On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Benj wrote:
> On Sep 1, 10:54=A0pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Benj wrote:
>=20
> > > "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?
>=20
> Yeah, I have! Lets quote a source above all question: Wikipedia!
>=20
> "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]"
>=20
> > 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
las=
t
> > one is especially cute, being tunnelling from the waveguide to a point
=
in
> > free space.
>=20
> Um, did you notice the word there "nanoscopic"? Since when is a one
> inch waveguide "nanoscopic"?
And the details of a definition of quantum tunnelling matter when talking=
=20
about classical tunnelling because? ("Nanoscopic" is just crap in the=20
above anyway - somebody is playing buzzowrd bingo? - since there's no=20
requirement for quantum tunnelling to be nanoscopic anyway.)
> And anyway, There is no classical
> impenetrable barrier below cut-off!
Yes, just like there's no quantum impenetrable barrier. That's why you
get=
=20
tunnelling. If it was really impenetrable, there wouldn't be any=20
tunnelling, would there?
> The wave equations clearly
> produce solutions of evanescent waves!
Yes! And you get evanescent waves in classical physics just the same as=20
you do in quantum physics. Evanescent waves in quantum physics give you=20
quantum tunnelling, and what might you expect they give you in
classical=20
physics? Something different?
> 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!
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> > There's a sizable literature on all this; read and learn.
>=20
> So give me a cite so I can read and learn!
You don't know how to search the literature? Feh! Even googling for=20
"electronmagnetic" and "tunnelling" (either spelling) yields plenty.
Given=
=20
the posts on this ng re Nimtz and his classical tunnelling experiments,=20
why are you even asking for cites? (H. G. Winful has the best stuff about=
=20
that stuff that I've seen - see, I give you a cite). Search, read and=20
learn.
--=20
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
|
