numerous differing models and hypothesis based upon different types of quantum tunneling.

    http://www.silvaco.com/products/vwf/...antum2d_07.pdf

    5.3 Quantum Mechanical Tunneling
    Oh good grief, Forrest. You can't even link to sources that say what you claim. The pdf from silvaco is an advert for their CAD tool. It doesn't offer "numerous hypothesis" (btw, the plural is hypotheses). It offers support for different boundary conditions. There's a world of difference between the two!

    You are confusing "different models" with "different hypotheses." Doesn't fly. The other link merely describes different applications of QM to different scenarios (again, arising from different boundary conditions, among other things). But you don't understand QM, so you don't understand why the link actually contradicts what you've been saying!

    It is painfully obvious -- once again -- that you don't know what you're talking about to the extent that you can't even understand the meaning of the references you cite in alleged support of your ignorant statements.
    Show me any credible source that says that there is just one hypothesis, model, method, calculation, concerning quantum tunneling in any of its various types. The answer is obvious to anyone who has studied/ read material in the related field, that there are a number of different models concerning quantum tunneling and related calculations. But if you think otherwise please show me your sources/ links. The only thing some have in common with another is that they all fall under quantum theory, as to my examples. I also proved one non-mainstream model.

    So let's see your links that contradict what I have said.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 24th, 2012 at 10:49 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    tk421,

    You might consider this possibility. Is quantum mechanics controlling your mind/ thoughts requiring you to defend any perceived attack concerning QM's credibility?


    Is Quantum Mechanics Controlling Your Thoughts? | Subatomic Particles | DISCOVER Magazine
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 24th, 2012 at 10:10 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,896
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Show me any credible source that says that there is just one hypothesis, model, method, calculation, concerning quantum tunneling in any of its various types. The answer is obvious to anyone who has studied/ read material in the related field, that there are a number of different models concerning quantum tunneling and related calculations. But if you think otherwise please show me your sources/ links. The only thing some have in common with another is that they all fall under quantum theory, as to my examples. I also proved one non-mainstream model.

    So let's see your links that contradict what I have said.
    You were challenged to support your position, Forrest, since you were the one making the claims. We've pointed out that all of your citations are of references that either fail to support your position, or that even contradict it. Given that abject failure (and an altogether too common one in your case), it's not surprising that you now attempt to shift the burden of proof.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Show me any credible source that says that there is just one hypothesis, model, method, calculation, concerning quantum tunneling in any of its various types. The answer is obvious to anyone who has studied/ read material in the related field, that there are a number of different models concerning quantum tunneling and related calculations. But if you think otherwise please show me your sources/ links. The only thing some have in common with another is that they all fall under quantum theory, as to my examples. I also proved one non-mainstream model.

    So let's see your links that contradict what I have said.
    You were challenged to support your position, Forrest, since you were the one making the claims. We've pointed out that all of your citations are of references that either fail to support your position, or that even contradict it. Given that abject failure (and an altogether too common one in your case), it's not surprising that you now attempt to shift the burden of proof.
    I have explained my position maybe a dozen times on this thread but apparently you have not been reading the postings. All of my links have supported one or more of my statements. Apparently you never understood my position or statements. I said quantum tunneling explanations involve different models to explain quantum tunneling concerning how the mechanics or processes are explained and/or understood. One model, for instance, shows analogies to tunneling involving overcoming the barrier for electrons to physically tunnel a barrier.

    In quantum mechanics, these particles can, with a very small probability, tunnel to the other side, thus crossing the barrier. Here, the ball could, in a sense, borrow energy from its surroundings to tunnel through the wall or roll over the hill, paying it back by making the reflected electrons more energetic than they otherwise would have been.
    Differences in explanations:
    The reason for differences in these explanations comes from the treatment of matter in quantum mechanics as having properties of wavesand particles.
    Quantum mechanics shows that electrons can be described as waves under certain conditions, and a finite probability exists of an electron tunnelling through a classically forbidden barrier due to its wavelike properties. When a wave meets a potential barrier, the wave does not instantly go to zero, but starts to decay exponentially within the potential barrier. If the wave has not reached zero by the time it has reached the other side of the barrier then there is a finite probability that it will be found on the other side of the barrier - the wave has effectively "tunnelled" through the non-conductive barrier.

    www.peratech.com | QTC


    This is a different explanation of the related processes or mechanics of tunneling. All such mainstream explanations do not necessarily contradict each other in that they are all calculable by one or more different mathematical equations of quantum mechanics and there is no asserted macro-world logic involved, just macro-world analogies to assist understanding.

    This process cannot be directly perceived, but much of its understanding is shaped by the macroscopic world, which classical mechanics can adequately explain.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

    I asserted there are different models of quantum tunneling used for calculations:

    For simple tunnelling-barrier models, such as the rectangular barrier, an analytic solution exists. Problems in real life often do not have one, so "semi-classical" or "quasi-classical" methods have been developed to give approximate solutions to these problems, like the WKB approximation. Probabilities may be derived with arbitrary precision, constrained by computational resources, via Feynman's path integral method; such precision is seldom required in engineering practice.
    Different explanations/ understandings can relate to the same or different types and kinds of tunneling. But practically nothing can ever get published by mainstream journals that have explanations inconsistent with principles of quantum mechanics, concerning quantum tunneling or any other quantum mechanism of concerning quantum events.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling



    Last edited by forrest noble; November 25th, 2012 at 01:03 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,896
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I asserted there are different models of quantum tunneling used for calculations:

    For simple tunnelling-barrier models, such as the rectangular barrier, an analytic solution exists. Problems in real life often do not have one, so "semi-classical" or "quasi-classical" methods have been developed to give approximate solutions to these problems, like the WKB approximation. Probabilities may be derived with arbitrary precision, constrained by computational resources, via Feynman's path integral method; such precision is seldom required in engineering practice.
    Forrest, you are a miraculous combination of ignorant and arrogant, so you are unteachable. The rectangular barrier and WKB approximations are .... drumroll please... different idealizations used as approximations to make tractable that which might be computationally prohibitive to do exactly. It's what's done all the time in all branches of science and engineering. As I mentioned in my previous post, and which you ignored because you don't understand what I was saying, these correspond to solving problems with different boundary conditions; they do not represent different "hypotheses" about how quantum tunneling works (which is what we were talking about, remember?). In other words, these are different APPLICATIONS of the SAME theory. The way you have fouled things up is as if you said "There are differing hypotheses of electromagnetism. Some speak of waves radiating from an antenna. Others speak of waves trapped in a resonant cavity." Of course the right way to look at it is there's one set of equations -- due to Maxwell -- which subsume all of those cases. It's the differing boundary conditions that produce different solutions, and that drive the adoption of different simplifying approximations ("models") to facilitate solution. These different solution methods do not constitute "different hypotheses."

    You sorely need courses in basic logic, intellectual honesty and elementary science. Each post of yours demonstrates sloppy thinking, arrogant ignorance, and is an unintended source of hilarity leavened with sadness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    All of my links have supported one or more of my statements.
    Not they don't. You might think they do because you are too ignorant to understand and too deluded to see a contradiction if it staring you in the face.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I asserted there are different models of quantum tunneling used for calculations:

    For simple tunnelling-barrier models, such as the rectangular barrier, an analytic solution exists. Problems in real life often do not have one, so "semi-classical" or "quasi-classical" methods have been developed to give approximate solutions to these problems, like the WKB approximation. Probabilities may be derived with arbitrary precision, constrained by computational resources, via Feynman's path integral method; such precision is seldom required in engineering practice.
    Forrest, you are a miraculous combination of ignorant and arrogant, so you are unteachable. The rectangular barrier and WKB approximations are .... drumroll please... different idealizations used as approximations to make tractable that which might be computationally prohibitive to do exactly. It's what's done all the time in all branches of science and engineering. As I mentioned in my previous post, and which you ignored because you don't understand what I was saying, these correspond to solving problems with different boundary conditions; they do not represent different "hypotheses" about how quantum tunneling works (which is what we were talking about, remember?). In other words, these are different APPLICATIONS of the SAME theory. The way you have fouled things up is as if you said "There are differing hypotheses of electromagnetism. Some speak of waves radiating from an antenna. Others speak of waves trapped in a resonant cavity." Of course the right way to look at it is there's one set of equations -- due to Maxwell -- which subsume all of those cases. It's the differing boundary conditions that produce different solutions, and that drive the adoption of different simplifying approximations ("models") to facilitate solution. These different solution methods do not constitute "different hypotheses."

    You sorely need courses in basic logic, intellectual honesty and elementary science. Each post of yours demonstrates sloppy thinking, arrogant ignorance, and is an unintended source of hilarity leavened with sadness.
    Forrest, you are a miraculous combination of ignorant and arrogant, so you are unteachable.
    Each post of yours demonstrates sloppy thinking, arrogant ignorance, and is an unintended source of hilarity leavened with sadness.
    You've been posting on forums for a while now, right? One of the primary rules of this and all forums is to address the issue and not insult others. This is the starting point of all forums, the first grade so to speak. It seems that you have never learned the most basic rules of this forum, or of any forum, or rules of etiquet and manners in general.

    An Ad hominem is an easy definition/concept to understand if you try. In all forums it is one of the primary rule breakers. If you want anyone to ever read any of your postings and comment concerning their possible value, and if you would like to remain on this forum or be a part of any forum discussions, you have to learn the rules of the forum as well as rules of logic and manners. Ad hominems, in case you didn't know, is one of the most obvious types of false logic there is. It seems obvious that you are unfamiliar, or choose to disregard manners, logic, forum rules and warnings against using ad hominems, and seemingly other aspects of logic and manners of conduct in general.

    define Ad hominem:

    An Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent's argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance.

    Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 25th, 2012 at 01:16 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    All of my links have supported one or more of my statements.
    Not they don't. You might think they do because you are too ignorant to understand and too deluded to see a contradiction if it staring you in the face.
    It seems obvious to me that there is a semantics problem again where words have to be defined. Another well-known rule of logic is that one cannot accurately criticize other's statements unless the specifics in question are made very clear, which you have not done. Please list a statement(s) of mine that you do not understand or think is wrong, by quoting it exactly and provide the posting number where I can find it. If the statement is out of context then the context should explain the statement. If not I will clarify its intended meaning for you by using different words if needed, or maybe more appropriate links. The statements that I made were simple and straightforward and backed up by one or more links, maybe a dozen links in total, each of which were intended to directly relate to at least one statement or point.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 25th, 2012 at 11:49 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,620
    Mod note Come on you guys - stick to the topic at hand and PLEASE stop the insults, else I shall at best close this thread and at worst offer a short vacation (at my expense, naturally)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Please list a statement(s) of mine that you do not understand or think that it is wrong, by quoting it exactly and provide the posting number where I can find it. If the statement is out of context then the context should explain the statement. If not I will clarify its intended meaning for you by using different words if needed, or maybe more appropriate links.
    Here you go:
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Some mainstream papers, now and in the past, have expressed alternative ideas concerning the processes/ mechanics of quantum tunneling.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Please list a statement(s) of mine that you do not understand or think that it is wrong, by quoting it exactly and provide the posting number where I can find it. If the statement is out of context then the context should explain the statement. If not I will clarify its intended meaning for you by using different words if needed, or maybe more appropriate links.
    Here you go:
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Some mainstream papers, now and in the past, have expressed alternative ideas concerning the processes/ mechanics of quantum tunneling.
    The words in question here are "processes or mechanics", one or the other. For mechanics I am referring to a physical process or mechanism. For "ideas concerning," I am referring to "different explanations."

    Concerning this quote from posting #80 I provided this quote concerning the first process or mechanism offered as an explanation for how electrons are able to tunnel a thin barrier:

    In quantum mechanics, these particles can, with a very small probability, tunnel to the other side, thus crossing the barrier. Here, the ball could, in a sense, borrow energy from its surroundings to tunnel through the wall or roll over the hill, paying it back by making the reflected electrons more energetic than they otherwise would have been.
    The is a physical tunneling explanation or analogy. Below was the link that I provided:

    At the end of the first paragraph of section Introduction to Concept.

    Quantum tunnelling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This is an explanation of the process of tunneling, via a type of analogy. As I have said many times, there is no direct macro-world logic to this or any other QM explanation that I have ever heard. Now here is a different explanation using a different process or mechanism of the same electrons tunneling the same barrier, again from posting #80.

    Quantum mechanics shows that electrons can be described as waves under certain conditions, and a finite probability exists of an electron tunnelling through a classically forbidden barrier due to its wavelike properties. When a wave meets a potential barrier, the wave does not instantly go to zero, but starts to decay exponentially within the potential barrier. If the wave has not reached zero by the time it has reached the other side of the barrier then there is a finite probability that it will be found on the other side of the barrier - the wave has effectively "tunnelled" through the non-conductive barrier.
    Here is the link that I provided in posting #80, where the above quote can be found. Scroll down to Quantum Mechanics first paragraph.

    www.peratech.com | QTC


    This is a different explanation involving a different process or mechanism involved. Two different alternative explanations concerning the processes/ mechanics of quantum tunneling. One is a particle explanation of physical tunneling, and the other a wave explanation for the same tunneling. I also said this in posting #80 following the link given above:

    ....All such mainstream explanations do not necessarily contradict each other in that they are all calculable by one or more different mathematical equations of quantum mechanics and there is no asserted macro-world logic involved (anyway), just macro-world analogies to assist understandings.
    This is one type of tunneling with two different explanations, which was my point in that sentence statement that you asked about.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 25th, 2012 at 01:24 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    This is an explanation of the process of tunneling, via a type of analogy.
    It is an ANALOGY. From Wikipedia.

    Now here is a different explanation using a different process or mechanism of the same electrons tunneling the same barrier, again from posting #80.
    It is another, slightly more accurate, analogy.

    These are two analogies describing the same underlying mechanism.

    You have, again, failed to show that "some mainstream papers, now and in the past, have expressed alternative ideas concerning the processes/ mechanics of quantum tunneling"
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    This is an explanation of the process of tunneling, via a type of analogy.
    It is an ANALOGY. From Wikipedia.

    Now here is a different explanation using a different process or mechanism of the same electrons tunneling the same barrier, again from posting #80.
    It is another, slightly more accurate, analogy.

    These are two analogies describing the same underlying mechanism.

    You have, again, failed to show that "some mainstream papers, now and in the past, have expressed alternative ideas concerning the processes/ mechanics of quantum tunneling"
    Again, if you want me to answer another question concerning the meaning or validity of my previous postings, please give a direct quote, and this time also include the posting number where you got the quote so that I can review my meaning in context.

    Comment: papers in general express singular ideas concerning usually one way of explaining a mechansim. Reference sources such as text books or reference sources, such as wiki and others, are probably the best sources for summaries of various explantions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Again, if you want me to answer another question concerning the meaning or validity of my previous postings, please give a direct quote, and this time also include the posting number where you got the quote so that I can review my meaning in context.
    Er, I just did. (Post #87). Can you explain why these two analogies represent "expressed alternative ideas concerning the processes/ mechanics of quantum tunneling" from "mainstream papers".
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Again, if you want me to answer another question concerning the meaning or validity of my previous postings, please give a direct quote, and this time also include the posting number where you got the quote so that I can review my meaning in context.
    Er, I just did. (Post #87). Can you explain why these two analogies represent "expressed alternative ideas concerning the processes/ mechanics of quantum tunneling" from "mainstream papers".
    They are two different ways to explain quantum tunneling. As I have said almost countless times, there is no macro-world logic to it. According to Quantum Mechanics there is no real world understanding possible. See Wiki quote below:

    Quantum tunnelling falls under the domain of quantum mechanics: the study of what happens at the quantum scale. This process cannot be directly perceived, but much of its understanding is shaped by (explanations/ understandings of) the macroscopic world..........
    (bold, parenthesis added)

    scroll down to Introductions to the Concept, first paragraph.

    Quantum tunnelling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "From mainstream papers" was your request, whereby I explained that varying perspective reference sources were better. So I gave wiki as one source and this link as another: www.peratech.com | QTC, which I explained were better sources for summary ideas of any subject, than the single perspectives usually offered in one paper.

    Mainstream Papers are good for various methods of calculation and sometimes new ways to look at the same problem, sometimes offering different prespectives relating to particular types of quantum tunneling.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 25th, 2012 at 02:46 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    They are two different ways to explain quantum tunneling.
    They are two different analogies to describe quantum tunneling. They are not different alternative mainstream mechanisms. There is one mechanism.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    They are two different ways to explain quantum tunneling.
    They are two different analogies to describe quantum tunneling. They are not different alternative mainstream mechanisms. There is one mechanism.
    I agree. "Analogies" better describes these explanations than the word "mechanisms." I also agree that there is just one real mechanism but the difference would be that I would contend that the wave analogy is much closer to what I perceive to be the one "true mechanism." of course unrelated to QM so I cannot explain my model here, but I already gave this tunneling explanation in the pseudo-science thread, as you may recall. I still would use the math of QM if I was interested in learning how to do it, concerning the simplest version of electron tunneling, the time or the process and the related strength and intensity of the outcomming electrons.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 25th, 2012 at 04:53 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 19th, 2012, 02:55 AM
  2. A car tunneling through another
    By Wildstar in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2011, 10:53 AM
  3. Scanning tunneling microscope
    By keyboard45 in forum Electrical and Electronics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 19th, 2008, 05:52 PM
  4. Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscopes
    By hwk in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 11th, 2005, 10:04 AM
  5. Quantum Tunneling Thermoelectric Patents?
    By erich in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 25th, 2005, 04:03 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •