From: jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl
On 21/02/19 9:45 AM, p.kinsler@ic.ac.uk wrote:
> Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>> 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,
>
>> I'm pretty sure you cannot prove that!
>
> I presume you are not actually asking me to prove my experience
> as a grad student actually existed. :-)
No, the only thing that would help is to explain what your sentence
meant with 'statistical'.
>
> Any other relevant proof - such as it is - could have been fairly
> easily found by following the doi's (and references therein) in my
> post. So, in answer, what I might claim to be "pretty sure" of is
> not an opinion, but actually derivations you can go check.
If your claim is to have settled the dispute whether QM is deterministic
or stochastic, then this should have been common knowledge by now (I
think that who can give a proof either way, will be the most famous
physicist of the century!) It is just not clear if that is what your
sentence intended to say.
> Feel
> free to raise any queries (or disagreements with) here and I'll
> try to answer them.
If you really claim to have the answer to the dispute mentioned, there
are other people much more qualified than me to challenge you (and I'm
sure they will). If on the other hand, you merely mean it is intractable
due to many dependencies on initial- and boundary conditions, then it
was just not addressing the point in my post you responded to, where I
wrote that the QM description of a tunneling process is deterministic.
So you first need to clarify whether you actually disagree with me
on that (by clarifying 'statistical') before I can raise any queries.
>
> #Paul
--
Jos
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
