On Sep 1, 10:54=A0pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Benj wrote:
> > "tunneling"???!!!
>
> > Puhleeeze! =A0Hey Timo, time to hit the sophomore E&M textbook again!
> > What do you think he built? "Quantum conduits" for the star ****p
> > Enterprise?
>
> You bought into the QM propaganda that tunnelling is a "purely quantum"
> phenomenon?
Yeah, I have! Lets quote a source above all question: Wikipedia!
"In quantum mechanics, quantum tunnelling is a nanoscopic phenomenon
in which a particle violates the principles of classical mechanics by
penetrating a potential barrier or impedance higher than the kinetic
energy of the particle.[1]"
> FYI, evanescent transmission through below cut-off waveguides,
> FTIR, coupling between optical fibres, and radiation from bent optical
> fibres are all perfectly good classical examples of tunnelling. The last
> one is especially cute, being tunnelling from the waveguide to a point
in
> free space.
Um, did you notice the word there "nanoscopic"? Since when is a one
inch waveguide "nanoscopic"? And anyway, There is no classical
impenetrable barrier below cut-off! The wave equations clearly
produce solutions of evanescent waves! Ok, optical fibers are smaller
but I still see no impenetrable classical barriers. I only see
evanescent waves away from the core that can couple. This still sounds
like BS to me!
I suppose if you are trying to use a QED description of light as
particles some kind of "tunneling" description might be necessary to
"explain" those effects, but that is far from necessary when plain old
classical E&M does just fine. But then even though QED does correctly
describe phenomena as far as it goes, it is still mostly BS and
"explains" nothing.
> There's a sizable literature on all this; read and learn.
So give me a cite so I can read and learn!
|
