Physicists Propose New Kind of Quantum Tunneling 163
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.
let's hear it for optimism (Score:4, Funny)
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.
cat (Score:5, Funny)
bah, quantums (Score:3, Funny)
I just tunnel over SSH. It works fine...
Re:cat (Score:3, Funny)
Alternatively, perhaps Schrodinger is right now tunneling out of his grave with all these lame jokes ;-)
Re:cat (Score:1, Funny)
Hard to believe it's been 10 years eh. Greatest movie ever.
No, no, no! They cannot do this. (Score:4, Funny)
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??
Re:cat (Score:5, Funny)
He's just spinning in his grave. We're just not sure what direction he's spinning.
Re:cat (Score:3, Funny)
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.
- Year 2137. Classroom -
"...And thus was proved that, until we open the box we can only know one of the animal's five fundamental variables: it's life/death state, location, speed, species and political orientation.
Re:cat (Score:4, Funny)
Re:cat (Score:2, Funny)
So its true then - (Score:3, Funny)
Re:cat (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What? (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:cat (Score:3, Funny)