E=mc2 vs Wave/Particle Duality

[alokmohan]

Quatum tunelling?I always thoght it is science fiction.

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">Quatum tunelling?I always thoght it is science fiction. </font><br /><br />Quantum tunneling is quite real, and quite important. How so?<br />1. Some biological enzymes (hydrogenases) actually work by quantum tunneling of hydrogen atoms. Without this, we would not be alive.<br />2. The organic memory devices we are researching here store and release charge by a quantum tunneling mechanism.<br />3. SQUID devices work on a quantum tunneling mechanism. These are used to measure minute magnetic fields, and have use among other places in neurological diagnosis.<br />4. Scanning tunneling microscopes rely on a quantum tunneling mechanism.<br />5. Ultimately, what will limit the reduction in size of integrated circuit devices is "field emission", a quantum tunneling mechanism. Already quantum tunneling is an annoying issue in the design of 32nm node FLASH memory.<br />6. Cold emission (quantum tunneling) limits the dark noise in diode array detectors (used in telescopes). Ultimately, this noise limits the ability of a telescope to see extreme distances, or even to image a planet orbiting another star. <br />7. Esaki won a Nobel in the 70's after designing and demsonstrating a super-fast diode device that was based on quantum tunneling. <br />8. Many chemical reaction involving re-arrangements involve a quantum tunneling mechanism (sometimes even with atoms heavier than H!). See my attached figure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[yevaud]

The Josephson Junction effect that all Transistors make use of (including our PCs) is also a Quantum tunnelling event. Electrons jump the junction, going from position A to B without transversing the distance between. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"the speed of light is a universal constant"<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />This is probably not true on the quantum level."<br />-------------------------------------------<br /><br />that's my position also, it is best exhibited in experiments with entangled particles that had been done over macroscopic distances<br /><br />however I don't see that as in any way endangering the constancy of c on macroscopic levels, particle level is not something we should imagine as particles being some little blobs of matter moving about like matter does on macroscopic level but just on smaller scale, that is completely false view and if the constancy of c doesn't seem to hold in QM on particle level, in no way does that imply that c might not be universal constant on macroscopic scale of our everyday world<br /><br />the experiments done on entaglement seem to suggest instantaneous communication between particles separated by macroscopic distances or at least many times faster than the speed of light, something like ten million times faster than c or faster... (Entanglement, A.D. Aczel p. 237)<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

Entanglement does not violate Special Relativity (the speed of light), at least according to Brian Greene: Measuring the SPIN of one photon appears <i>instantaneously </i> to affect the other, no information is transmitted from one to the other, and the speed limit of special relativity remains in force. Nothing travels between the two distant locations. There is instant communication as you said, but no information, and appears to be a property of space itself. Space isn't local, it's more universal in it's commmunication between the two photons. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[rehanaownsu]

you're all wrong.<br /><br />Einstein never wrote E=MC2<br />it was M=E/c2<br /><br />and it makes alot more sense<br /><br />http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-playall.html

 

[alokmohan]

What is the difference?

 

[vandivx]

"Measuring the SPIN of one photon appears instantaneously to affect the other, no information is transmitted from one to the other, and the speed limit of special relativity remains in force. Nothing travels between the two distant locations. There is instant communication as you said, but no information, and appears to be a property of space itself. Space isn't local, it's more universal in it's commmunication between the two photons."<br />------<br />yes, that should be pointed out (no violation of SR), however I don't think you can claim 'Nothing travels between the two distant locations.' because SOMETHING definitely does have to travel, else you wouldn't get the correlation, its just that you can't use the contact to transfer any information but some mode of contact at superluminal speeds has to be there which transfers the information the particle needs in order to be correlated with its counterpart (entangled) particle although it is not the kind of information we can use for our purposses, still it is enough for what the particle need to know what the other particle is doing <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

It's the same equation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />yes, that should be pointed out (no violation of SR), however I don't think you can claim 'Nothing travels between the two distant locations.' because SOMETHING definitely does have to travel, else you wouldn't get the correlation</i><br /><br />Nope, I'm going to take Brian Greene at his word, that nothing travels between the space of the two entangled photons, even if one is on the other side of the universe. I have another explanation, a little far fetched, if not crazy. What if Entanglement, causes the space between the two photons to contract instantaneously, to allow the communication? I'm talking about space on a quantum level (or dimension). This is the only other logical explanation that I can think of. Whataya think? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

look, why don't you stop a bit and think what did B Greene do in physics appart from regurgitating some physics for laymen, I don't know that he made himself a name by advancing the physics in any way that is generally accepted or respected, what he says is the majority's opinion and the majority in physics today are clearly stuck, they don't have any solutions<br /><br />also when I said something travels between the entangled particles, that wasn't meant as some explanation (since you say you have 'another' explanation), that's just common sense that the particles have to communicate somehow by some means, magic doesn't happen in physics, that's all I wanted to say<br /><br />your 'what if' attempt at guessing at the solution is pure groundless guessing and you will never get anywhere like that, physics doesn't advance like that, you have to start from some known accepted facts or at least from some features of physics that you point out and then argue from there towards the explanation how the entangled particles might communicate their state one to another and it better be some integrated view/argument with other physical facts being brought into the argument (ok, you can make up something totally new like that contracting space to allow the entangled particles to communicate but then it is up to you to supply some theory, ie. make an effort to make it believable/understood if you would want it to be considered), so far physics doesn't know about some instantaneous contraction of space, you pulled it out like magician pulls rabbits out of his sleve LOL<br /><br />that's why I would have no idea what to say to your suggestion, it is totally unworkable proposition like if you said nothing (it might be ok proposition as subject for some sci-fi discussion but in physics you need more than that)<br />I don't mean it to be offensive at all, just trying to explain why I am helpless in front of such proposition, same as when people begin talking about more than three dimensio <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[exoscientist]

That link for the hydrogenases didn't open Silylene.<br /> Do you have other refs for hydrogenases depending on quantum tunneling?<br /><br /> Bob <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

The quantum view of the universe is fundamentally different from the Newtonian view. Each particle is said to have both corpuscular (pebble-like) and wave-like properties. Furthermore, a quantum particle cannot, in general, be located precisely. It has a built-in uncertainty that cannot be taken away by the best of measuring instruments. For these reasons, a particle in quantum mechanics is often treated as a wave function. This is another way of saying that the particle is akin to a small bundle of waves.<br /><br />Representing a quantum particle as such a bundle has two advantages. For one, it reveals that the particle is, in some sense, blurry and can never be exactly pinned down. It exists over a range of space, not a specific point. For another, the wave function format allows particles to exhibit wave-like properties. Tunneling has one of these wave-like properties. By the more general name of "barrier penetration," it is a well-established characteristic of waves. Light waves, for instance, have long been observed to overcome daunting optical barriers.<br /><br />In a fundamental sense, the quantum mechanical explanation of tunneling can be illustrated by an analogy. If we <br /> I googled ,forgot about the link.

 

[vandivx]

"it now appears that quantizing the macroscopic deterministic theories is the way to go, for lots of good reasons."<br />---<br /><br />somehow I don't believe in strangling one or the other therory to make it more like the other, first we have to better understand QM and things will work themselves out<br /><br />I don't see any problem with QM and relativity in the sense that relativity applies to particles (for example in accelerators it is common for SR to be involved) just as it does to macroscopic bodies and applying QM rules to macroscopic bodies is the problem in itself and doesn't have much to do with relativity theory per se<br /><br />its like if we wanted to quantize classical mechanics to bring it into one theory together with QMs, my understanding of the whole problem is that all those various theories are looking at the reality from different angles, treating different aspects of reality in their own ways<br /><br />anyway, I think we should first eliminate mysteries from QM and also from relativity theories before we get concerned how everything could be made part of one unified theory<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>