>>13778830>Here you would need to have a whole technical discussion about how precisely locality is imposed in (relativistic) quantum mechanical and what it does and doesn't allow(with things allowed having tested experimentally in many cases) systems, for which you should really just consult textbooks.can you parse this for me? I thought tunneling was supposed to be the greatest achievement of QM, but the wiki says this
"This method is named after physicists Gregor Wentzel, Hendrik Anthony Kramers, and Léon Brillouin, who all developed it in 1926. In 1923, mathematician Harold Jeffreys had developed a general method of approximating solutions to linear, second-order differential equations, a class that includes the Schrödinger equation. The Schrödinger equation itself was not developed until two years later, and Wentzel, Kramers, and Brillouin were apparently unaware of this earlier work, so Jeffreys is often neglected credit. Early texts in quantum mechanics contain any number of combinations of their initials, including WBK, BWK, WKBJ, JWKB and BWKJ. An authoritative discussion and critical survey has been given by Robert B. Dingle.[1]
Earlier appearances of essentially equivalent methods are: Francesco Carlini in 1817, Joseph Liouville in 1837, George Green in 1837, Lord Rayleigh in 1912 and Richard Gans in 1915. Liouville and Green may be said to have founded the method in 1837, and it is also commonly referred to as the Liouville–Green or LG method.[2][3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WKB_approximationapparently tunneling has everything to do with QM, but "equivalent methods" existed a hundred years before.
Can you comment on this?
This guy here said the magic work
>>13779027Fermi statistics, which is solid state physics, and well predicts there'll always be a high energy electron to overcome any barrier. BUT of course you have to assume there's an ENSEMBLE of zillions of electrons.
Do you believe in the QM flavor of tunneling?
