Tunneling in a non-subatomic particles

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Si14
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particles Tunneling
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of quantum tunneling and its applicability to non-subatomic particles, particularly in the context of whether larger objects can exhibit tunneling behavior similar to electrons. Participants explore the theoretical implications and practical limitations of quantum mechanics at macroscopic scales.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether quantum tunneling can be scaled up to non-subatomic particles, using the hypothetical scenario of a person attempting to tunnel through a wall.
  • Another participant acknowledges that while the probability of tunneling for macroscopic objects is non-zero, it is practically negligible, suggesting that the likelihood remains effectively zero even with extensive attempts over time.
  • A different participant expresses skepticism about the applicability of quantum mechanics to large objects, comparing the tunneling scenario to the improbability of a ball moving uphill by borrowing energy.
  • One participant notes that while quantum mechanics theoretically applies to macroscopic scales, it is often impractical to use due to the sufficiency of classical theory, although they mention exceptions like superconductivity where classical theory breaks down.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of quantum tunneling to larger objects, with some acknowledging the theoretical possibility while others emphasize the practical impossibility. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the relevance of quantum mechanics at macroscopic scales.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in applying quantum mechanics to macroscopic scenarios, including the challenges of calculating probabilities and the sufficiency of classical physics in most cases. There is an acknowledgment that classical theory may not hold in certain circumstances.

Si14
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
Hi,
We now electrons do tunnel and for example FE happens because of this.
However, is it true to scale up this effect for non-subatomic particles? For example, is it OK to say, if you are behind a wall and hit yourself to the wall, there is a chance that you might Tunnel and see yourself on the other side of the wall?
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As with most things in QM, statistically that probability is non-zero. If you look at the macroscopic wave function of yourself and the wall, you can in theory calculate it - though in practice you would have trouble finding a computer that can even solve that for a fraction of the particles. And the number you will find is so small that even if all the world population having lived up until now had tried that once per second throughout the life time of the universe, the chances of actually finding someone on the other side would still be zero for all practical purposes. If you are into those kinds of experiments, try the monkeys-with-typewriters experiment, it will be a piece of cake compared to this one :)
 
I like the prior answer, but I do always wonder if such quantum theory has ANY application to such large objects.

In other words, classically, you are about as likely to move thru a wall as a ball is to run uphill by borrowing energy from the particles in the hill. It just isn't going to happen.
 
As I said, this is all theoretical: of course QM does apply to macroscopic scales, but (usually!) it is infeasible to use it and unnecessary because we have a perfectly usable limit, i.e. classical theory.

Note that of course in some circumstances, classical theory breaks down even on macroscopic scales. Superconductivity is one example.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K