QUANTUM COMPUTING SCAM
Quantum Tunneling Scam Too Per Miles Mathis
(Quantum Computing: Tech’s Longest-Running Hoax)
CONTENTS — FIND IN PAGE
QUANTUM TUNNELING
QUANTUM COMPUTING
QUANTUM TUNNELING
See Miles’ paper: https://milesmathis.com/tunnel.pdf. See forum post: https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t885-quantum-tunneling#8689
I think I saw the title of an article mentioning quantum tunneling, maybe at phys.org. I remember reading something about it by Miles long ago, but I wanted a better understanding. So I asked AI what it is and what Miles thinks of it. Is AI interpreting Miles accurately?
What does quantum tunneling mean?
Quantum tunneling means that a particle can pass through a barrier it doesn’t have enough energy to climb over, something that is impossible in classical physics.
🧭 Core idea
In quantum mechanics, particles behave like waves, not tiny billiard balls. A particle’s wavefunction spreads out, and part of it can extend through a barrier. That small part gives a non‑zero probability that the particle will appear on the other side — as if it “tunneled” through.
🧱 Simple analogy
Imagine a ball rolling toward a hill:
• Classically: If it doesn’t have enough energy, it rolls back.
• Quantum mechanically: There is a small chance the ball appears on the other side of the hill without going over it.
🔬 Why it happens
• Particles have wave‑like properties.
• Their wavefunction doesn’t stop at the barrier — it decays but still extends beyond it.
• That extension means there is a chance the particle is found past the barrier.
The probability drops exponentially with:
• barrier height
• barrier width
• particle mass (electrons tunnel easily; atoms rarely do)
🌌 Real‑world examples
• Nuclear fusion in stars — protons tunnel through repulsive forces to fuse.
• Alpha decay — particles escape nuclei via tunneling.
• Scanning tunneling microscope (STM) — images individual atoms by measuring tunneling current.
• Electronics — tunneling limits how thin transistors can be (≈1 nm).
What’s Miles Mathis view on quantum tunneling?
Miles Mathis’ view on quantum tunneling is unequivocally negative: he argues that tunneling is non‑physical, a mathematical fudge, and a symptom of what he sees as foundational failures in quantum theory. https://milesmathis.com/tunnel.pdf
🧭 Core takeaway
Mathis rejects quantum tunneling entirely. He claims it is an ad‑hoc invention used to patch broken quantum equations and that it relies on a misuse of probability and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
🔍 His main arguments
• “Non‑physical fudge” — Mathis says tunneling is “one of the most embarrassing and transparent fudges in the history of science,” lumping it with concepts he considers illegitimate (virtual particles, renormalization, symmetry breaking).
• Misuse of probability — He argues that physicists wrongly claim “nothing has probability zero,” which he says allows them to justify impossible events. He insists real physical events can have zero probability.
• Misinterpretation of the Uncertainty Principle — He claims tunneling relies on a distorted reading of Heisenberg’s principle to permit “statistical magic.”
• No rules, no constraints — Mathis argues that if tunneling is accepted as an explanation for one phenomenon, it could be invoked to explain anything, making it unfalsifiable.
• Critique of recent experiments — In later commentary, he dismisses modern tunneling‑time experiments as “promotion” of bad theory and claims they assume tunneling rather than demonstrate it. https://milesmathis.com/pilot.pdf
🧩 How this fits into his broader worldview
Mathis’ rejection of tunneling is consistent with his larger critique of mainstream physics:
• He believes quantum field theory is off by “120 orders of magnitude” due to mis‑sized fields.
• He argues that many quantum concepts are invented to patch these errors.
• He promotes his own charge‑field theory as a replacement framework.
Miles' view sounds sensible to me. What would Miles Mathis say about your Real‑world examples (of quantum tunneling): • Nuclear fusion in stars — protons tunnel through repulsive forces to fuse. • Alpha decay — particles escape nuclei via tunneling. • Scanning tunneling microscope (STM) — images individual atoms by measuring tunneling current. • Electronics — tunneling limits how thin transistors can be (≈1 nm).?
Miles Mathis would reject all four of those real‑world examples of quantum tunneling — not because he disputes the observations, but because he disputes the interpretation. His pattern is consistent:
• The phenomenon is real.
• The mainstream explanation (tunneling) is, in his view, “mathematical fiction.”
• He replaces it with his own charge‑field mechanics.
Below is how he would respond to each example, based on his published arguments and his general style of critique.
How Miles Mathis would reinterpret your four tunneling examples?
1. Nuclear fusion in stars
Mainstream: Protons tunnel through the Coulomb barrier so fusion can occur at stellar temperatures. Mathis’ likely response:
• He rejects the Coulomb barrier as normally described.
• He argues that mainstream physics miscalculates charge interactions by many orders of magnitude.
• Therefore, he would say tunneling is only needed because the force equations are wrong.
• Fusion, in his view, would occur through mechanical interactions of charge streams, not probabilistic tunneling.
In short: He would say fusion works, but not because protons magically pass through barriers — rather because the barrier is mis‑modeled.
2. Alpha decay
Mainstream: Alpha particles escape the nucleus by tunneling through a potential barrier. Mathis’ likely response:
• He has explicitly mocked tunneling in nuclear decay as “one of the most embarrassing fudges in physics.”
• He argues that alpha decay is a mechanical ejection caused by charge‑field interactions, not a probabilistic escape.
• He claims the nucleus is mis‑modeled and that decay is deterministic, not probabilistic.
In short: Alpha decay is real, but tunneling is (to him) a mathematical patch for a flawed nuclear model.
3. Scanning tunneling microscope (STM)
Mainstream: Electrons tunnel across a tiny vacuum gap, creating a measurable current. Mathis’ likely response:
• He accepts that STM works, but denies that tunneling is the cause.
• He argues that electrons do not tunnel; instead, the current is due to real charge interactions across the gap.
• He would say the “tunneling equation” is just a curve‑fit to real electrical behavior.
In short: STM is real, but the explanation is wrong — the current is not tunneling but misinterpreted charge flow.
4. Electronics and transistor scaling limits
Mainstream: As transistors shrink below ~1 nm, electrons tunnel through barriers, causing leakage. Mathis’ likely response:
• He would say leakage is real but not caused by tunneling.
• Instead, he would attribute it to misunderstood charge density and field geometry at small scales.
• He would argue that engineers are observing classical charge interactions but calling them “tunneling” because quantum theory lacks a mechanical model.
In short: Leakage happens, but not because electrons tunnel — because the charge field is mis‑modeled.
🎯 The pattern
Mathis’ responses follow a consistent structure:
• The experiment is real.
• The mainstream explanation is wrong.
• Quantum tunneling is a mathematical fiction invented to rescue flawed equations.
• His charge‑field mechanics provides a deterministic alternative.
He would say that all four examples are misinterpreted classical phenomena dressed up in quantum language.
What would Miles Mathis say about your 🧱 Simple analogy Imagine a ball rolling toward a hill: • Classically: If it doesn’t have enough energy, it rolls back. • Quantum mechanically: There is a small chance the ball appears on the other side of the hill without going over it. 🔬 Why it happens • Particles have wave‑like properties. • Their wavefunction doesn’t stop at the barrier — it decays but still extends beyond it. • That extension means there is a chance the particle is found past the barrier. The probability drops exponentially with: • barrier height • barrier width • particle mass (electrons tunnel easily; atoms rarely do)?
Miles Mathis would reject every part of that analogy and its underlying physics. He would not merely disagree with the explanation — he would say the entire conceptual framework is wrong.
Below is how he would respond, point‑by‑point, based on his published arguments and his characteristic reasoning style.
What Miles Mathis would say about the “ball rolling over a hill” analogy
1. “A ball appears on the other side without going over the hill.”
Mathis would call this:
• “magical thinking”
• “a violation of mechanics disguised as probability”
• “a fudge invented to save broken equations”
He argues that if a model predicts something impossible classically, the model — not reality — is wrong.
He would say:
No physical object ever appears somewhere without crossing the space in between.
To him, tunneling is a mathematical artifact, not a physical process.
Like a Star @ heaven What he would say about the wavefunction explanation
2. “Particles have wave‑like properties.”
Mathis rejects the Copenhagen interpretation entirely. He argues:
• Particles are real, physical objects, not probability waves.
• The wavefunction is not a physical wave, only a mathematical convenience.
• Treating particles as waves leads to “nonsense” like tunneling.
He would say the wavefunction is a misinterpretation of charge interactions, not a real physical entity.
3. “The wavefunction extends into the barrier.”
Mathis would say this is:
• a misuse of mathematics,
• an artifact of solving the Schrödinger equation,
• not evidence of a real physical process.
He argues that the Schrödinger equation is not a mechanical model, so its solutions should not be interpreted as literal physical behavior.
4. “There is a chance the particle is found past the barrier.”
Mathis rejects probabilistic physics as a description of reality. He believes:
• All physical processes are deterministic.
• Probability arises only from ignorance, not from nature.
• Quantum randomness is a misinterpretation of incomplete models.
So he would say:
Particles don’t “appear” anywhere. They move mechanically.
Like a Star @ heaven What he would say about the exponential probability drop
5. “Probability drops with barrier height, width, and mass.”
Mathis would argue that these relationships are:
• curve‑fits, not physical laws
• derived from wrong assumptions
• used to hide the lack of a mechanical explanation
He often claims that quantum equations “fit data but explain nothing.”
The core of his objection
Mathis’ position is consistent across all his writings:
✔ The phenomena are real
(e.g., alpha decay, STM current, fusion)
✘ The quantum explanation is not
He believes tunneling is invoked only because:
• the Coulomb barrier is miscalculated,
• the nuclear model is wrong,
• the wavefunction is misinterpreted,
• and quantum mechanics lacks a physical mechanism.
He replaces tunneling with his own charge‑field mechanics, where all interactions are deterministic and classical‑looking.
QUANTUM COMPUTING
See Miles’ paper: https://milesmathis.com/doe.pdf. See forum post: https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t746-microsoft-unveils-majorana-1-the-worlds-first-quantum-processor-powered-by-topological-qubits#8823
Cr6, I asked Copilot to tell us what Miles would say about your discussion in this thread. See if you think you'd agree that he would say the following.
What Miles Mathis would say about all this
Mathis would say that none of these quantum‑computing breakthroughs are actually “quantum” at all. He would argue they are misinterpreted charge‑field and photonic effects, wrapped in bad math and mystical terminology.
In his view:
• Majorana zero modes are not exotic quasiparticles — they’re charge‑field vortices created by spin‑alignment in superconducting materials.
• Topological qubits are just stable charge channels produced by geometry and cooling, not quantum superpositions.
• Error correction is needed because the underlying model is wrong — the machines are fighting their own false theory.
• Photonic processors work because photons are the real carriers of information, not imaginary wavefunctions.
• Quantum chips “discovering new phases of matter” are simply observing charge‑field patterns that mainstream physics refuses to model mechanically.
In short:
Mathis would say the hardware is real, the engineering is impressive, but the interpretation is nonsense.
1. Mathis on Majorana zero modes
Mathis already wrote a paper claiming Majorana fermions don’t exist. He’d say:
• The “zero mode” is just a standing charge wave at the end of a superconducting wire.
• The “parity” measurement is simply detecting charge imbalance, not quantum information.
• The “topological protection” is just geometric shielding of the charge field.
He would argue Microsoft accidentally built a charge‑field device, not a quantum one.
See: Mathis on Majorana
2. Mathis on photonic processors
Mathis believes photons are real spinning particles with stacked spins and mechanical interactions.
So he’d say:
• Photonic processors work because they use real particles, not imaginary wavefunctions.
• Light‑based computing is the correct direction because photons are the actual carriers of charge and information.
• If engineers modeled photon spin states using his stacked‑spin mechanics, they could design chips with predictable, stable bit‑flips.
He would absolutely support the idea of a “Mathis chip” based on:
• charge‑channel alignment
• spin‑stack mapping
• mechanical bonding rules
• real photon flow
See: Mathis stacked‑spin model
3. Mathis on “quantum error correction”
Mathis would say:
• The need for massive error correction proves the theory is wrong.
• Qubits decohere because they are not quantum objects — they are charge‑field systems being misinterpreted.
• Engineers are trying to stabilize something that doesn’t exist: superposition.
He’d argue that if they modeled the system using real charge flow, the errors would vanish because the model would match the physics.
See: Mathis on quantum mechanics errors
4. Mathis on Google’s “parallel universe” claims
Mathis would laugh at this.
He’d say:
• The “multiverse” interpretation is a mathematical hallucination caused by misusing probability amplitudes.
• The chip isn’t peeking into parallel universes — it’s just performing massively parallel charge‑field interactions.
• The “exotic phase of matter” is simply a non‑equilibrium charge‑field resonance.
See: Mathis on Many Worlds
5. Mathis on the forum’s idea: “Charge‑field computing”
He would love this idea.
He’d say:
• A real computing architecture should be based on photon flow, not wavefunctions.
• His stacked‑spin molecular model could be used to map all possible bonding states.
• A “Mathis chip” would use aligned atomic charge channels to produce stable 1/0 states.
• Machine learning could map charge‑field geometries to predict molecular behavior.
He’d argue that this would outperform quantum computing because it’s mechanical, deterministic, and real.
See: Charge‑field computing concept
Ultra‑simple version
Mathis would say:
• The hardware is real.
• The engineering is brilliant.
• The interpretations are wrong.
• These are charge‑field machines, not quantum machines.
• A true revolution will come when engineers adopt real photon mechanics instead of quantum mysticism.