Re: For the mathematicians: The end of the quantum tunnel

On a sunny day (Wed, 1 May 2024 10:35:49 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <v0t2do$33a75$1@dont-email.me>:

On 01/05/2024 06:01, Jan Panteltje wrote:

 
The end of the quantum tunnel
   https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240426165224.htm
Date:
April 26, 2024
Source:
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Summary:
  Quantum mechanical effects such as radioactive decay, or more generally: 'tunneling', display intriguing mathematical
  patterns. Researchers now show that a 40-year-old mathematical discovery can be used to fully encode and understand this structure.
 
Paper:
  https://scipost.org/SciPostPhys.16.4.103/pdf

>
Did you read the link that you posted Jan?

Actually yes
I had some problems too, but think I get the gist.

Their method might be an interesting superset of classical and quantum
methods but it is *extremely* mathematical and intricate mathematics.
The standard QM formalism is way easier to use and understand.

That is why the subject line... :-)

That paper starts at the WKB approximation (which was part II
theoretical physics back in my day and would be graduate level now) and
goes off at at skyward tangent. It might indeed yield something by way
of an insight into QM but it will still contain all known QM results as
a limiting case. QM is experimentally validated to a high degree...

I am more a practical thinker, always looking for a mechanism,
say for for example for the atomic decay.
My views may have something to do with me coming from a family that had watch makers in it,
my uncle had a jewel store and a watch repair store...
In a non-empty space there is no reason those particle would not cause electron orbit changes...
The quantity of the effects ? What sort of particles? I still am with Le Sage's view
Open to a better one if I find one.

My money is on Clifford algebras to be the next big leap forward in
physics notation that provides more insight (rather than string theory)
but it has been a long coming. I know some folk in both camps.

String theory makes no sense whatsoever to me, you can prove anything
with 'multiple universes'. Gave up on that long agar.
Simplicity is always preferred.