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.
So many interesting and useful possibilities, I guess that just means it will be debunked faster than other scientific theories.
Your glass the wrong size often there, mate?
A good percentage of us believe FTL travel is possible. You came to the wrong place with that attitude.
Qxe4
...but the evidence is clearly stacking up that quantum theory, and with it string theory & m-theory, are pretty much all wrong and utterly flawed.
[citation needed]
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
Where's the revolution when you need one?
Yeah, why haven't you been doing your math and physics to create this revolution that you see so clearly?
The standard model isn't wrong, any more than newtonian physics is wrong. It works great until you get to the edges, then of course you need relativity, but no one knew that until a few hundred years after Newton when we started getting experiments with strange results. Einstein was the one who explained those results.
Physics models are explanations of what we observe, which is why experiments are crucial. Unless we make more observations, we will have nothing to do but extrapolate current theories, which as you mentioned, break down at extremes, since we don't have as much experimental data at those points.
You want a revolution? Make one!
Qxe4
.
Quantum Mechanics feed at Feed Distiller, come there and make your own feeds
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.
Great!... Now we need to not only guess if Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead but also if it is still inside the box as well.
I just tunnel over SSH. It works fine...
From the paper, it looks like this is enough stronger than a hypothesis, to justify the appellation "theory". There's enough information to build detectors that can discriminate the rate of tunneling (if any, of course) between this virtual particle mode, the conversion mode, and "classical" (uncertainty) tunneling.
Time for the experimentalists to take their shot at confirming/denying this one.
One question, though, about the conversion mode: where's a reference for a description of the impetus for the conversion? Is it a sort of uncertainty where the "current" mode of the particle is one of the allowed states of its energy, an oscillation like neutrinos, or does the string (if you go there) pick up energy from an extra-dimensional impact (changing its "tune") then release it in another impact or emission to return to the previous state?
There is always MoND, which explains some of the same things as "Dark Matter" and "String Hypothesis", and then there are also some recent findings that suggest that the Universe is not expanding after all... which would throw the String Hypothesis right out the window.
They already don't quite understand the two types of quantum tunneling they already have, and they want to have a third? Everyone knows that you get your existing shit in order before you go expanding, especially in the current economic climate. Like two types isn't enough already anyway!
Who do they think they are, string theorists??
Um, I am not sure where to start.
You are spouting physics buzzwords with no apparent grasp of what they are or what they mean. Don't try and learn about science from the media - this is the kind of confusion that results.
Dark matter is just matter we can't see. It almost certainly has nothing in particular to do with the Higgs Boson, which is a proposed mechanism by which all matter (dark or otherwise) has mass.
The barrier in question is a potential barrier, and seeing as we live in a three dimensional universe it is a three dimensional barrier; sometimes a potential barrier will be represented in 1 or 2 dimensions for clarity.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
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?
But it is worth mentioning that any new physics at this point, be it MoND, String theory or anything else, is more like a refinement of existing theories than a complete overhaul. If we were very wrong about the laws of physics, then our technology which relies on being tightly fine tuned to them (space probes for Newtonian dynamics, GPS systems for relativity, anything with a semiconductor for quantum mechanics) simply wouldn't work. They do work, and the work with astonishing accuracy.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
I suggest you take up the notion that E=MC^2 is 'wrong' with a survivor of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. If matter/energy equivlance were wrong nothing nuclear would work. Including the Sun, which is essentially a giant, gravitationally bound, thermonuclear explosion.
The notion that light bends is not 'probably' true, it IS true because it was famously measured by Eddington during a solar eclipse. There seems to be some notion amongst the general public that Einstein pulled relativity out of his butt and physicists just accepted it because it was cool. This is not the case at all.
Special relativity was accepted because it explained phenomena that could not be explained by previous theories, and because it has been constantly verified by experiment ever since (time dilation has been measured on aeroplanes using very accurate atomic clocks, and mass dilation is a daily fact of life in any particle accelerator facility you care to name).
General relativity was accepted only because someone went out there, took some measurements, and saw they confirmed Einstein's predictions. Furthermore, we now have everyday technology that depends on GR being, admittedly within certain bounds, correct.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
I object to using the term debunk when referring to disproving a scientific hypothesis that was put forth in good faith by those willing to have it tested. The word debunk means to expose bunkum - which originally meant empty speech and which came to mean claims made by people who knew they were spewing crap.
The proposed model may turn out to exist only in the brain of a couple of overcaffeinated physicists, but it is not bunkum and cannot be debunked.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Theoretical physicists do come up with their best hypotheses on 4/20.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
There is no point arguing with anyone who quotes E=MC^2 as part of relativity. The correct formula, which anyone who studied physics at school, let alone university, would know has a momentum component as well.
You mean the total energy of an object also includes its kinetic energy? Thank you, Captain Obvious! You've certainly toppled damburger's house of cards.
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
The Bohr model of the atom, while incorrect, is a quantum model because it predicts that the electrons of a hydrogen atom can only hold specific quantum energy levels.
This won't be debunked, its true. Once you look at the feynman diagrams its obviously a possible effect.
If you read the paper and not the very bad summary in the article - along with a wrong diagram - then this is not what they are suggesting. They calculate the neutrino digram shown in the article and which you estimated and come up with a probability of O(10^-130) times a function of the neutrino mass, barrier thickness and photon energy. This would be an interesting way to measure neutrino mass if the probability were not so low.
What they are actually wanting to test is whether there are new, fractionally charged particles out there. So this is not something that is guaranteed to work. In fact I do not see how we would not have already seen such particles before now in virtual effects in K and B experiments if nothing else...but I have not looked at it in detail.