Quantum tunneling and MM

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />One would think a general wave phenomenon like this would be well studied and explained. Is there a formula for determining how quickly a wavefront in any medium will spread out? I would guess medium particle size, coefficient of friction, medium density and some other variables could be used to predict things like wave propagation speed and wavefront spread. Would such a formula be able to tell us anything about the elysium that we don't yet know?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">At a macroscopic level, I think beam spread is a function of two things: (1) distance traveled from source, which determines how much curvature remains of the original spherical wavefront section; and (2) diffraction, which is the slicing effect produced by a sharp edge on a transverse wave.

The latter is an example of where there is room to make a significant research contribution in this developing field. We need formulas for the various observed properties of light (such as refraction and diffraction) in terms of elyson number density, size, mass, and rms speed. We can then use the observed properties to set further constraints on the elyson parameters.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I wonder if quantum tunneling of light can best be explained by realizing that objects which are assumed to be opaque to light perhaps are not. That the elysium is enmeshed within the objects that are used in the experiments and so there is a probability that a portion of the wavefronts will propagate through the material with enough amplitude to produce the effects that are seen.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That strikes me as a very good insight. Objects are not just "opaque" or "transparent", but possess a certain percentage of both. We would need to converse with someone familiar with the experimental details to determine if the experiments already done, or a new experiment in the future, can control for this possibility. -|Tom|-

Is there any data that indicates tunneling is a real event? The math that is used to get a lot of the interesting results in QM seems to have very little to do with real events much like AC current math with ideas like the square root of minus one. The math is known to be not real but works well to solve and predict real events and I wonder if a lot of stuff in QM is like that?

Jim,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Is there any data that indicates tunneling is a real event? The math that is used to get a lot of the interesting results in QM seems to have very little to do with real events much like AC current math with ideas like the square root of minus one. The math is known to be not real but works well to solve and predict real events and I wonder if a lot of stuff in QM is like that?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Quantum tunneling is a very real phenomena that is experimentally demonstrated. The physical model (with regards to QM I use this term very loosely) is of course very questionable, but the basic math is straightforward probability function. The math regardless of its interpretation correctly predicts the effects and is exceedingly useful. It is the assumed correctness of the Standard Model that makes QM counterintuitive. I don't think it is useful to try categorize math into "real" and "not real". The use of complex numbers does not make math "unreal". ITS ALL UNREAL! If your point is that a mathematical model is not a physical model, you are correct. A mathematical model does not describe physical objects but the rules that govern their interactions. A physical model describes the real objects but says little about their interactions except to place limits on what is possible. Both the physical and mathematical models are required to have a complete model. Modern physics has been very successful at developing good working mathematical models, but developing good physical models has become passe.


JR

Of course tunneling is a real observation and that is not an issue. The question I have about the observed event is how the math effects what is observed. The QM perspective is that a lot of stuff happens because the math requires it and not that anything really occurs. Tunneling is an important observation but as with things that occur in reverse time part of the model does not really exist. This is a problem it seems to me that should be fixed if you want a better process to develop. A lot of chatter about models and observations could be resolved if this was clear.

Jim,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The QM perspective is that a lot of stuff happens because the math requires it and not that anything really occurs. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Isn't this the case for much more modelling paradigms in physics? For example, first we try to find a mathematical representation of observed phenomena. Then, if we succeed in predicting these phenomena, we "extrapolate" our model and assume that these new phenomena are real. Relativity, Quantum Weirdness and String Theory are good examples. No?

Hi Jan, Yes, you are right and that process needs to be clearly identified so the real event is not lost in the hoopla generated by the modeling. In this instance(tunneling) the event is real but in my opinion the model is way out of wack and it is the model that gets all the attention not the event itself.