From: gehrab@gmail.com   
      
   On Saturday, February 20, 2021 at 3:21:56 PM UTC-6, Jos Bergervoet wrote:   
   > On 21/02/19 9:45 AM, p.ki...@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   
   This last post contains is a common misconception, and is almost a   
   straw-man kind of argument. The rules of quantum mechanics actually   
   allow you to calculate the probability distributions from which the   
   results of measurements are taken. These are completely precise to   
   our ability to measure. Just because the results are probabilistic   
   (not statistical) does not mean they cannot be made precisely. What   
   is determined is a distribution rather than a number. Here is the   
   misconception, the prediction does not allow any more precise   
   calculation that the distribution--it does not allow you to know   
   the actual number being measured.   
      
   In addition, recently, Gerard t'Hooft has suggested the beginnings   
   of theory that poses that quantum mechanics can be founded upon a   
   deterministic basis drawn from cellular automata theory. While this   
   is by no means settled, the fact that it is not automatically insane   
   makes it worth a bit of study. I do not find the t'Hooft arguments   
   compelling, but I cannot disprove the results out of hand.   
      
   George   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)