Understanding Quantum Tunneling

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of quantum tunneling, exploring its theoretical underpinnings and the challenges in explaining it effectively. Participants critique an article on the topic, discussing both the clarity of the writing and the technical accuracy of the explanations provided.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Richard.P.Feynman is quoted to emphasize the complexity of understanding quantum mechanics, particularly quantum tunneling.
  • Warren critiques the article's writing style, noting grammatical errors and questioning the clarity of the explanation regarding potential barriers.
  • Crisp acknowledges Warren's candidness in expressing his opinion about the article.
  • Another participant suggests that the explanation of quantum tunneling could be more succinctly stated, while also calling for a more comprehensive technical discussion.
  • Participants discuss the importance of capitalization in physics notation, with some arguing it affects clarity in equations and others questioning the severity of such rules.
  • A participant recommends a book on quantum tunneling that discusses tunneling time and the possibility of superluminal speeds.
  • There is a discussion about the use of letters in physics to represent various quantities, highlighting the potential for confusion when the same letter is used for different concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the quality of the article and its explanations. There is no consensus on the appropriateness of capitalization in physics notation, nor on the clarity of the article's content.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the article may lack a comprehensive technical explanation of quantum tunneling, and there are unresolved questions about the standards of writing and notation in physics.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying quantum mechanics, particularly in understanding the nuances of quantum tunneling and the standards of technical writing in physics.

Messages
19,917
Reaction score
10,945
Richard.P.Feynman once said "I think it would be safe for me to say that no one in this world understands Quantum Mechanics". Such an amazing theory Quantum Mechanics is, yet hard to understand. Quantum Tunneling has always been given in small portions of many textbooks and details have not been covered so as to aid better understanding of the Concept.In this article I have made an attempt to provide a better understanding of Tunneling. Go along read it...

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/you-will-not-tunnel-through-a-wall/
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
No offense to either you or Sridhar Narayanan, but I'm not very impressed. The writing is childlike and full of grammatical and syntactic errors. Why has he capitalized Potential Barriers and Electric Field?

His entire argument seems to come down to this statement:
The electron out of sheer curiosity tries to cross the potential and gets trapped inside the potential
...and needless say, I don't think this is a particularly elegant or even correct way of explaining this to anyone.

Don't you have any referrees Greg? Or at least a copy editor?

- Warren
 
Good to see you also say what's on your mind on this forum, Warren ;).

Bye!

Crisp
 
Most of it contents of the article could be summed up much more succinctly by simply saying: "quantum mechanical tunnelling allows the wavefunction to penetrate classically forbidden areas and hence pass through potential barriers" to say why it is the case you need a more comphrehensive and technical explanation.

Also it's a cardinal sin in physics to captilize the wrong letters ( while I'm at it use subscript otherwise it's diffcult to tell whether the number is for identification or whether it's a mutiple and you've assigned velocity and potential the same letter).
 
Originally posted by jcsd


Also it's a cardinal sin in physics to captilize the wrong letters

I appreciate this to be the case for some values such as 'g' or 'G' but is it that important for written words? For example is it Physics or physics?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just not sure about the 'cardinal sin ' bit. Sadly, I had a modern 1960s education, where rules of grammar went out of the window and 'expression' was the important thing. As such I'd be interested to hear more about your statement above.
When is it just poor English (I can cope with that) but more importantly, when is it poor Physics?
 
No, for example he captialized, the v for velocity (he also had capital V for potential, which is correct), the m for mass (which is someimes acceptable though) and the p for momentum.

This makes equations a lot more difficult to read as you no longer know intutively which letter represnets which quantity.
 
For everyone who are interested in quantum tunneling. Check this book!
Quantum theory of tunneling written by Mohsen Razavy, World Scientific Pub
This book describes how tunneling time may be defined and possibly speed of quantum tunneling is superluminal.
 
The letter used for most physical quantities is unique an exception is k, it is used for both spring constant in Hook's Law and wavenumber in the wave equation, this can be a real nuisance when dealing with wave phenomena and springs.
 
Many physical quantities use the same letters: angular frequency and angular velocity, moment of force, mutual induction and luminous exitance, etc. Though physical constants do tend to have unique letters (though often shared with physical quantites). k is also Boltzmann's constant just to confuse things.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K