Is it really possible to slap my hand through a table?

[Sciencelad2798]

TL;DR Summary

Can I theoretically go through a table?

I've just started to learn about Quantum Tunneling and heard that if I were to slap my hand on a table it's theoretically possible for my hand to go through the table. Is this really possible and if so, does the fact that this is even possible provide evidence that we could be living in a simulation?

 

[PeroK]

The simple answer is that it is not possible. When some people learn about QM, they make the (IMO false) assumption that because everything is made of atoms and elementary particles, everything must behave like atoms and elementary particles. This is not the case. If you have a large number of atoms bound together into a large object, then that large object may have properties very different from its elementary constintuent parts.

Although an electron may tunnel through a potential barrier, that does not mean that all objects may tunnel.

Ironically, in fact, it's QM that explains why certain objects are solid and you cannot simply push your hand through any substance. It's a total misconception, therefore, that QM undermines the nature of reality that we experience.

It's a false notion that the solidity of a table is somehow obvious from classical physics and that QM undermines this. It's the other way round: classical physics cannot explain why you cannot simply push your hand through a table - and it's QM that explains it.

If you are learning QM, you have to be careful with sources that give these false impressions. They are generally trying to dramaticise QM at the expense of explaining the theory properly.

 

[Demystifier]

I've just started to learn about Quantum Tunneling and heard that if I were to slap my hand on a table it's theoretically possible for my hand to go through the table. Is this really possible

Possible but very very very unlikely. The general rule of thumb is that probability of tunneling decreases as the size of the object increases, so that probability is significant only for objects as small as electrons.

 

[Dale]

Summary:: Can I theoretically go through a table?

if I were to slap my hand on a table it's theoretically possible for my hand to go through the table. Is this really possible

Absolutely:

 

[Sciencelad2798]

Possible but very very very unlikely. The general rule of thumb is that probability of tunneling decreases as the size of the object increases, so that probability is significant only for objects as small as electrons.

That's very interesting, thanks for the answer. Now, does the fact that this is even theoretically possible provide evidence to simulation theory? I'm kinda struggling with that concept

 

[Dale]

Now, does the fact that this is even theoretically possible provide evidence to simulation theory?

No. Why would it?

 

[Sciencelad2798]

No. Why would it?

I think the fact that something so strange is even possible, could provide some evidence towards it. I mean, I know if i slap my hand on a table the odds say there's practically no chance it ever actually goes through said table, but if it did somehow happen one day, it would resemble a glitch in a video game.

 

[Dale]

I think the fact that something so strange is even possible, could provide some evidence towards it.

No. That isn’t the way that evidence works. For some observation to be evidence of one hypothesis over another it must be more likely under that hypothesis than the other. So the mere fact that the observation has a nonzero probability under both hypotheses is not itself evidence. Particularly when the observation is still counter factual.

In actuality, the fact that the probability is non-zero under both hypotheses weakens the evidentiary strength of the observation. Because it is non-zero in both, simply observing the phenomenon does not immediately exclude one theory.

 

[PeroK]

Possible but very very very unlikely.

I'm not sure this answer makes any practical sense. First, of course it is possible to put your hand through a table. The question is what are the circumstances under which it would happen? The table might be very flimsy, it might have rotted etc. The table might be a prop, made of paper, for example.

The probability of it happening due to some sort of quantum tunnelling is not just small, but incalculably small. It's not even clear that it is possible in any meaningful way. What does the result look like? Is your hand still attached to your wrist? Where is your wrist? Where is the table? Surely the probability of, say, one finger quantum tunnelling off your hand spontaneously has incalculably greater odds than your hand going through a table?

Even if you postulated that you could attempt this experiment every Planck time unit for the expected age of the universe, the probability of any quantum tunnelling on that scale is still incalculably small. That, in one sense, makes it impossible - in that it cannot be experimentally distinguished from the impossible.

PS In the above experiment you would never see anything that even remotely resembles what you are looking for.

 

[PeroK]

I think the fact that something so strange is even possible,

I claim it's impossible and I'll leave you and @Demystifier to find experimental evidence to the contrary!

 

[hutchphd]

And you should ask the simulation question after you have penetrated the table. Then it might be interesting. Until then it belongs to the realm of idle speculation.
This is very different from, and should not be confused with, the directed imagination useful to science.

 

[gentzen]

I'm not sure this answer makes any practical sense. ...

The probability of it happening due to some sort of quantum tunnelling is not just small, but incalculably small. It's not even clear that it is possible in any meaningful way. What does the result look like? Is your hand still attached to your wrist? Where is your wrist? Where is the table? Surely the probability of, say, one finger quantum tunnelling off your hand spontaneously has incalculably greater odds than your hand going through a table?

I would say that Sciencelad2798's mistake is to believe that infinitely accurate probabilites have any meaning, independent of the available means to verify or falsify them. An incalculably small probability is only meaningfully different from zero, if you believe that its implied accuracy has any meaning. Murray Gell-Mann's very last (coauthored) paper touched and elaborated on that theme, and had a strong impact on me.

 

[PeroK]

I would say that Sciencelad2798's mistake is to believe that infinitely accurate probabilites have any meaning, independent of the available means to verify or falsify them. An incalculably small probability is only meaningfully different from zero, if you believe that its implied accuracy has any meaning. Murray Gell-Mann's very last (coauthored) paper touched and elaborated on that theme, and had a strong impact on me.

There was a maths challenge question five years ago where we had to estimate the expected maximum number of consecutive heads from an experiment where a coin was tossed every second for the current lifetime of the universe (14 billion years). The answer was about 57-58. Not very many!

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/micromass-big-probability-challenge.872528/page-2#post-5478789

I don't believe it would even be possible to write down the number of consecutive heads that would be equivalent to the sort of quantum tunnelling we are talking about here.

That got me thinking about the meaninglessness of contemplating these events that cannot in any reasonable sense ever be experienced or experimentally verified. There's a difference between conceiving, say, one million heads in a row - where it is manifestly just the same thing over and over - and conceiving a hand quantum tunnelling through a table, where there is no direct evidence of how it could place.

 

[DrChinese]

I know if i slap my hand on a table the odds say there's practically no chance it ever actually goes through said table, but if it did somehow happen one day, it would resemble a glitch in a video game.

Why must there always be a "glitch" in the simulation? So "they" created "us" with consciousness within a machine; and made it appear we are on a 4.5 billion year old planet within a galaxy that consistently follows fake laws of physics; and defies our attempts to detect that all we see is illusion.

But they made a few glitches in the programming. Riiiiight.

BTW the tunneling phenomena itself is not a glitch, it is something to be expected within quantum mechanics. That "glitch" is actually a critical component of solar fusion. Hydrogen in the sun's core cannot normally fuse to helium (the reaction that releases heat) due to repulsion of positively charged protons. However, quantum tunneling occurs every so often - about 1 in 10^28 collisions - and allows the fusion reaction to occur. That occurs a whopping approximately 10^36 times per second. Without that, the sun does not shine.

So I'd say... we need that glitch. Read a lay description of this process:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ethans...-that-allow-the-sun-to-shine/?sh=a2b29b843f7e

 

[DrChinese]

Murray Gell-Mann's very last (coauthored) paper touched and elaborated on that theme, and had a strong impact on me.

The paper itself...

https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0585

Abstract: "Gambles are random variables that model possible changes in monetary wealth. Classic decision theory transforms money into utility through a utility function and defines the value of a gamble as the expectation value of utility changes. Utility functions aim to capture individual psychological characteristics, but their generality limits predictive power. Expectation value maximizers are defined as rational in economics, but expectation values are only meaningful in the presence of ensembles or in systems with ergodic properties, whereas decision-makers have no access to ensembles and the variables representing wealth in the usual growth models do not have the relevant ergodic properties. Simultaneously addressing the shortcomings of utility and those of expectations, we propose to evaluate gambles by averaging wealth growth over time. No utility function is needed, but a dynamic must be specified to compute time averages. Linear and logarithmic "utility functions" appear as transformations that generate ergodic observables for purely additive and purely multiplicative dynamics, respectively. We highlight inconsistencies throughout the development of decision theory, whose correction clarifies that our perspective is legitimate. These invalidate a commonly cited argument for bounded utility functions."

 

[Demystifier]

Now, does the fact that this is even theoretically possible provide evidence to simulation theory?

No.

Here is an analogy. There is a very very very small probability that you will win jackpot 100 times in a row, but this has nothing to do with simulation theory.

 

[Sciencelad2798]

No.

Here is an analogy. There is a very very very small probability that you will win jackpot 100 times in a row, but this has nothing to do with simulation theory.

I do understand that analogy, but I think there's still a difference between a coincidence, no matter how insane, and something so unusual it could be considered a "glitch"

 

[Dale]

I do understand that analogy, but I think there's still a difference between a coincidence, no matter how insane, and something so unusual it could be considered a "glitch"

That doesn’t make it evidence. See above.

 

[Sciencelad2798]

But if the day comes where my hand does go through the table, couldn't we call that at the very least somewhat evidence of sim theory?

 

[Dale]

But if the day comes where my hand does go through the table, couldn't we call that at the very least somewhat evidence of sim theory?

What is the specific probability of such a glitch happening according to simulation theory?

 

[Sciencelad2798]

I guess it would be extremely unlikely, but if it were to happen, it would be like sticking your hand through a hologram, or something magic like. I don't know, I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that I could actually stick my hand through a table. I kinda understand the logistics, but the end result is just so weird I can't really understand just how it could ever possibly happen. And even if it never happens, which it almost certainly won't, just the fact that it's possible it could happen still feels reminiscent to a "glitch" of some kind.

 

[Demystifier]

I do understand that analogy, but I think there's still a difference between a coincidence, no matter how insane, and something so unusual it could be considered a "glitch"

Glitch is something that actually happens occasionally, the probability of it is small, but not too small. So if you actually observed tunneling of your hand, it would suggest that QM as we know it might be wrong. If QM was wrong it would be very interesting scientifically, but it would still not imply that we live in a simulation.

 

[Sciencelad2798]

Glitch is something that actually happens occasionally, the probability of it is small, but not too small. So if you actually observed tunneling of your hand, it would suggest that QM as we know it might be wrong. If QM was wrong it would be very interesting scientifically, but it would still not imply that we live in a simulation.

But if glitches do happen, even on the microscopic scale, couldn't that still be used as evidence towards the simulation theory? Or am I misunderstanding these "glitches"?

 

[Demystifier]

But if glitches do happen, even on the microscopic scale, couldn't that still be used as evidence towards the simulation theory? Or am I misunderstanding these "glitches"?

No. Yes.

 

[Sciencelad2798]

No. Yes.

Ok, can you please explain what these "glitches" are?

 

[Dale]

I guess it would be extremely unlikely

But how can you use “simulation theory” to actually calculate how extremely unlikely it is? Without that there can be no evidence.

And even if it never happens, which it almost certainly won't, just the fact that it's possible it could happen still feels reminiscent to a "glitch" of some kind.

Regardless, until the “theory” can put a specific number to the probability then even observing the “glitch” is not scientific evidence for or against it.

But if glitches do happen, even on the microscopic scale, couldn't that still be used as evidence towards the simulation theory? Or am I misunderstanding these "glitches"?

No. You are misunderstanding evidence. Please re read https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...-my-hand-through-a-table.1008594/post-6558750

 

[PeroK]

Ok, can you please explain what these "glitches" are?

This forum is to discuss science. Not science fiction, which the simulation hypothesis is.

 

[Jarvis323]

You could reasonably view it as evidence against the simulation hypothesis, at least one implementing QM and with some assumptions.

(1) We know that tunnelling is required for solar fusion etc. We could assume the warmth and light from the Sun would be intentional under a simulation hypothesis. Then quantum tunneling could be assumed to be intentional under simulation hypothesis.

(2) Your hand going through the table is something you could assume to be unintended by the simulation developer. Since tunneling could lead to that theoretically, there could be a motivation to make special cases or corrections to ensure that objects don't tunnel in ways not intended.

So if an object does tunnel, it means either it's just an unlikely occurrence which is possible by the fundamental physics of nature that QM models, or it's an unlikely occurrence in the simulation imlementing something like QM, AND either there is no special case to correct for it or block it, or that special case handling failed. The probability is lower in that case than the first one based on what we know and the assumption that the base probability implied by QM is the same microscopically in both cases (one could argue).

 

[berkeman]

I guess it would be extremely unlikely, but if it were to happen, it would be like sticking your hand through a hologram, or something magic like. I don't know, I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that I could actually stick my hand through a table. I kinda understand the logistics, but the end result is just so weird I can't really understand just how it could ever possibly happen. And even if it never happens, which it almost certainly won't, just the fact that it's possible it could happen still feels reminiscent to a "glitch" of some kind.

I have submitted a paper that will be published in the journal Science next month that shows that the probability of slapping your hand through your own head is approximately twice as likely as through a tabletop. Please watch for the article since it seems to apply to your questions in this thread.

 

[Demystifier]

Ok, can you please explain what these "glitches" are?

Which ones? The ones with hand did not actually happen, so they are nothing.

 

[Nugatory]

Threads like this one are why the simulation hypothesis is a disallowed topic here. This thread is closed.

(as with all thread closures, if you have something that has not already been said to add to the discussion, you may PM me or any other mentor to ask for a temporary reopening to let you post)