Probability of Hand Going Through Table?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mozart
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    hand Table
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of whether a hand can pass through a solid object, specifically a table, based on interpretations of quantum mechanics and atomic structure. Participants explore the implications of atomic emptiness, quantum tunneling, and the nature of matter in both theoretical and practical contexts.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the idea of a hand passing through a table relates to the concept of tunneling in quantum mechanics, where particles can have a non-zero probability of existing on the other side of a barrier.
  • Others argue that the analogy presented in popular science is misleading and that solids do not allow for such phenomena to occur under normal circumstances.
  • One participant emphasizes that electrons are fermions and repel each other, which contradicts the notion that they can pass through one another without interaction.
  • Another participant discusses the improbability of all atoms in a hand simultaneously tunneling through a table, highlighting the extreme unlikelihood of such an event occurring.
  • A later reply questions the validity of the original claim, suggesting that the laws of quantum mechanics do not support the idea of a hand passing through solid matter as a realistic possibility.
  • One participant mentions that a professor claimed it was possible for a hand to pass through a wall, introducing a contrasting viewpoint to the prevailing skepticism in the thread.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the interpretation of quantum tunneling and its applicability to macroscopic objects like a hand. While some acknowledge the theoretical possibility of tunneling, others firmly reject the notion that it could occur in practice, leading to an unresolved debate.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in understanding quantum mechanics and the assumptions about atomic interactions are present in the discussion. The complexity of quantum phenomena and their implications for macroscopic objects are not fully resolved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring concepts in quantum mechanics, atomic theory, and the philosophical implications of scientific interpretations in popular media.

  • #31
learningphysics said:
That's what I meant by conceptual difference between saying it is improbable and saying it is impossible.

When I started reading this thread, most were saying that it was impossible. I took this to mean that if the event did take place... then it violated QM.

Later on, people were saying that it was highly improbable but not impossible according to QM... I took this to mean that if the event did take place... then it did not necessarily violate QM.

So if such an event took place... an understanding like:
"According to QM the event cannot happen" would lead to the conclusion "QM is false".

But an understanding like:
"According to QM the event is highly improbable" does not lead to the same conclusion.

This is the difference I was referring to. We reach different conclusions depending on what the understanding is... impossibility or improbability.

If you tell a lay person that it is impossible for a hand to go through a table according to QM... they will take it to mean that if the event does take place, then QM is violated, because that's what impossible means. But this is a misunderstanding of QM right? Isn't it a significant misunderstanding?

Ah, but here comes the PROBLEM. This same lay person considers my broken vase scenario to be "impossible". Yet, thermodynamics says it can happen!

So, by saying to this layperson that it isn't impossible for a hand to tunnel through a table, and yet, this person would consider the vase reassemblying itself to be impossible, what have you done? You have conveyed to this person that QM is weird, mysterious, maybe mystical, or worse still, nonsense! And I will bet you that there are other things that even you would not accept would happen that physics would consider to be possible, even in the most remote sense.

This has nothing to do with "conceptual" issues. It has everything to do with being reasonable within the CONTEXT of the situation. You can only describe things in relation to other things if this is what you are truly trying to do.[1]

Zz.

[1] http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0503229
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
14K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
841
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K