Home / AMERICAN NEWS / Quantum Particles Penetrate 5 Barriers

Quantum Particles Penetrate 5 Barriers

According to new research by Austrian scientists published in the latest edition of the journal Science, quantum particles can tunnel through long-range impassable barriers even though their energy won’t allow for the corresponding trajectory. Known as the quantum tunnel effect, it manifests itself in numerous known phenomena.

For instance, it explains electron transport through quantum dots, fusion reactions inside stars and nuclear radioactive decay. Tunneling is also an essential part of numerous technical processes. For example, it facilitates the imaging of exteriors on the atomic length scale in STMs (scanning tunneling microscopes).

quantum

Quantum Particles Penetrate 5 Barriers/Image: CreationRevolution

Up to this point, the tunneling process only involved one particle tunneling through a single barrier. Hanns-Christoph Nägerl and a team of researchers at the Institute for Experimental Physics of the University of Innsbruck, in Innsbruck, Austria recently learned of a process for quantum particles to pass through as many as five different barriers simultaneously via an effect called Bose enhancement.

They created what they call “a physical quantum simulator” that can imitate other quantum systems. They cooled cesium atoms to almost absolute zero or -459.67 degrees F. They next put the atoms in an essential optical lattice created with multiple intersecting beams from “high-intensity lasers.” At this low temperature the various random movements of the atoms ceases almost entirely resulting in no energy being left for the atoms to move other than through the use of quantum tunneling.

Nägerl and his group applied a force which to some degree altered the energy landscape, tilting the board to permit the quantum particles to travel down it. The investigators however didn’t discover that the particles were tunneling through a single barrier but instead witnessed multiple particles moving through five different barriers.

Nägerl stated: “Very similar to a massive object moving in the Earth’s gravitational field, the tunneling atoms should lose potential energy when they move down the washboard.” He concluded that only additional research can reveal the full potential of this new discovery.

About Will Phoenix

W. Scott Phoenix, B.A., B.S. was born in Hawaii, raised in Pennsylvania and resides in California. He has been a published writer since 1978. His work has appeared (under various names) in numerous places in print and online including Examiner.com. He is a single parent of three children and has also worked as an actor, singer and teacher. He has been employed by such publications as the Daily Collegian and the Los Angeles Times.
  • bgrnathan

    SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE CANNOT BE ETERNAL because it could not have sustained itself eternally due to the law of entropy (increasing net energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein showed that space, matter, and time all are physical and all had a beginning. Space even produces particles because it’s actually something, not nothing. Even time had a beginning! Time is not eternal.

    The law of entropy doesn’t allow the universe to be eternal. If the universe were eternal, everything, including time (which modern science has shown is as physical as mass and space), would have become totally entropied by now and the entire universe would have ended in a uniform heat death a long, long time ago. The fact that this hasn’t happened already is powerful evidence for a beginning to the universe.

    Popular atheistic scientist Stephen Hawking admits that the universe had a beginning and came from nothing but he believes that nothing became something by a natural process yet to be discovered. That’s not rational thinking at all, and it also would be making the effect greater than its cause to say that nothing created something. The beginning had to be of supernatural origin because natural laws and processes do not have the ability to bring something into existence from nothing. What about the Higgs boson (the so-called “God Particle”)? The Higgs boson does not create mass from nothing, but rather it converts energy into mass. Einstein showed that all matter is some form of energy.

    The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence and power for the origin and order of the universe. Where did God come from? Obviously, unlike the universe, God’s nature doesn’t require a beginning.

    EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn’t mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws may explain how the order in the universe works and operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could life or the cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

    WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports.

    Some things don’t need experiment or scientific proof. In law there is a dictum called prima facie evidence. It means “evidence that speaks for itself.”

    An example of a true prima facie would be if you discovered an elaborate sand castle on the beach. You don’t have to experiment to know that it came by design and not by the chance forces of wind and water.

    If you discovered a romantic letter or message written in the sand, you don’t have to experiment to know that it was by design and not because a stick randomly carried by wind put it there. You naturally assume that an intelligent and rational being was responsible.

    I encourage all to read my popular Internet articles: NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION and HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

    Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

    Babu G. Ranganathan*
    (B.A. Bible/Biology)

    Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS

    *I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I’ve been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who in The East” for my writings on religion and science.

    • DRoseDARs

      Shorter:
      Argle-bargle God did it argle-bargle…

    • Jim Dunning

      Why can’t the universe be perpetually recreating itself? The last “Big Bang” may not have been the first or the last. At some point the universe will stop expanding and start contracting to a single point at which there will be another Big Bang.

      • TubifexWorm

        “Spontaneous self-assembly” might be a better term since creation predisposes people to hypothesize a creator.

        • DrunkSpock

          Your statement reminds me a bit of the river example i mentioned earlier in the longer rambling post. The river assembled itself without a brain. Gravity and water is really all you need. Maybe the universe is similarly a function a few basic forces that combine to form… stuff.

      • Steven Goodheart

        Sir Roger Penrose has some interesting theories on that possibility.

    • psycho_nurse

      “He {Hawking] believes that nothing became something by a natural process yet to be discovered. That’s not rational thinking at all”

      But a magic man in the sky is rational thinking?

      • Amy Amrap

        You set up a straw man (no one referred to a magic man) as a distraction. What you quoted is the issue -you- wanted to focus on. Is what Hawking believes rational or not? … Does it ever shake you that the ideas you defend require you to, ahem, distract, psycho_nurse?

        • DrunkSpock

          Magicman, ‘supernatural’, whatever.

          Its absolutely rational for Hawking to believe there are things at work beyond what he understands but that they adhere to the same scientific principles everything else does. ABSOLUTELY RATIONAL for him to say this. To chalk the unknown up to supernatural elements is… crazy and stupid.

        • TubifexWorm

          The foundation of the “first cause” religious argument is a misunderstanding of the concepts “cause and effect”. We use the concepts of cause and effect to connect the events we perceive because doing so has been useful to our survival. But cause and effect do not “exist” in the real world per se. Analogy: sequences of sound may exist in the real world but music only arises from the human apperception of these sequences of sound, having as much to do with the functioning of our consciousness as it has to do with the physics of sound. “cause and effect” come from the “language game” (see Wittgenstein’s “Philosophical Investigations”) of everyday experience. It makes no more sense to talk about the “cause” of the universe than it does to talk about “hiking” a baseball. “Hiking” belongs to the language game of football and is nonsense in the language game of baseball. Likewise “cause” is nonsensical in the language game of cosmology.

      • TubifexWorm

        Science increasingly abstains from talk of “cause and effect” as these terms only apply to our everyday experiences. Explanation by silly story: An extraterrestrial watches at a traffic light and concludes that red lights cause cars to stop and green lights cause cars to go. This simplistic explanation provides little insight. After years of study, the alien has discovered that the cars are piloted by intelligent creatures whose psychology must be understood. And this personal psychology is overlaid by culture which must be understood. And this culture is further overlaid by driving “rules of the road”, which is further enforced by a legal system with sanctions against transgressors. Finally the alien would conclude that the colors of the traffic lights are merely signs which are then interpreted by human drivers in the context of personal psychology, culture and legality. Notice that this deeper level of understanding is completely free of the language of “cause and effect”. So a deep understanding of the universe will be free of the language of “cause and effect” and there will be no reason to presuppose a “first cause”.

    • Will Phoenix

      Thanks for the comment and thanks for reading my stuff!

      • DrunkSpock

        I will read some of your stuff. Link please.

        • Will Phoenix

          I am a staff member here. You can just surf through ALW and you are bound to hit my stuff OR click on my name under the headline on this article. I love your screenname by the way!

          • DrunkSpock

            Oh i see now (its late here)… You wrote *this* stuff. Well done, nice article!

            Thanks btw, I am a Cynic, and generally we come off as drunk, belligerent Stoic’s, who were, afaik, almost exactly like Vulcans. So it’s accurate, even though I don’t drink (never cared much for it).

    • jim thomas

      Recap: I’m going to take all this sciency sounding snippets from scientists and draw a conclusion that most of them would disagree with. You can’t refute it!

      • DrunkSpock

        …because Einstein said so!

    • TubifexWorm

      “Time is not eternal”. Time might not be a concept useful for parsing the universe. We know from Einstein’s Specific Theory of relativity that space and time are co-mingled, that our temporal concepts of before, after and simultaneity are relative to our chosen frame of reference and that there is no absolute frame of reference for space or time. Time is useful to us humans in our everyday life. But perhaps Immanuel Kant was right in seeing time as a framework through which humans experience the world rather than a feature of the world. It may not make any sense to think about the time “before” the Big Bang anymore than it does to talk about the “color” of an electron (nonsense because our ordinary concept of color only works for things that are roughly the same size or larger than the wavelength of visible light.)

    • TubifexWorm

      “The beginning had to be of supernatural origin because natural laws and
      processes do not have the ability to bring something into existence from
      nothing.” Not so: Quantum mechanics tells us that matter and antimatter pairs spontaneously arise from the vacuum of space. Later on they collide, annihilating each other and paying back the energy “borrowed” from the vacuum in their creation. Likewise, the universe itself might, at the quantum level, spontaneously arise from nothingness. If such a thing happened or does happen, supposing that God did it gives us no new information.

    • TubifexWorm

      Natural science cannot refute atheism. Natural science describes the natural world. By definition, “God” is not part of the natural world. Therefore natural science has nothing to say about God, neither refuting nor supporting the opinions of believers or non-believers.

    • DrunkSpock

      “SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE CANNOT BE ETERNAL because it could not have sustained itself eternally due to the law of entropy (increasing net energy decay, even in an open system).”

      Please explain resonance. Two small waves that, working in unison, can move mountains. Where did the ‘new’ energy come from?

      “Einstein showed that space, matter, and time all are physical and all had a beginning.” = Wild accusation propped up with passing reference to EInstein. Not good enough. Please, exactly how did Einstein show this? Are you satisfied that he was 100% perfect about this theory, but that his religious views are to be completely ignored? Doesn’t that seem self serving to you?

      You keep repeating that time had a beginning, I think because this is hard for people to visualize, so they fall into a trance like state and just start nodding. But the reality, to me, is time did not have a beginning. Maybe the universe did, sure. But before there was anything, there was time. Even in the absence of all else, there is still time. Repeating that ‘time began at a certain point’ does not make it true. Please demonstrate how and why time had a beginning, without resorting to terms like ‘obviously’ and ‘because Einstein said so’.

      “If the universe were eternal, everything, including time (which modern science has shown is as physical as mass and space), would have become totally entropied by now and the entire universe would have ended in a uniform heat death a long, long time ago.” = If the universe were eternal, it would have ended long ago. More of these non-statements to baffle the unsure into compliance. You should be ashamed of yourself for abusing science in this manner. ‘Baffle them with Bullsh!t’ is what this is normally called. I’m sure it works GREAT in church.

      “EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn’t mean no one made the airplane.”

      Here is my explanation for airplanes: Unicorn dust and science had a baby and it can fly! Maybe I’m a little off, but its AN EXPLANATION.

      “Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could life or the cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature?” = There is a river, the river erodes the ground and makes itself larger. Where did the river come from before there was a river here? GOD! Not gravity and water, no, GOD DID IT.

      Of course random-ish things happen and they are amazing. All the time. If we had to come up with a simulation and artificial creation process for rivers, we couldnt do it. We’d end up with primitive paved ditches. So it’s out of our reach… magic.. but gravity and water can do it, no brain required. Similarly, the forces of the universe can create life, and it might be beyond you or I to explain that adequately but I expect its a lot like that river. A couple basic forces come together, and they have a result. Maybe life is the result of certain chemical / proteins after the get zapped by electricity from lightning, or maybe the high pressures of deep oceans do it, and life gradually filters out of the depths… who knows. Not you, not I, not yet. God? Maybe. But to say, the only way this indescribable magic could happen is invisible man in the sky is, imo, short sighted to the extreme. We can design and build new life forms from scratch. Can you imagine how complicated a C program would seem to someone even 100 years ago? What do you think 100 years from now will reveal? I expect we’ll know so much more about the fundamental building blocks of life that your idea of chalking it all up to some sort of religious magic will seem even more absurd.

      Ok, couple more things. One, fundamentally I probably agree with you. I do believe in the existence of some form of higher power. I don’t think of it the same way you do, if you imagine anything vaguely human. For all I know, God is a bacteria that lives in our stomachs.

      Second, I’m refuting your refutation of atheism because it is asinine, insecure and contrived. If you are happy believing what you believe, enjoy it, let others do the same. If you want to convince others that you are right, why is that? Maybe you’re not so sure of it? It’s obvious. I would say the same to an atheist trying to convince you there is no God. We don’t know, we can’t know, its pointless to even try.

      Third: I argue your points because i think they’re weak. Get it together. If you’re going to try to be a scientific champion of a christian god, do a much better job please. Your post comes off as pseudo-scientific hogwash designed to bully people into compliance. If that’s the goal, why bring science into it, just continue doing it the same way religion has done for centuries. Repetition, repetition, repetition, it’s all you need. Leave science alone please.

      Have a nice day.

  • Steven Goodheart

    “There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” — Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

    • Will Phoenix

      Hi Steven,
      I loved the book. The last sequel is on my “to read’ pile which oesn’t get touched as much since i started writing again. Thanks for reading my stuff!

      • Steven Goodheart

        My pleasure. Great post — clear, concise, strong science writing. It will be interesting to see what eventually comes out of this “long-range” tunneling.

        • Will Phoenix

          You flatter me! Honestly I just do my homework but thanks again!

    • TubifexWorm

      If anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, they will have understood the first sentence of a very large book. Keep reading.

  • Will Phoenix

    DRose, psycho and Jim I’d like to thank you all for reading and commenting as well AND for debating here without getting personal. Some threads on the internet not only get ugly but stupid as well lol !

  • Kami

    i will be most amused when thousands of yrs from now ppl look back at these comment archives and laugh at how ridiculous and elementary our theories were

    • SayHi2YourMom4Me

      you probably won’t be alive thousands of years from now but whatever

      • Kami

        probably not. the last 500 yrs have been tiring enough

      • TubifexWorm

        I am tunneling back from 1000 years in the future to tell you that you will be wrong.

        • Killer Truck

          Great what happen to MH370?

          • DrunkSpock

            It got caught in a freak storm that launched it back in time 30 years. When it arrived it was melted down and converted into.. a Killer Truck

            YOU ARE MH370

      • DrunkSpock

        better hang on to that ‘probably’. We can already 3d print new livers from the recipients own stemcells. Soon you’ll do it all internally, in your stomach, from a little pill. Then robots could install it in you, and screw ‘corrective surgery’! It’ll be a thing of the past. We are close to having the kind of microscopic machines necessary to repair our brain, long term. And expanding our lifespan will help us expand our lifespan more.. It snowballs, quickly, and its already begun. We very well may live for thousands of years. Cheers!

  • Killer Truck

    “Known as the quantum tunnel effect”

    More like quantum bullsh1t effect LOL…

    • http://tklist.net/?p=478 TKList

      Mock that which you do not understand.

    • TubifexWorm

      You have no such experiences because you are big (not of the size of things in the quantum world) and slow (not moving a significant fraction of the speed of light). Just because big slow you can’t do it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

  • ATrober

    My dog can pass through 5 barriers, given enough room for a running start.

    • TubifexWorm

      I would guess that your dog is significantly bigger than an electron so would not be an example of quantum tunneling.

      • ATrober

        ???

        Sure it is. I failed to mention, his name is “Quantum”.

        • TubifexWorm

          Naming your dog “God” wouldn’t provide a reason to pray to him.

  • DrunkSpock

    what kind of barriers were penetrated? Did we break through the peanut butter barrier with quantum chocolate? Some new form of reece’s cups that can’t be expressed in 3 dimensions?

    Seriously though, what kind of materials or barriers got penetrated, and how much of it?

    • TubifexWorm

      Peanut butter cups are quantitized only in the sense that they are sold as single units: you can buy one, two, three, etc. but not 0.345 of one. What do you mean by barrier? I would define “barrier” as a condition that decreases the frequency of occurrence. The fact that I do not like the taste of peanut buttercups is a barrier to my eating them. Severe starvation might lower this barrier in the sense that if I were extremely hungry, I might have to eat the offending cups even thought I don’t like them.

  • Will Phoenix

    I have all but lost track of the debates but it’s really great to see you guys reading my stuff! Thanks again!