Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according
to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not
the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.
What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say, multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body radiation law been experimentally verified? Or that radioactive decay
really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,
strong, Einstein) of the equivalence principle hold?
I realize that it is difficult to get funding for things like those, but
at least in some cases the corresponding experiment shouldn't be too expensive.
real problem here seems to be finding something that is overlooked!
On 1/4/21 10:19 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
^ The
real problem here seems to be finding something that is overlooked!
Here is an observation to be explained for
all available 1,800 asteroid rotations from
The International Astronomical Union Minor Planet Center
Lightcurve Parameters (2006 Mar. 14) https://minorplanetcenter.net//iau/lists/LightcurveDat.html
The data base sorted and plotted(100 point moving average)
indicates a minimum rotation(delta hour) per rotation(hour) near
asteroids with 8 hour rotation.
Why is there a minimum
and why is it of this magnitude?
On 1/4/21 10:19 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
^ The
real problem here seems to be finding something that is overlooked!
Here is an observation to be explained for
all available 1,800 asteroid rotations from
The International Astronomical Union Minor Planet Center
Lightcurve Parameters (2006 Mar. 14) https://minorplanetcenter.net//iau/lists/LightcurveDat.html
The data base sorted and plotted(100 point moving average)
indicates a minimum rotation(delta hour) per rotation(hour) near
asteroids with 8 hour rotation.
Why is there a minimum
and why is it of this magnitude?
Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according
to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not
the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.
What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,
multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body radiation law been experimentally verified? Or that radioactive decay
really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,
On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 4:49:11 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or
expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according
to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but
heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not
the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.
What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,
multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body
radiation law been experimentally verified? Or that radioactive decay
really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,
given a single neutron creating a single radioisotope atom
the question becomes "can it never decay?" Meaning does
decay have a probability distribution.
...
The natural existence of a characteristic decay rate implies
an atom set lifetime. Now a convergent?
But, at some time the last atom.
Given a set of atoms and a 100percent counting efficiency
will the number of counts ever equal the number of
atoms.
basically needing mathematical solution. How to solve
this dilemma?
... I am still open on this question but
submit it as a version of the halving distances function
dilemma. "If you halve the distance to an object forever
do you ever finally reach the object?"
Or attack it by doing axis or time transform.
On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 4:49:11 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or
expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according
to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but
heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not
the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.
What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,
multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body
radiation law been experimentally verified? Or that radioactive decay
really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,
given a single neutron creating a single radioisotope atom
the question becomes "can it never decay?" Meaning does
decay have a probability distribution.
The rate of decay in an exponential function leads to a
non-converging function. I might submit that it is exponential,
but has a time variable called "last atom decayed".
The natural existence of a characteristic decay rate implies
an atom set lifetime. Now a convergent?
But, at some time the last atom.
Given a set of atoms and a 100percent counting efficiency
will the number of counts ever equal the number of
atoms.
basically needing mathematical solution. How to solve
this dilemma? I am still open on this question but
submit it as a version of the halving distances function
dilemma. "If you halve the distance to an object forever
do you ever finally reach the object?"
Or attack it by doing axis or time transform.
Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according
to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not
the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.
What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say, multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body radiation law been experimentally verified?
Or that radioactive decay
really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,
strong, Einstein) of the equivalence principle hold?
I realize that it is difficult to get funding for things like those, but
at least in some cases the corresponding experiment shouldn't be too expensive.
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <helbig@asclothestro.multivax.de>
wrote:
Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according
to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not
the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.
What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say, multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body radiation law been experimentally verified?
Very well, given that the cosmic black body radiation has been measured
in great detail to better than a millikelvin.
Or that radioactive decay
really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak, strong, Einstein) of the equivalence principle hold?
Eotvos also has been verified to grat precision.
You should realise that a lot of that testing is implicit.
The design of all experiments takes the laws of physics,
as we know them, for granted.
If there really is something wrong with those laws
the experiments would not behave as expected,
and then people would start to search for causes.
For example, LIGO takes general and special relativity for granted.
So there really is no point in wringing yet another verification
of Michelson-Morley out of it. (and others can do it much better)
A mention in Guiness book of records as the largest M&M experiment ever really isn't worth the trouble.
Moreover, confirming the well-known is not without risk.
If you fail to obtain the 'right' result
people will not doubt the result,
they will doubt your competence as an experimentalist.
You can think of the Italian 'speed of neutrinos' experiment
that found greater than light speeds from CERN to Gran Sasso
as a particularly sad example.
'Everybody' with standing told them that this just cannot be right.
And indeed it wasn't, and the team leader resigned in disgrace,
On 21/01/18 7:16 PM, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 4:49:11 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or >> expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according
to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but
heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not
the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.
What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,
multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body
radiation law been experimentally verified? Or that radioactive decay
really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,
given a single neutron creating a single radioisotope atom"Probability" is only required if you insist upon a "collapse"
the question becomes "can it never decay?" Meaning does
decay have a probability distribution.
of the state in QM. But that is now an almost untenable view.
If you just accept that the universe is a superposition of
different branches, as QM literally describes it, then there
is no randomness and "probability" will play no fundamental
role. You just will have the amplitude of one branch decaying
exponentially (and never becoming zero).
NB: of course probability would still be a useful concept for
describing large collections of objects or events, just like
it was in classical physics, but no fundamental need for it
would exist.
I was trying state the dichotomy of the non-convergent...I don't see how it necessarily "implies" that. It simply states
The natural existence of a characteristic decay rate implies
an atom set lifetime. Now a convergent?
that the amplitude of the state with an excited atom gradually
decreases in the total superposition of the state of the
universe, while the that of the state with the decayed atom
increases.
Again I was commenting a comment.But, at some time the last atom.Only if you believe in a "collapse"! Otherwise no such time
exists.
Again: I am not a theorist so I can't reply.Given a set of atoms and a 100percent counting efficiencyIn those branches of the total superposition describing the
will the number of counts ever equal the number of
atoms.
universe where all atoms have decayed, there it equals that
number! Already at the beginning of the counting (but at the
beginning the amplitude of that component in the superposition
is very low.)
basically needing mathematical solution. How to solveEasy: forget the Copenhagen "interpretation" (which isn't
this dilemma?
an interpretation, but a pure *rejection* of the gradual,
unitary time-evolution described by the equations of QM.)
I am not sure if this is an allowed transformation of time.... I am still open on this question butThat answer is known: you do reach it if your halving of the
submit it as a version of the halving distances function
dilemma. "If you halve the distance to an object forever
do you ever finally reach the object?"
distance becomes faster at a sufficient rate every time you
do it. And otherwise you don't reach it. Just sum the times..
The existence of a decay rate this slow is a testament to theOr attack it by doing axis or time transform.Attacking the description of exponential decay is indeed an
interesting field of study, especially the cases where the
time-span is billions of years. How can QM describe such a
slow process, given all the influence from the environment..
Why isn't the transition stimulated by external radiation,
etc.? But those are just questions within the gradual change
mechanism of the Hilbert space state.
See the references given below Matt O'Dowd's latest video: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5HyMNNSGqQ>Thanks the site has a great recitation of the outlooks of
--
Jos
In article <d91462b6-bf4d-422c...@googlegroups.com>, Douglas Eagleson <eagleso...@gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 4:49:11 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or >> expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according
to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but
heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not
the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.
What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,
multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body
radiation law been experimentally verified? Or that radioactive decay
really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,
given a single neutron creating a single radioisotope atom
the question becomes "can it never decay?" Meaning does
decay have a probability distribution.
The rate of decay in an exponential function leads to a
non-converging function. I might submit that it is exponential,
but has a time variable called "last atom decayed".
The natural existence of a characteristic decay rate implies
an atom set lifetime. Now a convergent?
But, at some time the last atom.
Given a set of atoms and a 100percent counting efficiency
will the number of counts ever equal the number of
atoms.
basically needing mathematical solution. How to solve
this dilemma? I am still open on this question but
submit it as a version of the halving distances function
dilemma. "If you halve the distance to an object forever
do you ever finally reach the object?"
Or attack it by doing axis or time transform.The probability that an atom decays is constant in time. That leads
directly to a declining exponential function for the number of atoms
which have not yet decayed. Of course, that is exactly true only in the
limit of an infinite number of atoms. If the number becomes to small,
then the noise in the function becomes large enough to obscure the
behaviour in the limit. When you are down to one atom, it is still the
case that the probability that it will decay is independent of time. So
you have no idea when it will decay.
In article <1p3imn8.10geog6da220gN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>, "J. J.
Lodder" <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> writes:
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <helbig@asclothestro.multivax.de>
wrote:
Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according
to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not
the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.
What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body radiation law been experimentally verified?
Very well, given that the cosmic black body radiation has been measured
in great detail to better than a millikelvin.
Yes, but at what frequencies? As the name indicates, the CMB peaks in
the microwave region. It is well measured there, and a good way in
either direction, but towards higher frequencies the intensity drops
sharply. Even ignoring confusion by other sources and so on, I doubt
that it has been measured to any significant accuracy in the
ultraviolet, not to mention the gamma-ray region. (Photons here will be
few and far between.)
Yes, it looks like a perfect black body, no-one has convincingly argued
that it should be otherwise, and so on, but the question remains over
what range has that been verified.
In article <1p3imn8.10geog6da220gN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>, "J. J.
Lodder" <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> writes:
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <helbig@asclothestro.multivax.de>
wrote:
Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according
to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not
the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.
What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say, multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body radiation law been experimentally verified?
Very well, given that the cosmic black body radiation has been measured
in great detail to better than a millikelvin.
Yes, but at what frequencies? As the name indicates, the CMB peaks in
the microwave region. It is well measured there, and a good way in
either direction, but towards higher frequencies the intensity drops
sharply. Even ignoring confusion by other sources and so on, I doubt
that it has been measured to any significant accuracy in the
ultraviolet, not to mention the gamma-ray region. (Photons here will be
few and far between.)
Yes, it looks like a perfect black body, no-one has convincingly argued
that it should be otherwise, and so on, but the question remains over
what range has that been verified.
Discussing the CMB is a bit of a red herring, because if one saw
departures from the black-body spectrum, one would suspect some
astrophysical cause. So think of lab measurements of black bodies: over
what range in frequency have they been made and to what precision?
Discussing the CMB is a bit of a red herring, because if one saw
departures from the black-body spectrum, one would suspect some
astrophysical cause. So think of lab measurements of black bodies: over
what range in frequency have they been made and to what precision?
The fact that they can measure deviations of the CMB
from the ideal black body spectrum implies
that they can verifiy the black body spectrum
for a laboratory black black body to greater accuracy.
(they use one for calibration, iirc)
Asking about the high end tail is not very useful,
for there will always be a higher point
where it is not verified, so you can go on asking forever,
On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 4:34:35 PM UTC-5, Jos Bergervoet wrote:...
On 21/01/18 7:16 PM, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 4:49:11 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or >>>> ...
I am an experimentalist btw. Well my interpretation of QMgiven a single neutron creating a single radioisotope atom
the question becomes "can it never decay?" Meaning does
decay have a probability distribution.
"Probability" is only required if you insist upon a "collapse"
of the state in QM. But that is now an almost untenable view.
If you just accept that the universe is a superposition of
different branches, as QM literally describes it, then there
is no randomness and "probability" will play no fundamental
role. You just will have the amplitude of one branch decaying
exponentially (and never becoming zero).
NB: of course probability would still be a useful concept for
describing large collections of objects or events, just like
it was in classical physics, but no fundamental need for it
would exist.
is Heisenberg's. It is a complete statement when all
things are considered an abstract reservoir. Here is the
meaning of superposition. I went so far to consider the
abstract dam. And here is the meaning of all transformations
being the outcome of QM tunneling. Is tunneling always
probalistic or is it sometimes an analytic function.
The reservoir interpretation is a theorist's verbal
communication.
I was trying state the dichotomy of the non-convergent...I don't see how it necessarily "implies" that. It simply states
The natural existence of a characteristic decay rate implies
an atom set lifetime. Now a convergent?
that the amplitude of the state with an excited atom gradually
decreases in the total superposition of the state of the
universe, while the that of the state with the decayed atom
increases.
exponential decay function with a convergent decay.
Given a set of atoms of a certain decay rate can you
detect the decay of all the atoms?
...
You do have to consider here the
distinction of stochastic measure as opposed to non-stochastic
decay constants.
My question is simple: Does anybody know if anybody has ever looked for
some sort of cutoff at the UV end of the blackbody spectrum, and if so,
what did they find?
[Moderator's note: That is a good question. A brief web search turned
up nothing. :-( -P.H.]
In article <1p3rzqg.11e6pqz12s5pn3N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
Discussing the CMB is a bit of a red herring, because if one saw
departures from the black-body spectrum, one would suspect some
astrophysical cause. So think of lab measurements of black bodies: over >> what range in frequency have they been made and to what precision?
The fact that they can measure deviations of the CMB
from the ideal black body spectrum implies
that they can verifiy the black body spectrum
for a laboratory black black body to greater accuracy.
(they use one for calibration, iirc)
I'm pretty sure that any deviations are from the theoretical curve, not
from a lab measurement. Certainly the theoretical curve and the lab measurements agree over the range in which they have been compared. But
at really high frequencies, the CMB signal isn't strong enough to
detect, and, as far as I know, no-one has measured at really high
frequencies in the lab either.
Asking about the high end tail is not very useful,
for there will always be a higher point
where it is not verified, so you can go on asking forever,
That is true. But the original question was to what multiple of the
peak has it been measured in the lab?
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <helbig@asclothestro.multivax.de>
wrote:
In article <1p3rzqg.11e6pqz12s5pn3N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>,
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
Discussing the CMB is a bit of a red herring, because if one saw
departures from the black-body spectrum, one would suspect some
astrophysical cause. So think of lab measurements of black bodies: over >>>> what range in frequency have they been made and to what precision?
The fact that they can measure deviations of the CMB
from the ideal black body spectrum implies
that they can verifiy the black body spectrum
for a laboratory black black body to greater accuracy.
(they use one for calibration, iirc)
I'm pretty sure that any deviations are from the theoretical curve, not
from a lab measurement. Certainly the theoretical curve and the lab
measurements agree over the range in which they have been compared. But
at really high frequencies, the CMB signal isn't strong enough to
detect, and, as far as I know, no-one has measured at really high
frequencies in the lab either.
Asking about the high end tail is not very useful,
for there will always be a higher point
where it is not verified, so you can go on asking forever,
That is true. But the original question was to what multiple of the
peak has it been measured in the lab?
That is also not a very useful question,
for there is no such thing as a 'black body' in the lab.
A black body is an idealization.
So any observed deviations are going to be ascribed
to the laboratory 'black body' not being ideal,
rather than to errors in the theoretical black body formula,
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <helbig@asclothestro.multivax.de>
wrote:
In article <1p3rzqg.11e6pqz12s5pn3N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
Discussing the CMB is a bit of a red herring, because if one saw
departures from the black-body spectrum, one would suspect some
astrophysical cause. So think of lab measurements of black bodies: over >> what range in frequency have they been made and to what precision?
The fact that they can measure deviations of the CMB
from the ideal black body spectrum implies
that they can verifiy the black body spectrum
for a laboratory black black body to greater accuracy.
(they use one for calibration, iirc)
I'm pretty sure that any deviations are from the theoretical curve, not from a lab measurement. Certainly the theoretical curve and the lab measurements agree over the range in which they have been compared. But
at really high frequencies, the CMB signal isn't strong enough to
detect, and, as far as I know, no-one has measured at really high frequencies in the lab either.
Asking about the high end tail is not very useful,
for there will always be a higher point
where it is not verified, so you can go on asking forever,
That is true. But the original question was to what multiple of the
peak has it been measured in the lab?
That is also not a very useful question,
for there is no such thing as a 'black body' in the lab.
A black body is an idealisation.
So any observed deviations are going to be ascribed
to the laboratory 'black body' not being ideal,
rather than to errors in the theoretical black body formula,
On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 6:29:59 AM UTC-6, Jay R. Yablon wrote:
My question is simple: Does anybody know if anybody has ever looked for some sort of cutoff at the UV end of the blackbody spectrum, and if so, what did they find?
[Moderator's note: That is a good question. A brief web search turnedThe real issue here is motivation. Doing an experiment has cost, in
up nothing. :-( -P.H.]
time and money. A professional scientist must try to maximize his/her
impact while minimizing cost and time. If you don't generate results
that people are interested in you don't make tenure and you don't get
the research grants.
So there has to be some reason to expect an interesting result. That
means either a totally unexpected result or one that confirms or
disproves a theory that many people are interested in. You can spend an entire career testing limit cases in well established theories and never
get an interesting result. That would be a formula for a short and
pointless career. Unless you are very lucky.
What people do is use current theories and problems/questions to guide
their research. This makes perfect sense. You don't look for gold in Antarctic glaciers, you look in the same sorts of rock formations that
others have found gold.
Of course there is nothing stopping you from looking where ever you like
for an interesting result. You might be lucky, and then be famous. But
don't expect generous funding for your experiments.
Rich L.
And here is the meaning of all transformations
being the outcome of QM tunneling. Is tunneling always
probalistic or is it sometimes an analytic function.
Neither. It is *always* an analytical function! The wavefunction
gradually changes from one which only has a high amplitude in one
region to one with the high amplitude in the other region (at the
other side of the barrier). There is nothing probabilistic about
that, not even in the most hard-core Copenhagen picture.
Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> wrote:
And here is the meaning of all transformations
being the outcome of QM tunneling. Is tunneling always
probalistic or is it sometimes an analytic function.
Neither. It is *always* an analytical function! The wavefunction
gradually changes from one which only has a high amplitude in one
region to one with the high amplitude in the other region (at the
other side of the barrier). There is nothing probabilistic about
that, not even in the most hard-core Copenhagen picture.
What sorts of things are called "tunneling" is often a matter
of usage; and my experience differs. Whilst doing my PhD,
for example, I had cause to make a clear distinction between
"coherent tunneling" of the kind you describe, and other
tunneling between two states, which *was* statistical,
and
driven by quantum noise (see e.g. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.40.4813
or doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.43.6194).
Now it might be that you are horrified that such processes
could be called "quantum tunneling", but to people working
in the area, it was unremarkable. Not all terminology is
always used in the same way.
#Paul
On Sunday, January 31, 2021 at 10:42:46 AM UTC-5, richali...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 6:29:59 AM UTC-6, Jay R. Yablon wrote:
My question is simple: Does anybody know if anybody has ever looked for some sort of cutoff at the UV end of the blackbody spectrum, and if so, what did they find?
[Moderator's note: That is a good question. A brief web search turnedThe real issue here is motivation. Doing an experiment has cost, in
up nothing. :-( -P.H.]
time and money. A professional scientist must try to maximize his/her impact while minimizing cost and time. If you don't generate results
that people are interested in you don't make tenure and you don't get
the research grants.
So there has to be some reason to expect an interesting result. That
means either a totally unexpected result or one that confirms or
disproves a theory that many people are interested in. You can spend an entire career testing limit cases in well established theories and never get an interesting result. That would be a formula for a short and pointless career. Unless you are very lucky.
What people do is use current theories and problems/questions to guide their research. This makes perfect sense. You don't look for gold in Antarctic glaciers, you look in the same sorts of rock formations that others have found gold.
Of course there is nothing stopping you from looking where ever you like for an interesting result. You might be lucky, and then be famous. But don't expect generous funding for your experiments.
Rich L.Try the Optics Group at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). Have them review your experiment and
have them positively recommend applying for a research grant.
They do allow retrial of old experiments.
Basically think big. For example: Design a compound radiation
detector. A single photon crystal detector with an implanted
temperature sensor. Here your sensor is a Black Body also.
What sorts of things are called "tunneling" is often a matter
of usage; and my experience differs. Whilst doing my PhD,
for example, I had cause to make a clear distinction between
"coherent tunneling" of the kind you describe, and other
tunneling between two states, which *was* statistical,
I'm pretty sure you cannot prove that!
Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> wrote:
What sorts of things are called "tunneling" is often a matter
of usage; and my experience differs. Whilst doing my PhD,
for example, I had cause to make a clear distinction between
"coherent tunneling" of the kind you describe, and other
tunneling between two states, which *was* statistical,
I'm pretty sure you cannot prove that!
I presume you are not actually asking me to prove my experience
as a grad student actually existed. :-)
Any other relevant proof - such as it is - could have been fairly
easily found by following the doi's (and references therein) in my
post. So, in answer, what I might claim to be "pretty sure" of is
not an opinion, but actually derivations you can go check.
Feel
free to raise any queries (or disagreements with) here and I'll
try to answer them.
#Paul
So you first need to clarify whether you actually disagree with me
on that (by clarifying 'statistical') before I can raise any queries.
On 21/02/19 9:45 AM, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk wrote:
Jos Bergervoet <jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
What sorts of things are called "tunneling" is often a matter
of usage; and my experience differs. Whilst doing my PhD,
for example, I had cause to make a clear distinction between
"coherent tunneling" of the kind you describe, and other
tunneling between two states, which *was* statistical,
I'm pretty sure you cannot prove that!
I presume you are not actually asking me to prove my experienceNo, the only thing that would help is to explain what your sentence
as a grad student actually existed. :-)
meant with 'statistical'.
Any other relevant proof - such as it is - could have been fairlyIf your claim is to have settled the dispute whether QM is deterministic=
easily found by following the doi's (and references therein) in my
post. So, in answer, what I might claim to be "pretty sure" of is
not an opinion, but actually derivations you can go check.
or stochastic, then this should have been common knowledge by now (I
think that who can give a proof either way, will be the most famous
physicist of the century!) It is just not clear if that is what your
sentence intended to say.
FeelIf you really claim to have the answer to the dispute mentioned, there
free to raise any queries (or disagreements with) here and I'll
try to answer them.
are other people much more qualified than me to challenge you (and I'm
sure they will). If on the other hand, you merely mean it is intractable=
due to many dependencies on initial- and boundary conditions, then it
was just not addressing the point in my post you responded to, where I
wrote that the QM description of a tunneling process is deterministic.
So you first need to clarify whether you actually disagree with me
on that (by clarifying 'statistical') before I can raise any queries.
This last post contains is a common misconception, and is almost a#Paul
--
Jos
On Saturday, February 20, 2021 at 3:21:56 PM UTC-6, Jos Bergervoet wrote:...
On 21/02/19 9:45 AM, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk wrote:
Jos Bergervoet <jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
... If on the other hand, you merely mean it is intractable
due to many dependencies on initial- and boundary conditions, then it
was just not addressing the point in my post you responded to, where I
wrote that the QM description of a tunneling process is deterministic.
So you first need to clarify whether you actually disagree with me
on that (by clarifying 'statistical') before I can raise any queries.
This last post contains is a common misconception,
... and is almost a
straw-man kind of argument.
The rules of quantum mechanics actually
allow you to calculate the probability distributions from which the
results of measurements are taken. These are completely precise to
our ability to measure. Just because the results are probabilistic
(not statistical)
... does not mean they cannot be made precisely. What
is determined is a distribution rather than a number.
... Here is the
misconception, the prediction does not allow any more precise
calculation that the distribution--it does not allow you to know
the actual number being measured.
...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 399 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 96:24:35 |
| Calls: | 8,362 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,162 |
| Messages: | 5,897,581 |
