Slashdot Mirror
Physicists Propose New Kind of Quantum Tunneling
KentuckyFC writes to tell us that scientists from the UK and Germany are proposing a third kind of quantum tunneling. They propose that a quantum particle is capable of changing into a pair of "virtual particles" capable of passing through a potential barrier before changing back. The supposition also provides some interesting methods of possibly testing string theory. So many interesting and useful possibilities, I guess that just means it will be debunked faster than other scientific theories.
You make a mistake in lumping quantum theory in with String Theory.
There is at present no evidence whatsoever that quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and so on are wrong. These theories are the best tested theories in human history (certain predictions about energy levels such as those in the hydrogen atom have been verified to 12 or so digits of accuracy.) Quantum mechanics is at this point the best tested and thus most probably correct theory in physics by far. This does not mean that there isn't another underlying theory that will make somewhat different predictions, but the differences would have to be fantastically small.
String theory, on the other hand, has basically no evidence against it, but also virtually no supporting evidence. This is mostly because it hasn't really come up with much in the way of testable claims.
I never ceased to be tickled by people loudly and ignorantly arguing against the reality of quantum mechanics USING A MACHINE DRIVEN BY FUCKING SEMICONDUCTORS. Its like the flat Earth society getting its message out through satellite television.
Quantum mechanics, like any science, is not a religious doctrine. It doesn't have to be complete and all encompassing to be right; it just has to fit the observations for everything we have tried so far. When it stops fitting the observations, we will give it up (or more likely, refine it in some subtle way) and move on.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
So, to put it more succinctly, you advocate that we delude ourselves?
No, but I advocate that we advance science with the hope that our hypotheses might be correct, rather than with a firm belief that our hypotheses are incorrect.