Jos Bergervoet  wrote:   
   > > And here is the meaning of all transformations   
   > > being the outcome of QM tunneling.  Is tunneling always   
   > > probalistic or is it sometimes an analytic function.   
      
   > Neither. It is *always* an analytical function! The wavefunction   
   > gradually changes from one which only has a high amplitude in one   
   > region to one with the high amplitude in the other region (at the   
   > other side of the barrier). There is nothing probabilistic about   
   > that, not even in the most hard-core Copenhagen picture.   
      
   What sorts of things are called "tunneling" is often a matter   
   of usage; and my experience differs. Whilst doing my PhD,   
   for example, I had cause to make a clear distinction between   
   "coherent tunneling" of the kind you describe, and other   
   tunneling between two states, which *was* statistical, and   
   driven by quantum noise (see e.g. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.40.4813   
   or doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.43.6194).   
      
   Now it might be that you are horrified that such processes   
   could be called "quantum tunneling", but to people working   
   in the area, it was unremarkable. Not all terminology is   
   always used in the same way.   
      
      
   #Paul   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)