How Does Quantum Tunneling Challenge Classical Physics Concepts?

[Rothiemurchus]

In quantum mechanics particles which do not classically have
enough energy to pass through a barrier do so.
But surely there is no mystery here if the energy of the
barrier is not as great as it is thought to be.
Charged particles from space could be penetrating
the barrier and cancelling out the charges of protons
and electrons in the barrier from time to time.
In other words the probability function is a reflection
of the chance of finding these charged particles in a given region of
space.Has this possibility be considered before in the literature?

 

[Creator]

...
Charged particles from space could be penetrating
the barrier and cancelling out the charges of protons
and electrons in the barrier from time to time.
In other words the probability function is a reflection
of the chance of finding these charged particles in a given region of
space...

If that were true, then we would be able to alter spontaneous decay rates simply by shielding (or increasing) the external particle flux. Wouldn't that be nice!
However, it is appropriate to seek the 'cause' of barrier penetration. It is far more beneficial, for example, to recognize that spontaneous emisson is a result, (at least in part), of the fluctuations in the vacuum fields.

Creator

--"It is bad luck to be superstitious".--

 

[Rothiemurchus]

Creator:
If that were true, then we would be able to alter spontaneous decay rates simply by shielding (or increasing) the external particle flux
Rothie M:
Some fluxes e.g. dark matter (perhaps dark energy) are hard to detect never mind
alter!

 

[ZapperZ]

Creator:
If that were true, then we would be able to alter spontaneous decay rates simply by shielding (or increasing) the external particle flux
Rothie M:
Some fluxes e.g. dark matter (perhaps dark energy) are hard to detect never mind
alter!

You can't change the rules midstream. You offered the scenario of CHARGED PARTICLES penetrating a barrier. Dark matter and dark energy are not "charged particles", which are easily detected. So to bring them in as soon as someone offered a convincing counter argument to your original scenario is very deceiving.

Furthermore, what Creator said might be altered is the DECAY RATES, not the penetrating stuff themselves.

Zz.

 

[Rothiemurchus]

It is my personal belief that dark energy is a flux of charged particles moving close to light speed that can be concentrated by galactic magnetic feld lines and push stars
towards the galactic centre causing anomalously high velocities for them.And because dark energy is found everywhere it is a candidate that could account for some charge cancellation in barriers (by barrier I mean for example a thin piece of paper).
As for decay rates: a down quark becomes an up quark when a neutron becomes a proton.But if particles in the charge cancelling flux do not get close to the down quark
- the weak force happens over 10^-17 m or less - they will not cancel its charge "locally".
In the case of a whole proton in a paper barrier,the proton could be surrounded and neutralised.

 

[ZapperZ]

It is my personal belief that dark energy is a flux of charged particles moving close to light speed that can be concentrated by galactic magnetic feld lines and push stars
towards the galactic centre causing anomalously high velocities for them.And because dark energy is found everywhere it is a candidate that could account for some charge cancellation in barriers (by barrier I mean for example a thin piece of paper).
As for decay rates: a down quark becomes an up quark when a neutron becomes a proton.But if particles in the charge cancelling flux do not get close to the down quark
- the weak force happens over 10^-17 m or less - they will not cancel its charge "locally".
In the case of a whole proton in a paper barrier,the proton could be surrounded and neutralised.

That's it. This thread is doomed to the Theory Development section. Congratulations!

Zz.

 

[Rothiemurchus]

There is nothing unreasonable in what I have said.

 

[ZapperZ]

There is nothing unreasonable in what I have said.

Your whole scenario is based on your PERSONAL BELIEF without (i) citation to existing body of work; (ii) without bothering to back it up to any existing theoretical foundation and (iii) lack of experimental verification, both qualitatively and quantitatively. And you think this is REASONABLE?

Oy vey!

Zz.

 

[Integral]

Rothiemurchus,
We really do not care what you think is true. What we care about are the results of QM. When your ideas counter QM you need to change your ideas, not QM.


Once again, with insufficient knowledge of a system there is no way to think outside of the box, simply because you have no idea where the box is.