Theoretically speaking, If you throw a ball into a wall infinite

>>7688345
Throw the all at the wall 2Xinfinity times.

There are different kinds of infinity you stupid bag of shit. Define which one you're talking about.

>>7688363
numerical one

>>7688379
>numerical

wew lad

>>7688345
Thats not how chemistry or physics works. Throwing it an infinite amount of times will only yield infinite rebounds. There is no possible way it will 'phase' through a wall you fucking piece of shit

>>7688412
Tell me how one could throw a ball against a wall any other cardinality than countable amounts of times?

Any cardinality other than countable doesn't allow for discreet events, only choice events.

>>7688420
Well, he's right by accident - quantum tunneling allows a non-zero but ridiculously small probability for the ball to end up on the other side of the wall.

This chance can be increased by throwing the ball harder, using a smaller ball, or choosing a thinner wall.

>>7688534
>posting anything with "quantum" on it

Citation needed

>>7688545
He is right. According to QM, at least on paper, there is a non zero chance of this happening. That said we've never actually done it. Maybe it's because we've never tried the insane number of times you'd need to try for it to happen or maybe it's because there's something else at play that makes it truly impossible.

Just because the model of QM predicts something doesn't mean it can actually happen in reality.

>>7688356
Kek

>>7688561

Might it be experimentally possible to hurl individual atoms at a very thin surface to see if any of them phase through?

>>7688622
That's how we discovered the nucleus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment

>>7688561
What are you talking about?

This has been done since the dawn of QM... Tunneling effects occur everywhere in chemistry, solid state physics, atom physics etc...

"Just because the model of QM predicts something doesn't mean it can actually happen in reality."
--> Yes it do.

Are you implying that you can somehow make the particles of the ball move so fast that they can go through the wall by throwing it an infinite amount of times?

>>7688633
I know we observe tunneling we haven't observed passing a ball through a wall.

>>7688561
BBBUT MUH WAVEFUNCTION EXISTING OUTSIDE CLASSICALLY ALLOWED POTENSHULS

>>7688642
no, not at all, kill yourself

instead of a ball and a wall use a bullet and your head

>>7688663
not really adding any value, friend

>>7688345
thinner wall, smaller ball, faster ball

>>7688679
more balls and more walls

>>7688684
wall ball

>>7688633
>--> Yes it do.
No, and this is a common conceit. Theory is a guide for experiment, not a substitite for it. In any new experiment, there is always a chance of some effect that we don't understand or didn't anticipate. It could be a complication of existing, known laws, or it could be some as-yet undiscovered phenomenon.

File: download.jpg (5KB, 262x193px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 262x193px

>>7688345
No.

>>7688345
Cut a ball-sized hole in the wall.

>Theoretically speaking
How does one speak theoretically?

>>7688545
http://www.google.com/url?q=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiSj7_VyLbJAhWMRSYKHSd_CsEQFggWMAM&usg=AFQjCNE4TAoquuOXmWSaQGmZ8fUi9KJhng

>>7688889
One off from quints. Fucking kill self.

>>7688345
The answer is that it depends on the thickness of the wall. For a wall with an infinite thickness, the answer is no. The problem in the first place is that throwing a ball an infinite number of times is a thought experiment, not something anyone can observe or study. There is no practical way to increase the chance that anyone knows of.

Throw the ball through the window, you fucking retard.

baka desu senpai

>>7689008
All walls are infintly think.

>>7688534
>>7688561

Technically we have no concrete proof that quantum tunneling works for macroscopic objects.

However we did observe interference effects with almost macroscopic molecules, so there's a possibility that it's true.

>>7689041
>infintly think

nice

>>7689085
Well but interference has been observed for fullerenes. How would one approximate the probability for tunneling through, say, a gold monolayer? Is this possible with hartree-fock?

You don't. Throwing the the first time or the thousandth time will yield the same result.

>>7689008
What's the chance some amount of quantum tunneling happens? Not the entire ball but some of it? What would happen to the ball?

>>7688363
>There are different kinds of infinity
whoa we see this tough guy has already graduated from the university of numberphile!
HE KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT

Not related to OP's question at all, but reading through the posts about quantum mechanics made me think of something. If our current take on atomic theory is correct that would mean that any electron from any atom could actually be outside of the universe at any given moment? If that happened that would mean that the universe would actually exist at the position the electron is currently occupying? Finally, if that happened, could we say that there is a chance that at times the universe is contracting rather than expanding, due to an electron "bouncing back" into the universe?

>>7689233
You can calculate that by yourself. But a short answer to that is that the chance of a single atom of the ball, tunneling through any wall that is strong enough to reflect the ball is nearly infinitily small. If one atom of the ball tunnels through the wall, it won't be noticeably on a macroscopic scale. The ball would be intact, and the atom on the other side could only be detected by very sophisticated experiments.

>>7689276
'The universe' describes all stuff that we know and that can be measured. That said, tunneling means a chance that a particle can sometimes be slightly outside of a space where it is 'supposed' to be. As far as I understand, that does not exclude an electron in the coulomb potential of the screen i'm looking at appearing on the edge of the universe, because the probability of the electron to be ANYWHERE is 1. But the universe, aged 13 billion years, yielding roughly 10^63 atoms is not old enough to make such an event probable. As far as I understand it is not excluded though.

>>7689321
I want to add, most popsci views on quantum mechanics only include single atom problems. If ou include all the other atoms in the universe, that electron will very likely be caught in the coulomb potential of another atom, making the probability of an e- out of the milkiway to appear on the edge of the galaxy infinitely small. Quantum mechanichs does not apply to stuff outside of the universe though. I would like to be educated on the probability of a wavefunction to appear outside of the universe, too, though.

lol op has clearly never tried to get anything at all to tunnel

shit's hard op and this will literally never happen

>>7688345
By inducing the quantum Zeno effect via observing the wall trillions of times per second. This stabilizes the atoms (preventing movement) whilst simultaneously preventing any 'additional' 4th dimensional movement or interference.

>>7689233
You can set up situations where it is statistically likely some particle will tunnel through some barrier but you would never notice one sub atomic particle moving though a wall, you wouldn't even notice one whole atom moving through the wall.

Getting a bunch of particles to do it all at once is the trick and we don't know who to do this or if it's even possible.

What if the wall has thickness and the tunneling only happens with one of the ball's atoms and only through the first layer? You would just have trapped a piece of the ball in the wall.

use air instead of a wall

>>7688379
kek