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.
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 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?
Not necessarily... the more exciting an idea is, the more interest it attracts, and so the quicker its ideas are either proven true or false.
Ideas in physics are never proven true. They are shown not to contradict any existing evidence, that is all. I can't think of any more than a few decades old which have survived even this. The best most theories can hope for is being shown to be a reasonable approximation within certain constraints. Eventually it may be possible to find a theory which both makes meaningful predictions and isn't contradicted by experimental results for a much longer time, but this hasn't happened yet and is unlikely to for quite a long time.
Physics is not about finding things that are 'true' it is about finding things that make useful predictions. Newtonian motion is not 'true', but it makes predictions that are sufficiently accurate (as long as you are not travelling at more than a tiny fraction of the speed of light or near a very large gravitational force) that we can use them.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.