Can Anti-Matter be classed as

374
0
Information?..if so, according to the Hawking Process..where has all the information gone?

Question, information passing via a Quantum Channel, or tunnelling process will degrade the information being relayed.

Just as a Macro-Observer intergrating with a Quantum of anything, will collapse the Wavefunction, it will 'stop the information in its tracks', this is the QM interpretation of Observer integration with anything Microscopic, so how does information being relayed Quantumly, handle the Information without having, at least a finite degrading action upon the information itself?

How can information travel with consistancy from one end of the Universe to the other, and remain the same information as at source?

Why does some types of information remain constant, and others change?

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v59/i10/e104004

P.S Handle with care, Anti-Matter degrades Matter at any given instant!
 
Last edited:

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,114
3,923
Spin_Network said:
Information?..if so, according to the Hawking Process..where has all the information gone?

Question, information passing via a Quantum Channel, or tunnelling process will degrade the information being relayed.

Just as a Macro-Observer intergrating with a Quantum of anything, will collapse the Wavefunction, it will 'stop the information in its tracks', this is the QM interpretation of Observer integration with anything Microscopic, so how does information being relayed Quantumly, handle the Information without having, at least a finite degrading action upon the information itself?
Why are you implicating quantum tunneling in this?

If what you said is true regarding this phenomena, then you have a lot of explaining to do on why the electron that tunnels through an insulating barrier from a superconductor can STILL carry a number of information VERY precisely, such as the superconductor's density of states and the phonon spectrum of the material. I see no such "degradation" of information here.

Zz.
 
374
0
ZapperZ said:
Why are you implicating quantum tunneling in this?

If what you said is true regarding this phenomena, then you have a lot of explaining to do on why the electron that tunnels through an insulating barrier from a superconductor can STILL carry a number of information VERY precisely, such as the superconductor's density of states and the phonon spectrum of the material. I see no such "degradation" of information here.

Zz.
Yes, I have placed a badly formulated question, from something I am trying to understand?..into a certain confined situation.

Your reply has been very useful in directing me to further my inquiries into Electron Paths and intergrations! many thanks Zz.

Rather than place another question elsewhere I'll throw it here:

Feynman made the remark that an Electron can be thought of having a Two parimiter consequence with respect to 'Time', it can be thought of actually existing only in a 'Past-tense' or a 'Future-tense', it travels in only these domains.

So the motion of an Electron away from its 'orbital' Atomic shell, can be thought of a 'Tunnelling' process via/from the present-time (orbital-frame) to a future-time, its appearance at another Atom?..or away from an Atom, in a Free Electron format.

Hope the above is not to badly worded?..if so please correct my understanding.

What I am trying to ascertain is this, can the Electron transportation from Atom shells, from one level to another level, be thought to be a Tunnelling Process? ..for reasons I do not want to expand to much, I know that the Electron is replaced by the Photon during transmission from level to level interactions.

This reasoning by me has ramifications for 'Information' relaying in another scientific arena.
 
Last edited:

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,114
3,923
Spin_Network said:
Feynman made the remark that an Electron can be thought of having a Two parimiter consequence with respect to 'Time', it can be thought of actually existing only in a 'Past-tense' or a 'Future-tense', it travels in only these domains.

So the motion of an Electron away from its 'orbital' Atomic shell, can be thought of a 'Tunnelling' process via/from the present-time (orbital-frame) to a future-time, its appearance at another Atom?..or away from an Atom, in a Free Electron format.
It is still badly worded. For example, what does it mean by an electron appearing at another atom? When does this occur? And this occurs "in a free electron format"???!!

What I am trying to ascertain is this, can the Electron transportation from Atom shells, from one level to another level, be thought to be a Tunnelling Process? ..for reasons I do not want to expand to much, I know that the Electron is replaced by the Photon during transmission from level to level interactions.
No... for reasons I do not want to expand too much.

Question: have you taken a formal class in QM dealing with tunneling phenomenon all the way to the WKB approximation? If you have, then I don't understand why you can't compare the formalism involved in tunneling versus atomic transition to notice the difference. If you haven't, then I REALLY don't understand how you were bold enough to (i) make your original posting based on something you don't understand and (ii)would want to use that as a basis to build your knowledge to apply that to another "scientific arena".

Zz.
 
374
0
ZapperZ said:
It is still badly worded. For example, what does it mean by an electron appearing at another atom? When does this occur? And this occurs "in a free electron format"???!!



No... for reasons I do not want to expand too much.

Question: have you taken a formal class in QM dealing with tunneling phenomenon all the way to the WKB approximation? If you have, then I don't understand why you can't compare the formalism involved in tunneling versus atomic transition to notice the difference. If you haven't, then I REALLY don't understand how you were bold enough to (i) make your original posting based on something you don't understand and (ii)would want to use that as a basis to build your knowledge to apply that to another "scientific arena".

Zz.
So what you are bodly stating is:Dont try and understand something you dont understand?

If I may boldly enquire, what qualifications and expertise are you relaying this via?..I have read a your journal, this does not extend my knowledge to that of yours, this I understand.
 

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,114
3,923
Spin_Network said:
So what you are bodly stating is:Dont try and understand something you dont understand?
No, read again what I asked.

I'm boldly stating that before you can RUN, you have to first learn how to WALK. You cannot APPLY the concept of tunneling without FIRST understanding the PHYSICS of tunneling. I did NOT say you should not try to learn to understand something.

It is my advice that BEFORE you weely neely apply something you barely understand, you LEARN about that something first. If not, you will be doing exactly what you are doing now - building something on top of a very shaky foundation based on a very incomplete knowledge. If you wish to apply the concept of tunneling to explain other things, but your idea of what tunneling is is faulty, how rational of a conclusion do you think you will arrive at?

Or is this problem not obvious to you?

If I may boldly enquire, what qualifications and expertise are you relaying this via?..I have read a your journal, this does not extend my knowledge to that of yours, this I understand.
I did 4 years of research for my Ph.D dissertation in tunneling spectroscopy of high-Tc superconductors. I did both experimental tunneling measurements of planar junctions and point-contact junctions, and theoretical study of the tunneling density of states, including the painful detail analysis of the Bardeen-Harrison tunneling matrix element treatment. It is based on THAT qualification that I relay my puzzlement at what you claim you can use tunneling phenomenon as an explanation for.

So what is YOUR qualification to make such assertions?

Zz.
 
112
0
i remember one of my best professors said, "i sometimes ask my phd students some silly questions, and i mean it. we often have gaps in our understanding, no matter how good we (think we) are."

and he is so damn good.

yet he is so humble.
 

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,114
3,923
sniffer said:
i remember one of my best professors said, "i sometimes ask my phd students some silly questions, and i mean it. we often have gaps in our understanding, no matter how good we (think we) are."
That's nothing. I ask MYSELF some silly questions all the time!

"What if we try to use a light source with high enough intensity that, even if the photon's energy is LESS than the work function, the photon number density is so high that the electron that was "partially excited" will still get knocked out of the metal before it can decay back to the conduction band, thus "violating" Einstein's photoelectric effect model?"

or

"Would be possible that in 1D conductor, the electrons appear to move as if their charge and spin are separated? How can we detect this if this can really happen?"

As physicists, we ASK those kinds of questions all the time! That is what we have been employed to do! That's what people who are not in this field do not understand. However, before we can figure out what we don't know and how to study them, we must FIRST understand what are already known and CAN be explained. If you don't know what is already well-established, how are you going to know if something new comes up and bite you on your rear end?

Zz.
 
112
0
mmm... i am not used to american style.
 
374
0
ZapperZ said:
No, read again what I asked.

I'm boldly stating that before you can RUN, you have to first learn how to WALK. You cannot APPLY the concept of tunneling without FIRST understanding the PHYSICS of tunneling. I did NOT say you should not try to learn to understand something.

It is my advice that BEFORE you weely neely apply something you barely understand, you LEARN about that something first. If not, you will be doing exactly what you are doing now - building something on top of a very shaky foundation based on a very incomplete knowledge. If you wish to apply the concept of tunneling to explain other things, but your idea of what tunneling is is faulty, how rational of a conclusion do you think you will arrive at?

Or is this problem not obvious to you?



I did 4 years of research for my Ph.D dissertation in tunneling spectroscopy of high-Tc superconductors. I did both experimental tunneling measurements of planar junctions and point-contact junctions, and theoretical study of the tunneling density of states, including the painful detail analysis of the Bardeen-Harrison tunneling matrix element treatment. It is based on THAT qualification that I relay my puzzlement at what you claim you can use tunneling phenomenon as an explanation for.

So what is YOUR qualification to make such assertions?

Zz.
A case of Fact, I do so admire your academic qualities, unlike you I have no experience in any practical expeimentations (except those I do at home), and yes I do understand my limitations, including my comminication skills.

That being said , I am interested in finding out if 'forced' Tunneling is the only Electronic Experiment that has been Materialized?..with of course Electrons.

You do not have to answer, as this question is a thinly disguised continuation of a highly speculative thread elswhere, relating to :https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=82031
 

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,114
3,923
Spin_Network said:
That being said , I am interested in finding out if 'forced' Tunneling is the only Electronic Experiment that has been Materialized?..with of course Electrons.
Define "forced tunneling".

Zz.
 

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,114
3,923
374
0
ZapperZ said:
Do you actually understand this?

Secondly, look up "Josephson tunneling". You'll notice that the supercurrent tunnels through the junction at ZERO bias!

Zz.
Ok , based on your vast knowledge of Resistance..or lack of, can you tell me if there is a correlation of the viscosity of background space..lets say at a far of location, and the number of 'holes' in a calibi-yau portion of space?
 

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,114
3,923
Spin_Network said:
Ok , based on your vast knowledge of Resistance..or lack of, can you tell me if there is a correlation of the viscosity of background space..lets say at a far of location, and the number of 'holes' in a calibi-yau portion of space?
I have no idea. How this relates to the "tunneling phenomena", that's another one I have no clue on.

How are you able comprehend the "calibi-yau" without having a formal lesson?

BTW, what exactly is a "vast knowledge of Resistance"? And you never did tell me if you actually understood the stuff you're citing.

Zz.
 

Chronos

Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,398
738
Hmm, 'calibi-yau'?. Is that plural for calabi-yau?
 
374
0
Chronos said:
Hmm, 'calibi-yau'?. Is that plural for calabi-yau?
Many thanks Chronos!
 

Related Threads for: Can Anti-Matter be classed as

  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
748
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
951
  • Posted
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Posted
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
1K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top