Phenomena only explicable via QM

[akhmeteli]

Unfortunately I don't believe your article counts as "Classical Physics".

Do you believe that classical electrodynamics counts as classical physics? If you don’t, then why not? And if you do, then how is the modified electrodynamics of my article different (in principle)? I would say it can be called at least the “classical counterpart”. If you disagree just because this modified electrodynamics contains the Planck constant, well, I guess you can use such a definition. You can even insist that classical electrodynamics is not classical, as it contains the speed of light. Then maybe we just disagree on definitions.

Nowhere at any point in time before QM was developed was there a method of explaining tunneling.

I don’t quite understand what this statement is supposed to prove. I would say nobody had talked about this kind of tunneling before QM was developed. So?

Your example is exactly correct for something that is not explainable in classical physics.

I am not sure I understand this either. First of all, are you talking about the high jump example or the model of my article?

Note that there are specific rules on PF about what is and isn't considered "mainstream" and I doubt your modification of Klein-Gordon-Maxwell electrodynamics would be. But if I'm wrong then please correct me.

I don’t think I have broken the PF rules (if I am mistaken, I guess mentors will let me know in no uncertain terms:-) ). First of all, my article was published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal; second, and this may be much more important: there is no “modification of Klein-Gordon-Maxwell electrodynamics” in my article. Up to some “transversality” caveats (that means in this case “under the assumption that some functions do not vanish identically”), I just rewrote the equations of the Klein-Gordon-Maxwell electrodynamics in a different form through elimination of the matter field. I did use the word “modified” in one of my previous posts, but I used it in the following sense: the “model” of my article can be regarded as modified classical electrodynamics, not the Klein-Gordon-Maxwell electrodynamics; in the same time this “model” is equivalent (again, with “transversality” caveats) to the Klein-Gordon-Maxwell electrodynamics, which is certainly mainstream.

Edit: Also, realize that your example primarily fails because it simply isn't even talking about the same concepts. A "counterpart" to tunneling would be to say that Classical Physics shows how a proton or electron or whatever gets through a barrier without the required energy. Replacing a proton with a whole person is like comparing the orbit of the Sun around the galaxy with a child on a merry-go-round.

Are you trying to say that “a whole person” does not qualify even as “whatever”? :-)
Look, I offered the high jump example to illustrate that there can be a counterpart of (quantum) tunneling in classical mechanics. Both you and DaveC426913 criticize me saying that this is not a counterpart of tunneling of, say, electrons. But I just offered a counterpart of (quantum) tunneling in general. Furthermore, the OP welcomed this input. So what seems to be the problem? If you specifically want a counterpart of tunneling of electrons, I offer you the “model” of my article.

The two are similar only in a few basic ways and neither are a counterpart of each other. We can argue all day long on how relevant it is to compare the two, because they are comparable in certain ways, but in the end quantum tunneling cannot be explained by mainstream classical physics, which is exactly the point.

You believe it cannot, I believe it can. I believe the Klein-Gordon-Maxwell electrodynamics 1) can explain quantum tunneling; 2) is mainstream; and 3) qualifies as classical physics after you eliminate the matter field. Again, you can only reasonably dispute the last point, but, as I said above, this is just a matter of definitions. As for my high jump example, it is certainly relevant, according to the OP :-) – he decides what is relevant in the thread he started :-)

 

[Drakkith]

I agree that mainstream classical physics has yet to explain the effect of quantum tunneling. It does not necessarily follow that "mainstream" classical physics cannot explain or calculate the effect of quantum tunneling.

You misunderstand me. Classical physics cannot explain it. It isn't that it hasn't yet, it is that it cannot explain it. The known laws of classical physics simply aren't able to unless you rewrite the theory. Which is kind of what QM did.

For a scientist, particularly a research scientist, only B, i.e., that it is true- should be of concern.

I think you missed the point of that area of my post.

Not quite. The biggest reason that QM is successful is that it predicts and agrees with different effects that are NOT reproducible using some of the available classical physics rules.

Which is exactly what I mean. Using ONLY classical rules you cannot explain tunneling. It just isn't possible without altering the rules and coming up with a new theory. (AKA QM)

 

[mathew3]

Are you aware of any respected physicists who are making advances in classical physics while rejecting QM?

I don't know of anybody who rejects QM- at least QM formalism. Nobody doubts or rejects its predictive power based upon the calculation of probabilities. However there are a few respected scientists who have posed arguments as to a classically based QM. See New Foundations for Classical Mechanics' by David Hestenes.

currently[/I] have any explanation, where will it spring forth from?

From where most of our discoveries spring from- inquiring minds building upon the knowledge of our predecessors. If you mean from what theoretical fount, again, there is Hestenes.

Double slit experiment , electron tunneling, electron staying in its "orbit", wave particle duality, discreet emission spectra are all very easily, succinctly, and rationally explicable via classical precepts. Just because they haven't been accepted by or presented within "mainstream" physics doesn't mean they are not possible or untrue.

 

[Drakkith]

Akhmeteli I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore, as it's just about definitions. Your article isn't classical physics. It's that simple. Go find me a reference that says otherwise. In defense of my view, here's the reference for why it isn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_physics

Quoted from there: In the context of quantum mechanics, "classical theory" refers to theories of physics that do not use the quantisation paradigm, particularly Newtonian mechanics (which is also known as classical mechanics).

Also: What "classical physics" refers to depends on the context. ...When discussing quantum mechanics, it refers to non-quantum physics, including special relativity, and general relativity. In other words, it is the physics preceding the physics of interest in one's discussion.

Whether you disagree with that or not is up to you and I really don't care.
I've said my piece so unless someone has something fresh to discuss then I'm done with this thread.

 

[DaveC426913]

Just because they haven't been accepted by or presented within "mainstream" physics doesn't mean they are not possible or untrue.

But it does mean they are not for discussion in this forum, which is dedicated to accepted mainstream physics.

 

[akhmeteli]

I'll call you on that. Please describe, using classical physics, how tunneling works.

***The “model” of my article is, on the one hand, pretty much equivalent to the Klein-Gordon-Maxwell electrodynamics, which theory certainly describes tunneling, on the other hand, the “model” is just modified classical electrodynamics. So I would say it’s a classical theory that describes tunneling. Yes, it is different from standard classical theories, such as classical mechanics of point particles or classical electrodynamics. But it is still a classical theory, pretty much like classical electrodynamics.

It is not a constraint*. I have provided an example. The OP asked for examples. Examples are not exclusive or constraining and do not constitute an exhaustive list.

**It is certainly a constraint with respect to the example provided by the other poster - that of tunneling (you wanted specifically a counterpart of tunneling of particles). I offered my high jump “counterpart” before you offered your example, so you cannot reasonably criticize my “counterpart” for not fitting your example. As for your specific example, I offered another “counterpart” – that of my article.

*You sure you're using that word right? If he had asked for "examples of man-made pollution", and I offered up "acid rain" as an example, would you be accusing me of a "rain" constraint?

See above**

You said nothing above, so you still have not made your point.

I disagree

If the OP were the best judge of what answers he'd get, he would not need to ask the question. The nature of a question is that it solicits input about things one does not already know about.

I did not say the OP is “the best judge of what answers he'd get”, I said he is the best judge of what answer is relevant.

The fact that the OP welcome you input does not make your input right.

I fully agree, “The fact that the OP welcome [my] input does not make [my] input right”, but I insist that this fact makes my input relevant.

I am bot trying to shut you down; I am simply ensuring that any assertions you do make are within he bounds of accepted science.

I have no problems with that.

I'm still waiting for that classical description of quantum tunneling.

See above***

 

[mathew3]

You misunderstand me. Classical physics cannot explain it. It isn't that it hasn't yet, it is that it cannot explain it. The known laws of classical physics simply aren't able to unless you rewrite the theory. Which is kind of what QM did.

I strongly disagree. This is demonstrably false. I just proved that with F=iV/c. Now you may reject it because it fails the test as to being accepted by the "mainstream" or you may reject it because you genuinely feel it actually violates the laws and principles of classical physics somehow but no one can deny that classically this equation might explain electron tunneling. It violates no conservation laws, indeed it is an expression of the conservation laws since power in must equal power out and it violates no laws of probability which tunneling skirts with.

Which is exactly what I mean. Using ONLY classical rules you cannot explain tunneling. It just isn't possible without altering the rules and coming up with a new theory. (AKA QM)

Again, see above. Until you can cite what physical laws that equation violates your protestations of "cannot" just doesn't ring true. Again, I'm not saying the equation is true only that it is a possible explanation. It may well be false. By the same token you cannot say it is false simply because your QM rules work in QM.

 

[mathew3]

But it does mean they are not for discussion in this forum, which is dedicated to accepted mainstream physics.

Apparently discussing the conservation of power in an electrical circuit is not mainstream physics. I stand corrected.

 

[DaveC426913]

Apparently discussing the conservation of power in an electrical circuit is not mainstream physics. I stand corrected.

Since that is not what we were discussing, your comment is non sequitur.

But presumably you're going to segue to that now. Or did you want to milk the sarcasm a bit longer?

 

[D H]

Thread locked pending moderation.