Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2102.03333 · Scientific Reports

Tunnelling times, Larmor clock, and the elephant in the room

D. Sokolovski, Elena V. Akhmatskaya

Published May 11, 2021• 18 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

A controversy surrounding the "tunnelling time problem" stems from the seeming inability of quantum mechanics to provide, in the usual way, a definition of the duration a particle is supposed to spend in a given region of space. For this reason, the problem is often approached from an "operational" angle. Typically, one tries to mimic, in a quantum case, an experiment which yields the desired result for a classical particle. One such approach is based on the use of a Larmor clock. We show that the difficulty with applying a non-perturbing Larmor clock in order to "time" a classically forbidden transition arises from the quantum Uncertainty Principle. We also demonstrate that for this reason a Larmor time (in fact, any Larmor time) cannot be interpreted as a physical time interval. We provide a theoretical description of the quantities measured by the clock.

DOI
10.1038/s41598-021-89247-8

Related papers

Quantum interference and determination of the traversal time

D. Sokolovski, J. N. L. Connor

The tunneling-time problem is shown to be analogous to the interpretation of the two-slit interference experiment. A measurement assuming an arbitrarily small interaction between a particle and a clock is shown to contradict the uncertainty principle and leads to complex times. A real non-negative traversal time is obtained in a measurement which selects Feynman paths that spend in the barrier a known amount of time; this, however, strongly perturbs the tunneling. The Larmor clock demonstrates both types of behavior.

Physical Review A•Jun 1, 1993•79 citations

Wave packets, “negative times” and the elephant in the room

D. Sokolovski, A. Matzkin

Controversy surrounding the "tunnelling time problem" stems from the seeming inability of quantum mechanics to provide, in the usual way, a definition of the duration a particle is supposed to spend in a given region of space. For this reason, the problem is often approached from an "operational" angle. One such approach uses the position of the transmitted wave packet in order to infer the duration the particle spends in the barrier. Here we replace the barrier with a tuneable Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI). With this analogy one is able, at least in principle, to achieve any advance or delay of the wave packet sent to the chosen outgoing port. The Uncertainty Principle prevents one from combining the durations spent in each arm of the MZI into a meaningful duration when both arms are engaged. There is no justification for invoking "superluminal" or "negative" times, since the particle is able to arrive at the same position (and with a higher probability) if the same initial state propagates through only one arm of the MZI. The same is true in the case of tunnelling, where the transmitted wave packet results from destructive interference between delayed multiple copies of the free state.

arXiv:2507.19105•Scientific Reports•May 19, 2026•0 citations

Tunneling times

Partha Ghose

Introduction In classical physics it is meaningful to ask the question, ‘How much time does a particle take to pass through a given region?’ The interesting question in quantum mechanics is: does a particle take a definite time to tunnel through a classically forbidden region? The question has been debated ever since the idea that there was such a time in quantum theory was first put forward by MacColl way back in 1932 [253]. A plethora of times has since then been proposed, and the answer seems to depend on the interpretation of quantum mechanics one uses. A reliable answer is clearly of great importance for the design of high-frequency quantum devices, tunnelling phenomena (as, for example, in scanning tunneling microscopy), nuclear and chemical reactions and, of course, for purely conceptual reasons. Most of the controversies centre around simple and intuitive notions in idealized one-dimensional models in a scattering configuration in which a particle (usually represented by a wave packet) is incident on a potential barrier localized in the interval [ a, b ]. Three kinds of time have been defined in this context. One, called the transmission time τ T ( a, b ), is the average time spent within the barrier region by the particles that are eventually transmitted. Similarly, the reflection time τ R ( a, b ) is the average time spent within the barrier region by the particles that are eventually reflected.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 29, 1999•0 citations

Measuring the time tunneling particles spend in the barrier

David Spierings, Aephraim M. Steinberg

The question of how long a tunneling particle spends in the forbidden region of a barrier has been a perplexing puzzle in foundational quantum mechanics for many decades. The Larmor time, one definition of tunneling time, uses an auxiliary degree of freedom of the tunneling particles to clock the time spent inside the barrier. Recently, we made our first measurement of the Larmor time for Bose-condensed 87Rb atoms tunneling through an optical barrier.1 Here, we report on follow up measurements with improved precision in the measured times and also study the time for the reflected atomic cloud. We observe significant discrepancies between our results and a simple theory based on weak measurement. We discuss our findings, hypothesize explanations for our results, and suggest future studies.

Optical and Quantum Sensing and Precision Metrology II•Feb 25, 2020•7 citations

In Search Of Lost Tunneling Time

Pablo M. Maier, Serguei Patchkovskii, Misha Ivanov +1 more

The measurement of tunneling times in strong-field ionization has been the topic of much controversy in recent years, with the attoclock and Larmor clock being two of the main contenders for correctly reproducing these times. By expressing the attoclock as the weak value of temporal delay, we extend its meaning beyond the traditional setup. This allows us to calculate the attoclock time for a static one-dimensional tunneling model consisting of a binding delta potential and a constant electric field. We apply the Steinberg weak-value interpretation of the Larmor clock. Using this definition, we obtain the position-resolved time density during tunnel ionization, yielding a non-zero Larmor tunneling time. Our model allows us to derive the analogue of the position-resolved attoclock tunneling time. While non-zero at the tunnel exit, it vanishes at the detector, far away from the atom. Formally, this means that the attoclock does not measure the "local" Larmor time, but instead a "non-local" time closely related to the phase time.

arXiv:2503.07859•Mar 10, 2025•0 citations

Chapter 12. The Tunnelling Flight Time

Eli Pollak

How much time does it take for a particle to tunnel through a barrier? This question continues to baffle up to this very day, one of the reasons being the non-existence of an energy–time commutator analogous to the position–momentum commutation relation. Instead of worrying about the definition of an operator one may consider time as a parameter in the time-dependent Schrödinger equation and study the time evolution of a wavepacket appropriately scattered on a potential barrier. Using this approach, one may formally define a tunnelling flight time that may be measured in a time-of-flight experiment. The resulting tunnelling flight time either vanishes or is very small. The implications of this observation with respect to recent hydrogen and helium atom attosecond photoionization experiments are discussed. The vanishing or small flight time does not contradict the finite time measured in Larmor clock experiments, where the tunnelling particle affects an external degree of freedom whose dynamics induced by the tunnelling may be interpreted in terms of a time scale. Flight times are also relevant to quantum reflection where coherences due to resonance scattering are not well accounted for by Wigner's phase time delay.

RSC theoretical and computational chemistry series•Jan 1, 2020•1 citation
A controversy surrounding the "tunnelling time problem" stems from the seeming inability of quantum mechanics to provide, in the usual way, a definition of the duration a particle is supposed to spend in a given region of space. For this reason, the problem is often approached from an "operational" angle. Typically, one tries to mimic, in a quantum case, an experiment which yields the desired result for a classical particle. One such approach is based on the use of a Larmor clock. We show that the difficulty with applying a non-perturbing Larmor clock in order to "time" a classically forbidden transition arises from the quantum Uncertainty Principle. We also demonstrate that for this reason a Larmor time (in fact, any Larmor time) cannot be interpreted as a physical time interval. We provide a theoretical description of the quantities measured by the clock.
The tunneling-time problem is shown to be analogous to the interpretation of the two-slit interference experiment. A measurement assuming an arbitrarily small interaction between a particle and a clock is shown to contradict the uncertainty principle and leads to complex times. A real non-negative traversal time is obtained in a measurement which selects Feynman paths that spend in the barrier a known amount of time; this, however, strongly perturbs the tunneling. The Larmor clock demonstrates both types of behavior.
Controversy surrounding the "tunnelling time problem" stems from the seeming inability of quantum mechanics to provide, in the usual way, a definition of the duration a particle is supposed to spend in a given region of space. For this reason, the problem is often approached from an "operational" angle. One such approach uses the position of the transmitted wave packet in order to infer the duration the particle spends in the barrier. Here we replace the barrier with a tuneable Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI). With this analogy one is able, at least in principle, to achieve any advance or delay of the wave packet sent to the chosen outgoing port. The Uncertainty Principle prevents one from combining the durations spent in each arm of the MZI into a meaningful duration when both arms are engaged. There is no justification for invoking "superluminal" or "negative" times, since the particle is able to arrive at the same position (and with a higher probability) if the same initial state propagates through only one arm of the MZI. The same is true in the case of tunnelling, where the transmitted wave packet results from destructive interference between delayed multiple copies of the free state.
Introduction In classical physics it is meaningful to ask the question, ‘How much time does a particle take to pass through a given region?’ The interesting question in quantum mechanics is: does a particle take a definite time to tunnel through a classically forbidden region? The question has been debated ever since the idea that there was such a time in quantum theory was first put forward by MacColl way back in 1932 [253]. A plethora of times has since then been proposed, and the answer seems to depend on the interpretation of quantum mechanics one uses. A reliable answer is clearly of great importance for the design of high-frequency quantum devices, tunnelling phenomena (as, for example, in scanning tunneling microscopy), nuclear and chemical reactions and, of course, for purely conceptual reasons. Most of the controversies centre around simple and intuitive notions in idealized one-dimensional models in a scattering configuration in which a particle (usually represented by a wave packet) is incident on a potential barrier localized in the interval [ a, b ]. Three kinds of time have been defined in this context. One, called the transmission time τ T ( a, b ), is the average time spent within the barrier region by the particles that are eventually transmitted. Similarly, the reflection time τ R ( a, b ) is the average time spent within the barrier region by the particles that are eventually reflected.
The question of how long a tunneling particle spends in the forbidden region of a barrier has been a perplexing puzzle in foundational quantum mechanics for many decades. The Larmor time, one definition of tunneling time, uses an auxiliary degree of freedom of the tunneling particles to clock the time spent inside the barrier. Recently, we made our first measurement of the Larmor time for Bose-condensed 87Rb atoms tunneling through an optical barrier.1 Here, we report on follow up measurements with improved precision in the measured times and also study the time for the reflected atomic cloud. We observe significant discrepancies between our results and a simple theory based on weak measurement. We discuss our findings, hypothesize explanations for our results, and suggest future studies.
The measurement of tunneling times in strong-field ionization has been the topic of much controversy in recent years, with the attoclock and Larmor clock being two of the main contenders for correctly reproducing these times. By expressing the attoclock as the weak value of temporal delay, we extend its meaning beyond the traditional setup. This allows us to calculate the attoclock time for a static one-dimensional tunneling model consisting of a binding delta potential and a constant electric field. We apply the Steinberg weak-value interpretation of the Larmor clock. Using this definition, we obtain the position-resolved time density during tunnel ionization, yielding a non-zero Larmor tunneling time. Our model allows us to derive the analogue of the position-resolved attoclock tunneling time. While non-zero at the tunnel exit, it vanishes at the detector, far away from the atom. Formally, this means that the attoclock does not measure the "local" Larmor time, but instead a "non-local" time closely related to the phase time.
How much time does it take for a particle to tunnel through a barrier? This question continues to baffle up to this very day, one of the reasons being the non-existence of an energy–time commutator analogous to the position–momentum commutation relation. Instead of worrying about the definition of an operator one may consider time as a parameter in the time-dependent Schrödinger equation and study the time evolution of a wavepacket appropriately scattered on a potential barrier. Using this approach, one may formally define a tunnelling flight time that may be measured in a time-of-flight experiment. The resulting tunnelling flight time either vanishes or is very small. The implications of this observation with respect to recent hydrogen and helium atom attosecond photoionization experiments are discussed. The vanishing or small flight time does not contradict the finite time measured in Larmor clock experiments, where the tunnelling particle affects an external degree of freedom whose dynamics induced by the tunnelling may be interpreted in terms of a time scale. Flight times are also relevant to quantum reflection where coherences due to resonance scattering are not well accounted for by Wigner's phase time delay.