Quantum interpretation and classical-quantum distinction

In summary: Now, the first microscopic system is described by a quantum theory, while the second is classical. According to CI-QM, the observer in the lab should also be described by a quantum theory, but according to the Copenhagen interpretation, she should be described by a classical theory. So which theory should she use?
  • #36
Check out this:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16296/chance-of-macro-tunneling

DesertFox said:
Or maybe that already has happened in spite of the very, very, very small probability?
Very, very, very small probability is a very, very, very big understatement. The probability is still too close to zero for that. As per the response from the link above:
I'm going to trust that Alexander's interpretation is good and say that the probability is arbitrary as T depends on unknown parameters. The important part is that the double exponent you need to raise T to to get the transmission probability of all of the particles will make any probability less than exactly 1 vanishingly small. If T were 1 in 10, T^10^23 would be 1 in 1 followed by 100 sextillion zeroes. That's a number so gobsmackingly large it gives me a headache to think about it.
 
  • Like
Likes mattt and PeroK
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Motore said:
Very, very, very small probability is a very, very, very big understatement. The probability is still too close to zero for that.
It's not "very, very, very big understatement", but a turn of speech which is specially designed for the context.
 
Last edited:
  • Skeptical
Likes gentzen and Motore
  • #38
DesertFox said:
do you think that somebody will see quantum tunnelling of a visible object for sure?

Or maybe that already has happened in spite of the very, very, very small probability?
No and no. The responses you have been getting about this are correct. The evidence is that we have not observed quantum tunnelling of an object large enough for a human to see with the naked eye. However, this evidence tells us nothing useful either way about whether QM is valid for such objects; there are not enough such objects and we have not been observing for long enough for the probability QM predicts for such an event to be large enough to make the fact that we have not observed such an event significant evidence against QM. And "not enough" means not enough by many, many, many orders of magnitude; it's not even close.
 
  • Like
Likes mattt and PeroK
  • #39
It is somehow natural to consider the wavefunction as a reflection of our knowledge of the system (not as a description of the system itself). As far as I know, that view was held by Einstein. He suggested that quantum mechanics is incomplete, since it gives us only an instrumental recipe for calculating the probabilities of outcomes, rather than a description of the underlying state of the system that gives rise to those probabilities. However, it was later "proved" that it is impossible to construct such a description of the underlying state. What exactly is that proof? Can somebody explicate it, please?
 
  • #40
PeterDonis said:
there are not enough such objects

It is amazing how we can take that for granted without even bothering to do the numbers.

In other words: Very bold claim; but i don't find it well-grounded at all.
 
  • Sad
  • Skeptical
Likes Motore, weirdoguy and PeroK
  • #41
DesertFox said:
It is amazing how we can take that for granted without even bothering to do the numbers.
The people who responded to you have done the numbers. Have you? If so, please show your work.
 
  • Like
Likes mattt
  • #42
PeterDonis said:
The people who responded to you have done the numbers. Have you? If so, please show your work.
These people did the numbers regarding all the visible objects that the humankind have had the chance to see tunneling? Please, show me a comment containing such calculation.

All of the answers so far consider what is the very small probability for, let's say, a grain of sand to quantum tunnel and nothing more. That's very different from ALL the visible objects that humankind have seen and that eventually have had any miserable probability to tunnel.
 
Last edited:
  • Sad
Likes weirdoguy
  • #43
PeterDonis said:
The people who responded to you have done the numbers. Have you? If so, please show your work.
Although it's not the tunnelling calculation, a tennis ball typically has a mass of ##0.05 \ kg## and if we say that the uncertainty in its speed is ##10 \ m/s##, then according to the Heisenberg UP, the uncertainty in its position is approximately ##10^{-34} \ m##. We can compare this with the diameter of the hydrogen nucleus at about ##1.7 \times 10^{-15} \ m##.

Not only is this calculation absurd, in a way, but anyone who demands such a calculation has shown that their grasp of the scale at which QM applies is non-existent.
 
  • #44
DesertFox said:
These people did the numbers regarding all the visible objects that the humankind have had the chance to see tunneling?
No, they gave you the numbers for one visible object, and the probability for that is so vanishingly small that even multiplying it by the most generous upper bound imaginable for the number of all the visible objects humans have had the chance to see tunnelling still leaves a probability that is much too tiny to matter. You should be able to calculate that for yourself. It is not incumbent on people responding to you to spoon feed you every single piece of information.

If you think the numbers are different, the burden is on you to show your own calculation. Either do that or your thread will be closed since without you showing your own work, or giving a reference to some similar calculation in the literature that supports your claims, your claims are baseless.
 
  • Like
Likes mattt, PeroK and weirdoguy
  • #45
PeterDonis said:
even multiplying it by the most generous upper bound imaginable for the number of all the visible objects humans have had the chance to see tunnelling

It is THAT number that NOBODY considered it in any well-grounded way.

And i don't say if the numbers are DIFFERENT or the SAME. I just claim that nobody focused on that crazy big number. That's all I said. Of course, I can't give reference in the literature for such a claim.

And if closing the thread will give some base to your claims: fine, i am ok with that. However, it will be sad, cause I really like that place.
 
  • Sad
Likes weirdoguy
  • #46
The other relevant point is that quantum tunneling tends to take place over barriers in the region of a few nanometres (##10^{-9} \ m##). If the potential barrier were the width of a house brick, say, then even electrons would be unable to tunnel. There's no basis at all on which to scale that up and conclude that a tennis ball could tunnel through a wall, say.

Any tunnelling would be part of the interaction between the surface of the ball and surface of the wall at the molecular level. QM effects would take place on that scale and govern the microscopic interactions. Even those effects have vanishingly small probabilites above molecular scales.

This is why quantum tunneling and quantum uncertainty are just not a thing when it comes to the behaviour of a tennis ball.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes pinball1970 and DesertFox
  • #47
DesertFox said:
It is THAT number that NOBODY considered it in any well-grounded way.
Then you need to give your number and show how it was calculated and why that calculation makes sense. You have not done so. I told you what would happen in that case, and it has now happened.

DesertFox said:
Of course, I can't give reference in the literature for such a claim.
In other words, you can't support your claim. Then closing the thread is obviously appropriate.

DesertFox said:
if closing the thread will give some base to your claims
Closing the thread has nothing to do with anyone's claims in this thread except your own, which you have failed to provide support for despite being asked explicitly.

This thread is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes Motore, Mark44, gentzen and 1 other person

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
25
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
11
Replies
376
Views
11K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
7
Views
812
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
19
Views
752
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
76
Views
5K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
76
Views
4K
Back
Top