A clear consensus on how long it takes a particle to tunnel through a potential barrier has never been so urgently required, since the electron dynamics in strong-field ionization can be resolved on attosecond time-scale in experiment and the exact nature of the tunneling process is the key to trigger subsequent attosecond techniques. Here a general picture of tunneling time is suggested by introducing a quantum travel time, which is defined as the ratio of the travel distance to the expected value of the velocity operator under the barrier. Specially, if applied to rectangular barrier tunneling, it can retrieve the Büttiker-Landauer time $τ_{BL}$ in the case of an opaque barrier, and has a clear physical meaning in the case of a very thin barrier wherein $τ_{BL}$ can not be well defined. In the case of strong-field tunneling process, with the help of the newly defined time, the tunneling delay time measured by attoclock experiment can be interpreted as a travel time spent by the electron to tunnel from a point under the barrier to the tunnel exit. In addition, a peculiar oscillation structure in the wavelength dependence of tunneling delay time in deep tunneling regime is observed, which is beyond the scope of adiabatic tunneling picture. This oscillation structure can be attributed to the interference between the ground state tunneling channel and the excited states tunneling channels.A clear consensus on how long it takes a particle to tunnel through a potential barrier has never been so urgently required, since the electron dynamics in strong-field ionization can be resolved on attosecond time-scale in experiment and the exact nature of the tunneling process is the key to trigger subsequent attosecond techniques. Here a general picture of tunneling time is suggested by introducing a quantum travel time, which is defined as the ratio of the travel distance to the expected value of the velocity operator under the barrier. Specially, if applied to rectangular barrier tunneling, it can retrieve the Büttiker-Landauer time $τ_{BL}$ in the case of an opaque barrier, and has a clear physical meaning in the case of a very thin barrier wherein $τ_{BL}$ can not be well defined. In the case of strong-field tunneling process, with the help of the newly defined time, the tunneling delay time measured by attoclock experiment can be interpreted as a travel time spent by the electron to tunnel from a point under the barrier to the tunnel exit. In addition, a peculiar oscillation structure in the wavelength dependence of tunneling delay time in deep tunneling regime is observed, which is beyond the scope of adiabatic tunneling picture. This oscillation structure can be attributed to the interference between the ground state tunneling channel and the excited states tunneling channels.

arXiv:1903.06897Mar 16, 20190 citations

Numerical quantum clock simulations for measuring tunneling times

Fumika Suzuki, William George Unruh

We numerically study two methods of measuring tunneling times using a quantum clock. In the conventional method using the Larmor clock, we show that the Larmor tunneling time can be shorter for higher tunneling barriers. In the second method, we study the probability of a spin-flip of a particle when it is transmitted through a potential barrier including a spatially rotating field interacting with its spin. According to the adiabatic theorem, the probability depends on the velocity of the particle inside the barrier. It is numerically observed that the probability increases for higher barriers, which is consistent with the result obtained by the Larmor clock. By comparing outcomes for different initial spin states, we suggest that one of the main causes of the apparent decrease in the tunneling time can be the filtering effect occurring at the end of the barrier.We numerically study two methods of measuring tunneling times using a quantum clock. In the conventional method using the Larmor clock, we show that the Larmor tunneling time can be shorter for higher tunneling barriers. In the second method, we study the probability of a spin-flip of a particle when it is transmitted through a potential barrier including a spatially rotating field interacting with its spin. According to the adiabatic theorem, the probability depends on the velocity of the particle inside the barrier. It is numerically observed that the probability increases for higher barriers, which is consistent with the result obtained by the Larmor clock. By comparing outcomes for different initial spin states, we suggest that one of the main causes of the apparent decrease in the tunneling time can be the filtering effect occurring at the end of the barrier.

arXiv:2207.13130Physical Review AApr 20, 20239 citations

On the tunneling through a time dependent barrier

Fernando J. Pineda, D. H. E. Gross

The European Physical Journal AMar 1, 19833 citations

Time-dependent transport processes in the adiabatic approximation

S. Michael Fall

Physics Letters ASep 1, 19740 citations

Quantum Monte Carlo simulations of tunneling in quantum adiabatic optimization

Lucas T. Brady, Wim van Dam

We explore to what extent path-integral quantum Monte Carlo methods can efficiently simulate quantum adiabatic optimization algorithms during a quantum tunneling process. Specifically we look at symmetric cost functions defined over $n$ bits with a single potential barrier that a successful quantum adiabatic optimization algorithm will have to tunnel through. The height and width of this barrier depend on $n$ , and by tuning these dependencies, we can make the optimization algorithm succeed or fail in polynomial time. In this article we compare the strength of quantum adiabatic tunneling with that of path-integral quantum Monte Carlo methods. We find numerical evidence that quantum Monte Carlo algorithms will succeed in the same regimes where quantum adiabatic optimization succeeds.We explore to what extent path-integral quantum Monte Carlo methods can efficiently simulate quantum adiabatic optimization algorithms during a quantum tunneling process. Specifically we look at symmetric cost functions defined over $n$ bits with a single potential barrier that a successful quantum adiabatic optimization algorithm will have to tunnel through. The height and width of this barrier depend on $n$, and by tuning these dependencies, we can make the optimization algorithm succeed or fail in polynomial time. In this article we compare the strength of quantum adiabatic tunneling with that of path-integral quantum Monte Carlo methods. We find numerical evidence that quantum Monte Carlo algorithms will succeed in the same regimes where quantum adiabatic optimization succeeds.

arXiv:1509.02562Physical Review AMar 4, 201629 citations

τ_{BL}

in the case of an opaque barrier, and has a clear physical meaning in the case of a very thin barrier wherein

τ_{BL}

can not be well defined. In the case of strong-field tunneling process, with the help of the newly defined time, the tunneling delay time measured by attoclock experiment can be interpreted as a travel time spent by the electron to tunnel from a point under the barrier to the tunnel exit. In addition, a peculiar oscillation structure in the wavelength dependence of tunneling delay time in deep tunneling regime is observed, which is beyond the scope of adiabatic tunneling picture. This oscillation structure can be attributed to the interference between the ground state tunneling channel and the excited states tunneling channels.

n

bits with a single potential barrier that a successful quantum adiabatic optimization algorithm will have to tunnel through. The height and width of this barrier depend on

n

, and by tuning these dependencies, we can make the optimization algorithm succeed or fail in polynomial time. In this article we compare the strength of quantum adiabatic tunneling with that of path-integral quantum Monte Carlo methods. We find numerical evidence that quantum Monte Carlo algorithms will succeed in the same regimes where quantum adiabatic optimization succeeds.