esd wrote: ↑Thu, 29. Jan 26, 16:34
Most tunnelling (all ive seen) can be explained by the upper limit of instrument resolution.
That supposes you know that limit, what equipment was being used, etc. The ordering of your double post also suggests you had decided before looking that the assertions was wrong; that's the wrong way round.
Your main objections seem to boil down to "you don't think it's right" but can't actually demonstrate why.
Could it be explained by something else? Sure, so could gravity. That's what science is, not deciding this must be right or not, but proving it. So far evidence points to Quantum Effects are real, with all the subsequent meanings that has - as soon as it's shown something else is doing that, that's what will be focused on.
Until then, Quantum seems the best fit. Just like Relativity is the best fit we have.
"Ok ESD", no need to shout
I'm sorry my objections were quite specific and they were referring precisely to the scientific method.
The article I was given was talking specifically about a particular technology and how it just used a hand Wavey version of quantum physics to explain it there was no result there were no data to actually verify whether there were there was quantum Tunneling.
The specific criticism I had of that particular article was the fact that they used confirmation bias rather than actual Theory. they said we proposed this with a model we found this therefore it's true. this is terrible logic.
Have I made my mind up? the sad truth is yes I have made my mind up, but it was after deep examination of the data behind quantum physics including the Rutherford experiment and the spin-off experiments that occurred with that it was not a simple issue.
For example I got suspicious when Rutherford was one of the people who predicted that nuclear fission would never happen because his model didn't allow it so I went and looked at the model and I felt that you could not actually infer what he have inferred with the technology that he used. From there the rest of the research was conducted under the assumption that rutherford's basic models were true that's where quantum Tunneling started to really shine when Rutherford who couldn't predict the fission experiment couldn't figure out how alpha radiation happened either. it didn't work on his models so quantum Tunneling was used as a patch and I don't like that not one bit .
but I'm highlighting my bias here just so that you know. it is a case of you have to convince me that quantum physics is true before we move on to any particular exploration of theories and the reason is very simple because extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and if the two Pillars of quantum physics are not actually evidenced properly then extraordinary evidence criteria has not been met.
I literally built my own laser interferometer when I saw a few issues with the original double slit experiment it's literally on YouTube you can see what I've done I don't necessarily want to post the links because I'm not trying to promote my channel but I'm Dr Fill on YouTube so you can look ah bugger it. Here's the link...
https://www.youtube.com/live/1j4Z-TDLbc ... zWd79UqqFV
Now bearing in mind this one was actually a primarily Opal cutting video so you're going to see five minutes of laser double slit experiment and then the rest will be opals.
From this experiment the one thing that I did which I didn't really demonstrate particularly well was the fact that you could move the filters and the lasers and the interference pattern changed ever so subtly but it did change and so that put a big blocker on wave particle Duality just like that but also if you have a look at the Speckles on the wall you'll see that they don't move and that's a bigger problem because that's supposed to be a statistical average and it just does not behave like a statistical average.
Now when I saw this I just did some back at the envelope calculations and immediately I did use chuck gpt to help me because I'm only me but I thought about it and I'm going what does this lack of speckling actually mean and I realized that meant that the light was a standing wave and when I realized that I was like if like to standing wave that means that we are traveling at the speed of light relative to light which is a bit of a spin out kind of thing and I thought that couldn't be right and so I tested the theory and it was pretty astounding.
You have to understand that it's pretty uncontroversial to know that the current physical environment geometry that we live in has curvature to it
If you want to understand how that works you just get a point join a point to a point you get a line you join a line to a line you might get a curve there but let's assume you don't you'll just get a sheet if you join a sheet to a sheet there's a really good possibility you're going to get a curve in there somewhere see you can see that basically when you just start joining ordinary geometry together you get curvature you don't need any fancy pants physics to do it you just need to know how geometry works.
The scary thing is that you can then make some pretty interesting extrapolations from this the first thing is if you use sidereal Pi and the orbit of the Earth and the Earth's own serial shape and use the ratio, you can then tune that with the assumed curvature of the Universe until you get 9.8 meters per second squared as the centrifugal force of ordinary curvature against the universe with the speed of light now I didn't think much of this because I was just mucking around with equations but what fell out of that shocked me. What comes along as a hitchhiker when you're doing your gravity calculation is a one light year radius of essentially missed gravitation in other words it's a predictor of dark matter. Now considering I'm quite the cynical bastard and I always just assumed that it was astronomers who couldn't do their sums I didn't literally believe in dark matter and here I am bloody calculating it!
I then got curious and started checking out the local solar system so I said assuming that this ratio exists between curvature and gravity and speed can you actually calculate the other bodies in the solar system and blow me down, you could! I got the mass of all the other planets in the solar system to within a little bit under 5% which was not bad considering the fact that I didn't think I was going to get anything at all.
Because of this I said okay what else can this thing calculate and so I just looked around various bodies in the universe and you know Beetlejuice the Andromeda Galaxy that was an interesting one because you could calculate the dark matter Halo and from that calculate the estimated number of stars that was an astonishment to me and so I kept calculating thing after thing after thing eventually calculating the mass of the cmb which once again I got within five percent. What do I have now and I guarantee you it's completely by accident is an alternate theory for how light works that also has the capacity to predict the mass of objects in the universe now the one caveat that I can give you is that you've got to remember that gravity and the metric system are interrelated so it is not unusual that gravityand pi are related.
The only thing I couldn't get right with this thing was the Mass or radius of black holes I don't know whether it's that their Ms calculated from ordinary physical assumptions or whether the fact that the event horizon plays with your idea of curvature of the Black Hole or whatever else all I know is that the equations that I ended up with had difficulty with the black holes but that was the only issue I had.
I'm not saying I'm right but what I am saying is that if you can use some fairly simple mathematics to calculate the mass of objects in the universe without doing anything fancy you have to start wondering what they're doing with their quantum physics and that is why I'm so cynical.
Split now give me death? Nah. Just give me your ship.
