this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
479 points (99.4% liked)

196

16563 readers
1598 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Interesting. Does tunneling fall under 1.0 or 2.0? Isn’t it considered a property of classical electrical engineering?

[–] mranachi@aussie.zone 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Good question. It would be application specific. I think evanescencnt wave coupling in EM radiation is considered " very classical" (whatever that actually means). But utilizing wave particle duality for tunneling devices is past quantum 1.0 (1.5 maybe?). However, superconductivity tunneling in Josephson junctions in a SQUID is closer to quantum 1.0, but 2.0 if used to generate entangled states for superconducting qbits for quantum computing.

Clear as mud right?

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It is now that I’ve looked up the different types of tunneling you mentioned. I didn’t know there were multiple types of tunneling before now.

Thanks for the informative reply and prompting me to do some reading!