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.
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.
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.
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.
A new variant of the packet analysis to solve the tunneling time problem for the so-called completed elastic scattering (a potential barrier of an arbitrary form is located in the finite spatial interval) is presented. In particular, we propose an explanation of the "paradoxes" of wave packet tunneling, and elaborate a rule enabling one to extract the tunneling times for a particle from the analysis of tunneling the corresponding wave packet. It is shown that the quantum ensembles of transmitted and reflected particles are statistically independent not only after the scattering but also before this event. We find the corresponding counterparts for the transmitted and reflected packets, which describe separately both scattering channels at early times, and define the expectation values of delay times for each channel. Besides, to describe jointly all particles at the stage when they cannot be divided into two independent subensembles, we find the scattering time taking into account broadening the packets. We derive the condition to be satisfied for the completed scattering. The times above are defined in terms of the well-known quantum-mechanical averages for the position and wave-number operators.
Abstract Modern atto-second experiments seek to provide an insight into a long standing question: “how much time does a tunnelling particle spend in the barrier?” Traditionally, quantum theory relates this duration to the delay with which the particle emerges from the barrier. The link between these two times is self-evident in classical mechanics, but may or may not exist in the quantum case. Here we show that it does not, and give a detailed explanation why. The tunnelling process does not lend itself to classical analogies, and its duration cannot, in general, be guessed by observing the behaviour of the transmitted particle.
The wave-packet simulation (WPS) method for calculating the time a tunneling particle spends inside a one-dimensional potential barrier is reexamined using the Feynman path-integral technique. Following earlier work by Sokolovski and Baskin [Phys. Rev. A 36, 4604 (1987)], the tunneling (or traversal) time tpackT is defined as a matrix element of a classical nonlocal functional between two states that represent the initial and transmitted wave packets. These states do not lie on the same orbit in Hilbert space; as a result, tpackT is complex-valued. It is shown that RetpackT reduces to the standard WPS result, tphaseT, for conditions similar to those employed in the conventional WPS analysis. Similarly, ImtpackT is shown to contain information about the energy dependence of the transmission probability. Under semiclassical conditions, ImtpackT reduces to the well-known Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin expression for the tunneling time. It is shown there are different definitions for the traversal time of a classical moving object, whose size is comparable to the width of the region of interest. In the quantum case, these different definitions correspond to different ways of analyzing the WPS experiment. The path-integral approach demonstrates that the tunneling-time problem is one of understanding the physical significance of complex-valued off-orbit matrix elements of an operator or functional. The physical content of complex-valued tunneling times is discussed. It is emphasized that the use of complex tunneling times includes real-time approaches as a special case. Nevertheless, there is a limitation in the description of tunneling experiments using tunneling times, whether real or complex. The path-integral approach does not supply a universal traversal time, analogous to a classical time, that can be used in quantum situations. It is demonstrated that the often expressed hope of finding a well-defined and universal real tunneling time is erroneous.
We study non-relativistic propagation of Gaussian wave packets in one-dimensional Eckart potential, a barrier, or a well. In the picture used, the transmitted wave packet results from interference between the copies of the freely propagating state with different spatial shifts (delays), [Formula: see text], induced by the scattering potential. The Uncertainty Principle precludes relating the particle's final position to the delay experienced in the potential, except in the classical limit. Beyond this limit, even defining an effective range of the delay is shown to be an impracticable task, owing to the oscillatory nature of the corresponding amplitude distribution. Our examples include the classically allowed case, semiclassical tunnelling, delays induced in the presence of a virtual state, and scattering by a low barrier. The properties of the amplitude distribution of the delays, and its pole representation are studied in detail.