Phenomena only explicable via QM

[akhmeteli]

I'll call you on that. Please describe, using classical physics, how tunneling works.

***The “model” of my article is, on the one hand, pretty much equivalent to the Klein-Gordon-Maxwell electrodynamics, which theory certainly describes tunneling, on the other hand, the “model” is just modified classical electrodynamics. So I would say it’s a classical theory that describes tunneling. Yes, it is different from standard classical theories, such as classical mechanics of point particles or classical electrodynamics. But it is still a classical theory, pretty much like classical electrodynamics.

It is not a constraint*. I have provided an example. The OP asked for examples. Examples are not exclusive or constraining and do not constitute an exhaustive list.

**It is certainly a constraint with respect to the example provided by the other poster - that of tunneling (you wanted specifically a counterpart of tunneling of particles). I offered my high jump “counterpart” before you offered your example, so you cannot reasonably criticize my “counterpart” for not fitting your example. As for your specific example, I offered another “counterpart” – that of my article.

*You sure you're using that word right? If he had asked for "examples of man-made pollution", and I offered up "acid rain" as an example, would you be accusing me of a "rain" constraint?

See above**

You said nothing above, so you still have not made your point.

I disagree

If the OP were the best judge of what answers he'd get, he would not need to ask the question. The nature of a question is that it solicits input about things one does not already know about.

I did not say the OP is “the best judge of what answers he'd get”, I said he is the best judge of what answer is relevant.

The fact that the OP welcome you input does not make your input right.

I fully agree, “The fact that the OP welcome [my] input does not make [my] input right”, but I insist that this fact makes my input relevant.

I am bot trying to shut you down; I am simply ensuring that any assertions you do make are within he bounds of accepted science.

I have no problems with that.

I'm still waiting for that classical description of quantum tunneling.

See above***

 

[mathew3]

You misunderstand me. Classical physics cannot explain it. It isn't that it hasn't yet, it is that it cannot explain it. The known laws of classical physics simply aren't able to unless you rewrite the theory. Which is kind of what QM did.

I strongly disagree. This is demonstrably false. I just proved that with F=iV/c. Now you may reject it because it fails the test as to being accepted by the "mainstream" or you may reject it because you genuinely feel it actually violates the laws and principles of classical physics somehow but no one can deny that classically this equation might explain electron tunneling. It violates no conservation laws, indeed it is an expression of the conservation laws since power in must equal power out and it violates no laws of probability which tunneling skirts with.

Which is exactly what I mean. Using ONLY classical rules you cannot explain tunneling. It just isn't possible without altering the rules and coming up with a new theory. (AKA QM)

Again, see above. Until you can cite what physical laws that equation violates your protestations of "cannot" just doesn't ring true. Again, I'm not saying the equation is true only that it is a possible explanation. It may well be false. By the same token you cannot say it is false simply because your QM rules work in QM.

 

[mathew3]

But it does mean they are not for discussion in this forum, which is dedicated to accepted mainstream physics.

Apparently discussing the conservation of power in an electrical circuit is not mainstream physics. I stand corrected.

 

[DaveC426913]

Apparently discussing the conservation of power in an electrical circuit is not mainstream physics. I stand corrected.

Since that is not what we were discussing, your comment is non sequitur.

But presumably you're going to segue to that now. Or did you want to milk the sarcasm a bit longer?

 

[D H]

Thread locked pending moderation.