Friday, November 21, 2008

Quantum Tunneling and Anti-Tunneling

Tomorrow I will participate in a flourishing competition and I hope I can win first place! Also, today I was assigned two tutees whom I hope I can help achieve an 85 average in chemistry.

Also just so you guys know, these are NOT my theories, they are broadly trusted theories from famous scientist. I will tell you when ideas are my own. Though the question of the day is all genuine and I think of them during my spare time.

Now onto today's theory. Quantum. As I read more and more science ideas, the word "Quantum" is more frequently brought up. I recently read an article about the fact that if a quantum particle rolls towards the edge of a table, it will not fall off. Instead, it might just roll back to the table. To explain this we must first consider what the quantum tunneling phenomenon does to an quantum particle. The basic idea of quantum tunneling can be explain by using an ball as an example. According to classic mechanics (Newton's law and such) a ball will roll over a hill. According to quantum theory, the ball will simply go through the hill (not literally) and appear on the other side. This is because the quantum theory states that all matter behave like waves, and have probability clouds (Ah ha! Something we learned in school!). When the ball hits the hill, it has a probability of being on the other side, so some of the ball may theoretically be on the other side. As long as a quantum particle does not hit an absolutely rigid barrier.

Anti-tunneling. Anti-tunneling is not the opposite on tunneling... Anti-tunneling states that whenever a wave encounters a sudden change in condition (even if it promotes the ball to act like it would in the classical mechanics) the wave will reflect back. Recent experiments were conducted at MIT to examine this phenomenon.

Interesting thing: I remember this site where you have to agree to this contract thing. At the bottom it says "Agree" or "Decline" if you just click agree, you are not allowing it. Apparently, if you read the actual contract, in the contract it says " click here if you really agree". Hahaha, I thought that was a really smart idea!

A great inspirational video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pfwY2TNehw

Question of the day: We are all familiar with the character Hitler. Personally, I think he is one of the most amazing leaders and motivators the world has ever witnessed. The actual question today is that, is there actually "good" and "evil"? From our prespective, Hitler seems like an evil person. Let's assume that Hitler DID take over the world (the idea of taking over the world is another day's topic), he would be worshiped in the modern world. Also, during WWII, to the Germans, Hitler was also a great leader or "good" person. Do you think there is a concrete definition for good or evil? If so, what would be an example?

Comment to respond!

10 comments:

LilGirlNextDoor said...

IF YOU MAKE ME HAPPY.
THEN YOU ARE GOOD.
YEP! =D

T.he G.reatest said...

wow, that video was quite powerful

Onion said...

Nice blog~
I will come frequently.
Reading this kind of stuff can improve my English. haha.

MIND said...

I don't believe there is a concrete definition of "good" and "evil". However, whenever either of those words are stated, it implies a certain characteristic about someone/something. Hitler was good in the sense that he was able to succesfully pull Germany out of the depression state. Without a doubt, he is a great leader and motivating orator, therefore making him "good" in the eyes of some. However, despite his brilliant strategical intellect and powerful authority, he sees the world through his own perspective only. He does not tolerate anyone's opinions but his own (i.e. Jews are weak and useless, therefore must be exterminated). As a result of Hitler's lack of open mind, he did everything he thought was necessary to create the "perfect world". In his mind, he thinks he is doing good, but for those who disagree with his actions, they see him as "evil" because they don't think he has any morality. If Garry is nice to Jeff, while he constantly makes fun of Tam for being small and Chinese, then Jeff will say that Garry is good. One the other hand, Tam will say Garry is evil. In conclusion, when you're trying to define something/someone as either being good or evil, there is no physical evidence to support that because it is only an opinion, therefore they do not have concrete definitions.

In short, there's no good or evil, only two different point of views.

MIND said...

OH YEAH BABEH, btw I love your blog man =)

-G

Jeffrey Tong said...

Haha, thanks Garry!

Jennifer said...

Hi Jeffrey :) It's Jennifer. Bin.
I remember learning quantum tunneling in bio. We were trying to figure out why enzymes exist, etc etc. But hey, if you're interested, check out this article. .

Rebecca said...

No such thing as good or evil, its all inside your head.
And no, we wouldn't worship Hitler if he was the "modern world leader". A leader has their time and when that passes and their purpose is fulfilled, they will cause destruction if they maintain their position.

Jeffrey Tong said...

Woh, thanks Jennifer!

[达.妮] ^-^ said...

No one's purely good or purely evil; everyone's a combination of both. =D