On Sep 2, 12:47=A0am, Timo Nieminen <t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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:
> > Um, did you notice the word there "nanoscopic"? =A0Since when is a one
> > inch waveguide "nanoscopic"?
>
> And the details of a definition of quantum tunnelling matter when
talking
> about classical tunnelling because? ("Nanoscopic" is just crap in the
> above anyway - somebody is playing buzzowrd bingo? - since there's no
> requirement for quantum tunnelling to be nanoscopic anyway.)
You DARE dismiss Wikipedia as the "ultimate" source of knowledge on
the planet? Shame on you! :)
Why here in the physics groups people are ALWAYS quoting Wikipedia to
me to help get over my "ignorance" of supposedly well-understood
topics.
> > And anyway, There is no classical
> > impenetrable barrier below cut-off!
> Yes, just like there's no quantum impenetrable barrier. That's why you
ge=
t
> tunnelling. If it was really impenetrable, there wouldn't be any
> tunnelling, would there?
What the hell is this? I expect better considering the field you work
in (and play bass)! You sound like you are running for president!
Here is a little something to go with your campaign.
http://www.jibjab.com/originals/time_for_some_campaignin
(Ignore the fact you are clueless in Oz. Others will get a kick out of
it. Trust me.)
How about you back up and tell my why this phenomena has been termed
"tunneling"? Did you forget? Maybe you never knew? It's called
"tunneling" because quantum particles (yes, "nanoscopic"!) are going
through barriers that CLASSICALLY (um I"m not talking about classical
music here!) do NOT permit penetration. To term classical evanescent
waves "tunneling" because they "get through" is hand waving worthy of
Obama! Um, dear Liberal Democrat.
Words actually have meanings, you know. They don't mean just what you
SAY they mean. Better hit those Graduate QED textbooks again.
> > The wave equations clearly
> > produce solutions of evanescent waves!
> Yes! And you get evanescent waves in classical physics just the same as
> you do in quantum physics. Evanescent waves in quantum physics give you
> quantum tunnelling, and what might you expect they give you in classical
> physics? Something different?
Yes. Quantum waves are only probability "waves". I mean what the hell
is that anyway? It's a model of NOTHING! It's words, words words,
with no substance. Cripes. The Democrat and Republican conventions and
now Timo Too? Classical waves are WAVES. They are measurable force-
fields. Please tell me, what in hell is a magnetic field in QED
anyway? A photon? Boy that sure makes sense...NOT. I've said this
before and it still seems to stand. It's guys who think like you do
that are the PROBLEM with modern physics!
> You don't know how to search the literature? Feh! Even googling for
> "electronmagnetic" and "tunnelling" (either spelling) yields plenty.
Give=
n
> the posts on this ng re Nimtz and his classical tunnelling experiments,
> why are you even asking for cites? (H. G. Winful has the best stuff
about
> that stuff that I've seen - see, I give you a cite). Search, read and
> learn.
Know how to search it? Hell, I WROTE some of it! I'll go look at H.
G. Winful just for drill. Be warned that contrary to popular academic
opinion around here, I actually understand this stuff! You may be
sorry. And hey, since I don't yet know it all, I'm always ready to
read and learn! How about YOU?
|
