Jos Bergervoet  wrote:   
   > So you first need to clarify whether you actually disagree with me   
   > on that (by clarifying 'statistical') before I can raise any queries.   
      
   We are at cross purposes; I was reporting a usage of the terminology   
   "quantum tunneling" with an explicitly statistical meaning. I was not   
   making a claim about the fundamental properties of quantum mechanics.   
      
   If you want to dispute the sense of the usage I reported, and (eg)   
   claim that it is not statistical, then I have provided perfectly   
   adequate references that specify the model; and using which you can   
   pick apart the mathematics amd physics if you so desire. But the usage   
   exists, whether you like it or not, and whether you personally think   
   it suitable or not.   
      
   #Paul   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)