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.
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
...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]
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:let's hear it for optimism (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
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... or, since we're dealing with quantum physics, we'll discover a whole bunch of other stuff which makes absolutely no sense, but is nonetheless true.
Re:Is real but rare (Score:3, Insightful)
"This won't be debunked, its true. Once you look at the feynman diagrams its......"
And even though everything else may be uncertain, and a thoery which predicts everything down to the smallest bit of truth is lacking, you state with confidence that anything found in feynman diagrams must be true?
Models are just models.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Serious hypothesis does not equal bunkum (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:let's hear it for optimism (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Is real but rare (Score:1, Insightful)
You speak the language but don't seem to understand the ideas behind physics. Nothing is ever true, it is just supported by experimental observation under certain conditions.
Now go back to your probability theory, yes 10^-18 is rare but that means that if you try 10^18 times, probability favors seeing it once. The real question is can we distinguish it from normal tunneling with in experimental error. If we can't, then it is a useless theory even if it is true.
I suggest going back and reading Feynman's general lectures.
Re:What? (Score:1, Insightful)
First of all, I'm not debating with you the usefulness of quantum mechanics and Quantum Electro Dynamics, instead I would like to stress the multiple interpretations of physics in a more meta-physical method. Lets put your argument into phlogiston theory, and see how it functions:
- modified quote ... satellite television.
I never ceased to be tickled by people loudly and ignorantly arguing against the reality of phlogiston theory USING A MACHINE DRIVEN BY FUCKING HEAT. Its like the
- end quote
Now for the second part of your argument: actually modifying a theory when it no longer fits the observations is something many bigot believers who are in the habbit of too theoreticaly interpretting their own religion, constantly do.
Most scientific changes have been brought up by fundamentally challenging the premises on which everything else is based, for example: is there an atom, or are there fields? do we view space as carthesian, as exponentional, in 3 dimensions or more? can we prove anything at all in certainty, by making observations? (a certain problem in Quantum Mechanics in relationship with induction) what logical language do we need to base our observations on, and does the logical language we use modify our view of the world?
Now, our current epoch in physics has been long standing, still based on the principles of relativity theory and quantum mechanics, fine-tuned, admittedly, but not fundamentally challenged. Come to realize there are differences in perception between those who view a theory as 'real' (there are indeed electrons, photons, etc.), and those who find a theory sufficient (giving no judgement on the existence of the former mentioned entities). Neither can be right, but both can twist the perceptual position of the interlocutor.
Re:let's hear it for optimism (Score:5, Insightful)
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.