Quantum Mechanics in the Macroscopic World

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the implications of quantum mechanics in the macroscopic world, questioning why macroscopic objects do not exhibit quantum behaviors such as tunneling in the same way that microscopic particles do. It addresses concepts such as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, chemical bonding, and the nature of states in quantum systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the differences between macroscopic and microscopic behavior in quantum mechanics stem from the mass of particles and the resulting effects on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
  • Others argue that as the number of discrete states in a quantum system increases, it becomes indistinguishable from classical systems, suggesting a transition rather than a strict separation.
  • A participant questions the analogy of particles "jumping all over each other," linking it to quantum tunneling and raising concerns about the implications for macroscopic objects encountering barriers.
  • Another participant clarifies that while tunneling is possible, the probability of a macroscopic object like a body tunneling through a wall is negligible.
  • There is a discussion about the strength of chemical bonding and its role in maintaining the integrity of macroscopic objects, with one participant asserting that strong chemical bonds prevent individual atoms or molecules from escaping easily.
  • One participant mentions that biological tissues can exhibit tunneling effects, albeit at a very slow rate, and discusses the implications of carbon-14 stability in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of quantum mechanics for macroscopic objects, particularly regarding tunneling and the role of chemical bonding. There is no consensus on the extent to which quantum effects manifest in the macroscopic world.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on interpretations of quantum mechanics and the assumptions about the behavior of particles at different scales. The discussion does not resolve the complexities of how quantum mechanics applies to macroscopic entities.

Lyuokdea
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
I understand most implications of Quantum mechanics on the microscopic world, at least in a non-mathematical sense. However, why is the macroscopic world any different? I understand that there is a change in mass, which affects the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal to make the uncertainties in momentum and position extremely small, but since we are all just a collection of much smaller particles, why are all our particles behaving according to quantum mechanics and jumping all over each other through our bodies and making a complete mess of any structure. Is the chemical bonding energy between the different atoms in our body really strong enough to overcome the principals of quantum mechanics and hold us together? Or is the large mass of a nucleus (compared to an electron or photon) enough to keep the atom itself from flying all over the place.

~Lyuokdea
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There's not much of a difference between a "very large number of states" and an "infinite number of states." As the number of discrete states in a quantum-mechanical system becomes very large, the system becomes indistinguishable from a classical system.

Luckily for us, quantum mechanics doesn't imply that particles "jump all over each other" or anything of the sort.

- Warren
 
I'm not sure I'm exactly getting your explanation. By jumping all over each other, I was implying the borrowing of energy that can occur on the microscopic world and thus allow quantum tunneling and the like. It would seem then, if there is a probability that this can happen then, everytime you run into a wall, while there is almost zero probability of you going through intact, that there is a possibility that some electrons, or other elementary particles could leave your body and tunnel through the wall, what holds large objects together so that they would have to tunnel completely or not tunnel at all? Or am I simply overstretching the analogy used to get from quantum tunneling to the macroscopic world

~Lyuokdea
 
The probability of your body tunneling through a wall is so small as to be entirely negligible. The probability's not zero, but it's small enough to be disregarded.

- Warren
 
Right, but, why would your body have to either tunnel or not tunnel, why can't you run into the wall and a couple atoms or molecules tunnel, but not the rest of you. Or for instance, your finger tunnels and your left ear tunnels, but the rest of you doesn't. What is to hold you together as one object instead of a ton of small quarks and electrons. Is the chemical bonding really that strong?

~Lyuokdea
 
Yes, the chemical bonding is that strong, and when one happens to break, another one (usually with the help of enzymes) is instantly formed, so that an atom, or molecule from the center of our body has to break through millions of bondings consecutively to completely escape. When it reaches our surface, it escape in the form of (dead) skin cells, hair and sweat that we shower off.

And we do in fact tunnel through ourselves and thin walls, since biological tissue has slight, measurable radioactivity (our carbon-14 are the perhaps the least stable of our atoms). After 250 million years though, even our carbon-14 will not be done tunneling out, so that trillions of years (more than the age of the Universe) would be necessary to fully go trough a wall (enclosure).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K