[Virtual State (OP)]

Do all possible paths provide the path that allows tunneling to happen? Is this what the non-zero past the barrier is? Uncertainty is the possible paths of the vector field. Is tunneling from a path of all possible paths with a phasor that didn't complete its cycle before the barrier?

[evan_au]

In the quantum world, the location of a particle cannot be determined precisely.
- The probability of finding the particle in a particular location is indicated by the amplitude of the wave function
- The wavefunction will have some non-zero probability on the "other" side of a barrier, so there is a non-zero probability that the particle will appear on the other side of the barrier. We call this tunneling.
- The probability of tunneling decreases rapidly with the width of the barrier.
 
You could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

[Virtual State (OP)]

Math is great, but I want to know what is actually happening.

[yor_on]

:)

Two choices. Magic, or a logic. If there is a logic to it it should be possible to describe mathematically, if you can't describe it then it just as well becomes magic. So mathematics are very important to it. Without them you don't have anything more than hearsay.


spelling
=

As for how it works? It's not cogs and wheels. If you take a entanglement its correlation has nothing to do with distance or time, well, as I think anyway. Maybe its a structure that breaks down with decoherence coming into play. Something about the scale you use when describing it. Or you could probably stretch it to become a question of what time is too, as 'time' isn't involved in the correlation as far as I know.

[yor_on]

If you think of it there is a sort of complementary to distance and time. Take away any of those and you reach a same state. One where something seems to become 'instant' to us.

[Virtual State (OP)]

Time is involved. I suspect all possible paths of interference are paths of causality. I don't think Vector uses the same type of Time as Scalar Relative Time. Maybe it is some type of cycle of alpha. I think we need to reexamine Lorentz Transformations.

[yor_on]

Well, maybe in tunneling but not in a entanglement. If there was we would have disproved 'c'.

[Virtual State (OP)]

Neither are using relative time. You need quantum waves for either of those to happen.

[yor_on]

A entanglement is not two parts, even though we can use a beam splitter to produce two individual photons. And the point there is that your measurement only can state that their spins will be opposite, but not in what direction. So you can't know the spin from try to try, but what you do know is that they 'instantly' are correlated ( once you measure one of 'them' ). If you could find a way to state this spin without measuring, entanglements no longer would belong under probability, and you would also be able to argue that those 'spins' was set through the beam splitter splitting one photon into two.


spelling
&syntax

[yor_on]

And time is never relative.Not practically for you. Your clock never change its pace, it's those other clocks that starts to act weird as you gain mass or speed. You can only measure something from your own local setting, and we do so, and when our experiments agree with each other we call them 'repeatable experiments'.
=

You can define it as all those experiments must have been slightly different from yours, as their relative speed, mass, influence the time taken from your local definition. But again practically, if they really did there would be no repeatable experiments, that's what Lorentz transformations in different uniform motions is about. It's a logic, and it gave us repeatable experiments.

[Virtual State (OP)]

I'm saying what we use for t and x are not what we assume. c is the number of vectors light can use (Distance) in a "time" dictated by alpha.

[yor_on]

I suspect you have something of a new theory there. We have a place for that if you want to expand on it further. In the mean time this might be relevant. Fermat's principle. http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/7010/CM_03_FermatLeastTime.html

[yor_on]

There are some technicalities to using a beam splitter to describe a entanglement. The most important is that the entanglement is not presumed to exist before the measurement. It's only if measured it 'falls out', before that the photon is thought to exist in a so called super position, consisting of all possible polarizations / spins it can take. So in one way it goes back to what a superposition is thought to be.

But it is a interesting thought wondering about if you can connect entanglements to tunnelings. Presuming it is possible you then would have a opportunity to measure the time taken for a flow through an array of Josephson junctions and compare it to a speed. If the 'tunneling' is instant you should be able to notice it, possibly :)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-are-josephson-juncti/

Let's add this one too. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/395710/quantum-tunneling-superposition-and-the-uncertainty-principle

And this one, very short, but interesting without mathematics.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bob_Copeland/publication/328913426_Superposition_Entanglement_Tunnelling/links/5beae3c74585150b2bb38fad/Superposition-Entanglement-Tunnelling.pdf

syntax

[Virtual State (OP)]

They are related, please check out my other threads. There is a reason both require to be quantum waves when they happen. A scalar volume isn't going to tunnel because physical matter is traveling a single path. I will check out your links.

[evan_au]

we can use a beam splitter to produce two individual photons.

For conventional beam splitters, one photon coming in produces one photon of the same frequency coming out.
- It's just that there is a 50% chance that it will come out one port, and 50% chance it will come out the other port (other split ratios are available...)
- Back to the question in the original post: one common form of beam splitter uses a very thin layer of aluminium at 45° to the light beam.
- It actually works by quantum tunneling; when the photon hits the thin layer of aluminium, there is a 50% chance it will tunnel through the aluminium and continue on its merry way, and 50% chance it will remain on the original side, and get reflected by 90° to come out the other port.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_splitter

When you are talking about 1 photon coming into a passive device, and 2 photons coming out, the only way this can happen if the 2 photons coming out have half the frequency of the original photon. This frequency reduction is needed for conservation of energy.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion

Well, maybe in tunneling but not in a entanglement. If there was we would have disproved 'c'.

Quantum events do not have to respect 'c'. But there are limits on how big a violation can occur.
- In every quantum event, there is an uncertainty of position. The particle may be on one side of a barrier, or it may be on the other side (due to tunneling).
- But the Uncertainty Principle constrains the amount of uncertainty.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

[yor_on]

Evan, You know as well as I what I'm saying. If there was found to be a speed for a entanglement is wouldn't be instant and it would question 'c'. you have a whole mathematical foundation for how to look at it and it starts as far as I see in the idea of super positions.

As for the rest, I'm talking about " Parametric down-conversion (PDC) is a nonlinear process in which a photon from a strong pump laser is converted into two daughter photons under conservation of energy and momentum "

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/beamsplitter

[yor_on]

Maybe we look at it differently? I look at it from information. If it is 'instant' I will call it a 'whole', not two singular photons down converted but one whole 'process', or whatever you would like to call it. If it isn't, if there was found to be some delay between you measuring one and the other giving you its opposite it would be 'information' flowing to me. It would no longer be a whole, or I would have to re-imagine what time should be seen as under a such scenario.
=

Or possibly space, or both. The main point for me though is the definition of no useful information over 'c'. So if I find information being able to take time over that (ftl), or action and reaction if you like, it would make me wonder, a lot. It would both please and threaten relativity, as you could argue that it no longer is 'spooky' although it at the same time would question 'c'.

'c' as a definition is purely local. You can't use some 'universal frame' for it. It's the local frame of reference that defines it, same for us all, by which I mean that your experiment can define it and so will mine no matter our different speeds at the moment of measurement.  Just as it is the one that defines 'repeatable experiments'.

And that is the weird thing about quantum processes, they are not classical as you point out, neither are they relativistic. They are like another world. Which gives us three worlds.

[Virtual State (OP)]

There is nothing relative about entanglement or tunneling while they are happening. Not only am I saying they are the same thing, but so is interference ..which means superposition. c equates time for non-local waves. It is all vector(virtual). c is always the same speed because it is virtual.

[yor_on]

Ahh :)

That one definitely belong in 'new theories' VS. And you will need to define each one of your words there so that it becomes clear how you think of it before combining it into a 'picture'. No slight to you, but idea of the main forum has changed from being a free for all to one in where your questions gets answered from a main scientific point of view. It's somewhat of a gray zone still, but your idea needs another place.

[Virtual State (OP)]

You get to say "another world", but I don't?