Macroscopic Tunneling: Probability of Occurrence

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jdhenckel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Macroscopic Tunneling
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the probability of macroscopic objects, such as baseballs, tunneling to different locations, exploring the implications of quantum mechanics on larger scales. Participants examine the nature of tunneling probabilities for various particles, including electrons, protons, and hydrogen atoms, and whether these probabilities can be considered zero or non-zero.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that macroscopic objects have a definite location and that the probability of tunneling is very small, but not exactly zero.
  • Another participant suggests that the potential described by wave functions is vanishingly small, which dampens quantum effects.
  • Several participants express confusion over the term "vanishingly small," questioning whether it implies a probability of zero or slightly above zero.
  • It is noted that while tunneling for electrons, protons, and hydrogen atoms is very unlikely, the probabilities are not zero.
  • One participant introduces the idea that the wave function of entangled particles may allow for undefined energy states, suggesting a complex relationship between tunneling and quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the tunneling probability for macroscopic objects is zero or non-zero, and multiple competing views remain regarding the interpretation of "vanishingly small."

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes unresolved questions about the definitions of probabilities in quantum mechanics and the implications of entanglement on tunneling phenomena.

jdhenckel
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
On 8/16/09 a alxm wrote...

Macroscopic objects have a quite definite location, and do not tunnel to any appreciable extent.​

Another way to say it is: The location of a macroscopic object is only a little bit random, and the probability of tunneling is very very small.

Is that correct?

For example, the probability of a baseball tunneling to a location 1 meter away is not exactly zero, but it is very close to zero.

Is that correct?

Thanks, John
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's best said that the potential (which is described by our wave functions) is vanishingly small. This dampens out any possibilities of quantum like effects.

The theory is due to our wavelengths, which are small because our macroscopic states have constituents all in a state of entanglement.
 
Many, thanks for the reply!

I'm sorry I don't understand your answer. When you say "vanishingly small" do you mean zero, or a little bit more than zero?

I realize that my question is hypothetical. But I just want to know the answer.

For an electron to jump 1 meter away (by tunneling) is very unlikely. However, the probability is not zero. Is it?

Likewise the probability for a proton to jump 1 m is very small, but not zero.

Likewise the probability for a hydrogen atom to jump 1 m is very small, but not zero.

Likewise the probability for a baseball... is it zero or is it non-zero?

Thanks!

john
 
jdhenckel said:
Many, thanks for the reply!

I'm sorry I don't understand your answer. When you say "vanishingly small" do you mean zero, or a little bit more than zero?

I realize that my question is hypothetical. But I just want to know the answer.

For an electron to jump 1 meter away (by tunneling) is very unlikely. However, the probability is not zero. Is it?

Likewise the probability for a proton to jump 1 m is very small, but not zero.

Likewise the probability for a hydrogen atom to jump 1 m is very small, but not zero.

Likewise the probability for a baseball... is it zero or is it non-zero?

Thanks!

john


Thanks for replying - i love intuitive minds! :)

When you say "vanishingly small" do you mean zero, or a little bit more than zero?

By vanishingly small, it can be considered in calculus as either an oscillating

A value or one which is very close to the predicted Cosmological Constant

I realize that my question is hypothetical. But I just want to know the answer.

Sir, physics in general is a theoretical stage of possibilities. :)

Likewise the probability for a proton to jump 1 m is very small, but not zero.

By what mathematican certainty?? It's possible a couple of entangled/couples quarks can have an energy highly undefined.. remember the OH MY GOD PARTILE ;) It;s wave function may be small, but equally, the wave function determining the Feynman Intergral Actions takes alln histories into recognition.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K