You Will Not Tunnel Through a Wall - Comments

  • Context: Insights 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ZapperZ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wall
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of quantum tunneling, specifically addressing the differences in tunneling probabilities between protons and electrons, and how these differences affect the overall tunneling probability of composite particles. Participants explore theoretical implications, calculations, and analogies related to tunneling phenomena.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire whether the differences between protons and electrons lower the tunneling probability or complicate calculations.
  • One participant suggests that the tunneling of all particles must occur simultaneously and coherently, which has not been experimentally observed.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the transmission probabilities for protons and electrons differ due to their charge characteristics, impacting their tunneling behavior.
  • There is a discussion about the analogy of flipping coins to explain the joint probability of tunneling for composite particles, with some participants proposing that the combined probability is the product of individual probabilities.
  • Participants challenge each other's reasoning regarding the implications of differing individual probabilities on the joint tunneling probability.
  • One participant uses an analogy of dice in a bag to illustrate how the success of tunneling depends on all particles passing through a barrier simultaneously.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of individual tunneling probabilities for composite particles. There is no consensus on how these differences affect the overall tunneling probability, leading to an unresolved discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the lack of experimental evidence for the tunneling of whole atoms and molecules, which may limit the applicability of their arguments. The discussion also highlights the complexity of calculating tunneling probabilities in composite systems.

  • #61
What is the process by which hydrogen gas H2 escapes from a metal container by going through the metal matrix? Is that a type of tunneling? There is a negative charge barrier from the metal electrons tor the electrons circling the H2 gas molecules but they are treated as a package with a negative charge.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Gary Feierbach said:
What is the process by which hydrogen gas H2 escapes from a metal container by going through the metal matrix? Is that a type of tunneling? There is a negative charge barrier from the metal electrons tor the electrons circling the H2 gas molecules but they are treated as a package with a negative charge.

Hydrogen gas is too small and can sneak through metal joints, etc. it is not tunneling.

When I do a RGA reading on an ultra-vacuum system, I usually see hydrogen gas, even when we are at low 10^-10 Torr.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DavidLloydJones
  • #63
I got an answer from the oil and gas industry. In gas pipelines there is moisture and H2S that reacts with the iron in the metal to make FeS. The Hydrogen from the reaction in the form of ions can penetrate the metal and also accumulate in striations in the metal, combine into H2 and actually form blisters from the pressure buildup. For this reason these pipes are injected with corrosion inhibitors along with the product.
 
  • #64
ZapperZ said:
You are forgetting that in the SIS tunneling example that I had given, the electrons in the Cooper pair are entangled with each other. So they make up the Josephson current.

Zz.
I'm not forgetting; I'm ignorant. Shouldn't there be a separate entanglement for tunneling on top of any entanglement for normal pair formation?

As I understand it, the probability of an unentangled pair of electrons tunneling should be the probability of one tunneling times the probability of the other tunneling? (Of course there will be conundrums such as changing potentials and the like.)

But if the particles tunnel together more frequently than the product of their individual probabilities they would be partially entangled for tunneling purposes in addition to being entangled for spin purposes.

Or is there a difference between the shifting probabilities due to changing potentials and entanglement? Perhaps just having the changing probabilities counts as some form of entanglement? (That is a semantic argument, BTW. It depends on how we define entanglement.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 132 ·
5
Replies
132
Views
14K
  • · Replies 395 ·
14
Replies
395
Views
26K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 108 ·
4
Replies
108
Views
17K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K