[Bored chemist]

Why can't you grasp that tunneling is even more evidence that matter waves are not physical?

What do you think "non physical" means?

In any event, if I want to calculate rates of tunneling, I solve the equations for the matter waves.
They may not be "physical" - whatever that means, but tunnelling is evidence that matter waves work as a model.

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

I'm confident that a wave of information is sometimes capable of going through barriers.
I'm not trying to say any existing models are wrong. Only what they claim matter waves to be.
If you admit to them not being physical, it opens up my bigger theory of spacetime being separate from QM.

[chiralSPO]

If you admit to them not being physical, it opens up my bigger theory of spacetime being separate from QM.

But QM isn't entirely separate from spacetime, whether viewed as particles or waves. MOST of it is inextricably linked.
Hints:
wavelength
distance between slits
decay time
etc.

As I have said previously, there ARE some aspects of QM that are not tied to spacetime, like spin, which instead should be thought of in "spin space"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmech/Quantum/node88.html

[Bored chemist]

not being physical,

You keep failing to explain what you think that means.
Is that because you can't?

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

Calm down, I should have wrote QM waves are separate from spacetime. Observation/Spacetime grants them partial physicality.

Physical: structure, 3D, more than just information ..real to us.

[chiralSPO]

Not everyone on this forum is an expert, certainly not in all topics discussed here. However, some of the members posting in this thread (including myself) are very well educated in QM. You would do well to try to understand what we are saying. Based on the types of assertions and confusions you (pittsburghjoe) appear to be making, and the great degree of confidence you appear to be displaying, I suspect that you currently reside somewhere near the top of "Mt. Stupid" (https://www.theengineeringmanager.com/growth/mount-stupid/)


Screen Shot 2019-06-17 at 4.06.15 PM.png (127.11 kB . 990x690 - viewed 6775 times)

Don't worry, it is possible to scale back down (and to the right side), but it's a very disconcerting climb...

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

You don't get that this discovery never would have happened if I went to the same schooling as you. Apparently you guys are brainwashed to overlook what I'm pointing. If I sound confident, it's because I thought through this and truly believe it's something you academics should consider.

[Bored chemist]

I should have wrote QM waves are separate from spacetime. Observation/Spacetime grants them partial physicality.

Why?
Were you entering a "bad poetry" contest?

not being physical,

You keep failing to explain what you think that means.
Is that because you can't?

[alancalverd]

The stupidity graph is also diagnostic of Kruger-Dunning syndrome, whose sufferers display arrogance in direct proportion to their ignorance. I encounter it every day in Health and Safety Executive inspectors who do not read their own company handbook (ignorance) and then invent new "laws" (arrogance) in order to extract fees from their victims.

[Bored chemist]

You don't get that this discovery never would have happened if I went to the same schooling as you.

We get it...

[Bored chemist]

I encounter it every day in Health and Safety Executive inspectors who do not read their own company handbook (ignorance) and then invent new "laws" (arrogance) in order to extract fees from their victims.

So, when you appealed, how did that go?

[jeffreyH]

Atoms bouncing off each other collapses their waves.

That doesn't even parse.

There's something you need to understand.
It has already been pointed out, but you have missed it.
Imagine making a grating with a gap between the "wires" that's a little bit smaller than the molecules you are using.

Classically, no particles will get through it.

QM and the uncertainty principle means that a few will. They will quantum tunnel through.

Here's the bit you don't understand.
If you take the grating and hammer it until the wires are squashed flat and there are no gaps so it becomes a metal foil then repeat the experiment...

More atoms will get through the foil even though it no longer has gaps in it. (In some circumstances)

Do you understand that?
 The probability of tunneling is related to the thickness of the barrier.
Hammering it flat makes it thinner and so it's more likely that atoms will tunnel through.

Obviously, with the grating destroyed, there's no diffraction pattern.

And the (smaller number of) atoms that went through the grating before  you hammered it flat would also show no clear diffraction pattern because, at that level, the atoms are not going through the gaps.

It's the same , classically, with light
You know the equation
d sin θ =  λ
Where lambda is the wavelength and d is the spacing
you can rewrite that as

sin θ =  λ /d
Well, if you make d smaller than lambda then you are trying to find an angle where sin theta is more than 1, but that's impossible.

Diffraction doesn't work if the wavelength is bigger  than the grating's spacing.
And, returning to QM, a particle can't be "smaller" than the associated wavelength.

So, you can't sensibly calculate a diffraction pattern for the the experiment you have proposed.

So there's no way to say whether the particles would follow it or not.
And, as has been pointed out before, you also can't measure it because, in practice big  things don't go through small holes.

This is a real gem of a post. Joe, really, you need to read this thread through and absorb. Do you realise how much the tuition would be for this stuff? And you are getting it for free. Step away from the house bricks mate.

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

If you admit to them not being physical, it opens up my bigger theory of spacetime being separate from QM.

But QM isn't entirely separate from spacetime, whether viewed as particles or waves. MOST of it is inextricably linked.
Hints:
wavelength
distance between slits
decay time
etc.

As I have said previously, there ARE some aspects of QM that are not tied to spacetime, like spin, which instead should be thought of in "spin space"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmech/Quantum/node88.html

all variables you list can propagate within matter waves

[chiralSPO]

If you admit to them not being physical, it opens up my bigger theory of spacetime being separate from QM.

But QM isn't entirely separate from spacetime, whether viewed as particles or waves. MOST of it is inextricably linked.
Hints:
wavelength
distance between slits
decay time
etc.

As I have said previously, there ARE some aspects of QM that are not tied to spacetime, like spin, which instead should be thought of in "spin space"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmech/Quantum/node88.html

all variables you list can propagate within matter waves

Precisely! You claimed that spacetime somehow doesn't apply to matter waves. I pointed out that these waves have properties that are inextricably linked to both space and time. Therefore.... these waves must exist in spacetime!

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

uh, yeah, they exist as variable waves, not physical. They propagate with their own rules that happen to be in the same xyz of spacetime.

[Bored chemist]

What do you think "non physical" means?

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

for lack of a better term: ghosts

[Bored chemist]

for lack of a better term: ghosts

So, not something that should be on a science forum then?

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

If you describe a matter wave better than me you win a prize.

[Bored chemist]

If you describe a matter wave better than me you win a prize.

What would I get if I could describe it worse?
I ask because it seems more like an interesting challenge?