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

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General

Classical transmittance and tunnelling

Juan Gonzalo Muga

Published May 1, 1991• 21 citations
Publisher

Abstract

A comparison is made between classical and quantum time-dependent passage through a potential barrier. The classical transmittance is defined by associating a classical ensemble to the quantum wavepacket. The conditions determining the differences between the classical and the quantum results are discussed. The classical results improve previous semiclassical methods.

DOI
10.1088/0305-4470/24/9/012

Related papers

Tunnelling through moving barriers

Ashok V. Pimpale, S. Holloway, R J Smith

The authors present a variety of theoretical methods to treat the general problem of a quantum particle interacting with a time-dependent barrier. Assuming a sinusoidal form for the time dependence, they discuss the classical, semiclassical and quantum solutions for two specific problems: a barrier whose amplitude is modulated, and one whose mean position changes. While the classical solutions to these problems are quite different, the time-independent quantum solutions appear almost identical. It is only when the particle is modelled as a wavepacket that the quantum solutions behave like their classical counterparts.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Aug 7, 1991•64 citations

Quantum tunneling times: A new solution compared to 12 other methods

Mark J. Hagmann

A variety of different theoretical procedures have been used to determine tunneling times. These include (1) phase time; (2) the Stevens procedure; (3) Larmor times; (4) a complex “time”; (5) dwell time; (6) the Büttikker-Landauer time; (7) Feynman path-integrals; (8) scattering theory; (9) a stochastic formulation; (10) oscillatory perturbation of the barrier; (11) kinetic time; and (12) the semiclassical solution. Interest in tunneling times is not purely pedagogical, since correction for changes in image potential during transit is required in determining the conductance of several new high-speed semiconductor devices. A new procedure to evaluate transit time is presented, which assumes that energy fluctuations keep a tunneling particle above the barrier while transiting the classically forbidden region. For large rectangular barriers, the most probable fluctuations minimize the product of their magnitude and the transit time. This results in the semiclassical solution. For the case of very small barriers, there is a separate solution in which the transit time is indeterminate but bounded. The new solution is compared with 12 different results by others. Numerical values, limiting forms, and interpretations are presented for these various tunneling times. Difficulties in using time domain numerical solutions to determine the transit time for a wave packet will also be described. © 1992 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

International Journal of Quantum Chemistry•Mar 14, 1992•9 citations

Quantum mechanical versus quasi-classical tunneling times for smooth potential barriers

Mark R. A. Shegelski, Erik V. Kozijn

For smooth potential barriers, we compare the quasi-classical tunneling time with an expression that gives a fully quantum mechanical tunneling time. The expression we choose for the quantum mechanical tunneling time is one that has heuristic value. We report results wherein this quantum mechanical tunneling time and the quasi-classical time differ significantly, both quantitatively and qualitatively. To determine the reasons for these differences, we compare the trends in the two times that result from varying the potential. Our findings suggest that, for smooth potential barriers, the quasi-classical tunneling time is unreliable for many cases where it is employed. PACS Nos.: 03.65Xp, 03.65-w

Canadian Journal of Physics•Mar 1, 2003•3 citations

Time-dependent semiclassical tunneling through barriers

Kenneth G. Kay

There has been a surprising degree of uncertainty about how, or even whether, the standard semiclassical theory of Van Vleck and Gutzwiller (VVG) can be used to treat the time-dependent dynamics of tunneling through barriers. At issue is how semiclassical theory describes the time evolution of tunneling. This uncertainty has hindered development of practical techniques for semiclassical calculations of multidimensional systems. It is shown here that the VVG theory can indeed be applied to barrier tunneling, but generally requires consideration of classical trajectories with both complex initial conditions and complex time paths, even for systems with one degree of freedom. The present approach is verified by applying it to the classically forbidden propagation of a wave packet through a one-dimensional barrier---a very basic problem that cannot be treated by the VVG theory without the modifications described here.

Physical Review A•Jul 23, 2013•19 citations

Scattering by an oscillating barrier: Quantum, classical, and semiclassical comparison

Tommy A. Byrd, Megan Ivory, Andrew J. Pyle +4 more

We present a detailed study of scattering by an amplitude-modulated potential barrier using three distinct physical frameworks: quantum, classical, and semiclassical. Classical physics gives bounds on the energy and momentum of the scattered particle, while also providing the foundation for semiclassical theory. We use the semiclassical approach to selectively add quantum-mechanical effects such as interference and diffraction. We find good agreement between the quantum and semiclassical momentum distributions. Our methods and results can be used to understand quantum and classical aspects of transport mechanisms involving time-varying potentials, such as quantum pumping.

arXiv:1205.1484•Physical Review A•Jul 16, 2012•12 citations

Model studies of tunneling time

Z.-H. Huang, Paul H. Cutler, T. E. Feuchtwang +3 more

The precise definition and physical interpretation of a tunneling time is a fundamental problem in quantum mechanics. The lack of a well-defined time operator in quantum theory precludes the calculation of time in terms of an expectation value. Consequently, model calculations and simulation studies have been proposed and used to determine the time for a particle to traverse a quantum-mechanical barrier. The results offer both qualitatively and quantitatively, disparate predictions. One of the more commonly used approaches is the phase method, which we have applied to several one-dimensional model potentials to show that the tunneling time is characterized by the ratio of the typical decay length in the barrier to the incident velocity, τ∼(1/κ)/v0. We also show that the phase and the spin precession methods are equivalent when the magnetic field is applied throughout the space containing the particle wave function and the tunneling barrier. In principle, the spin precession method can be regarded as an operational definition of the tunneling time. It also has been shown that a tunneling time can be defined operationally for a time-dependent barrier, for which the model calculations predict a tunneling time given by the mean barrier width divided by the magnitude of the imaginary velocity of the particle in the barrier, τ∼d/‖v‖. This pseudokinematic result has been inferred by magnetic field dependent tunneling through heterostructures and computer simulation of wave packet tunneling through one-dimensional square barriers. Other tunneling time theories predict one or the other of the above mentioned characteristic times; several theories predict both. We interpret these different results for τ to mean that a tunneling time is not uniquely defined as a function of particle energy and the barrier shape unless the process in which the tunneling is involved is also specified. That is, the tunneling time is a meaningful and unique concept only for particular tunneling processes or definite operational procedures.

Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A Vacuum Surfaces and Films•Jan 1, 1990•12 citations
A comparison is made between classical and quantum time-dependent passage through a potential barrier. The classical transmittance is defined by associating a classical ensemble to the quantum wavepacket. The conditions determining the differences between the classical and the quantum results are discussed. The classical results improve previous semiclassical methods.
The authors present a variety of theoretical methods to treat the general problem of a quantum particle interacting with a time-dependent barrier. Assuming a sinusoidal form for the time dependence, they discuss the classical, semiclassical and quantum solutions for two specific problems: a barrier whose amplitude is modulated, and one whose mean position changes. While the classical solutions to these problems are quite different, the time-independent quantum solutions appear almost identical. It is only when the particle is modelled as a wavepacket that the quantum solutions behave like their classical counterparts.
A variety of different theoretical procedures have been used to determine tunneling times. These include (1) phase time; (2) the Stevens procedure; (3) Larmor times; (4) a complex “time”; (5) dwell time; (6) the Büttikker-Landauer time; (7) Feynman path-integrals; (8) scattering theory; (9) a stochastic formulation; (10) oscillatory perturbation of the barrier; (11) kinetic time; and (12) the semiclassical solution. Interest in tunneling times is not purely pedagogical, since correction for changes in image potential during transit is required in determining the conductance of several new high-speed semiconductor devices. A new procedure to evaluate transit time is presented, which assumes that energy fluctuations keep a tunneling particle above the barrier while transiting the classically forbidden region. For large rectangular barriers, the most probable fluctuations minimize the product of their magnitude and the transit time. This results in the semiclassical solution. For the case of very small barriers, there is a separate solution in which the transit time is indeterminate but bounded. The new solution is compared with 12 different results by others. Numerical values, limiting forms, and interpretations are presented for these various tunneling times. Difficulties in using time domain numerical solutions to determine the transit time for a wave packet will also be described. © 1992 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
For smooth potential barriers, we compare the quasi-classical tunneling time with an expression that gives a fully quantum mechanical tunneling time. The expression we choose for the quantum mechanical tunneling time is one that has heuristic value. We report results wherein this quantum mechanical tunneling time and the quasi-classical time differ significantly, both quantitatively and qualitatively. To determine the reasons for these differences, we compare the trends in the two times that result from varying the potential. Our findings suggest that, for smooth potential barriers, the quasi-classical tunneling time is unreliable for many cases where it is employed. PACS Nos.: 03.65Xp, 03.65-w
There has been a surprising degree of uncertainty about how, or even whether, the standard semiclassical theory of Van Vleck and Gutzwiller (VVG) can be used to treat the time-dependent dynamics of tunneling through barriers. At issue is how semiclassical theory describes the time evolution of tunneling. This uncertainty has hindered development of practical techniques for semiclassical calculations of multidimensional systems. It is shown here that the VVG theory can indeed be applied to barrier tunneling, but generally requires consideration of classical trajectories with both complex initial conditions and complex time paths, even for systems with one degree of freedom. The present approach is verified by applying it to the classically forbidden propagation of a wave packet through a one-dimensional barrier---a very basic problem that cannot be treated by the VVG theory without the modifications described here.
We present a detailed study of scattering by an amplitude-modulated potential barrier using three distinct physical frameworks: quantum, classical, and semiclassical. Classical physics gives bounds on the energy and momentum of the scattered particle, while also providing the foundation for semiclassical theory. We use the semiclassical approach to selectively add quantum-mechanical effects such as interference and diffraction. We find good agreement between the quantum and semiclassical momentum distributions. Our methods and results can be used to understand quantum and classical aspects of transport mechanisms involving time-varying potentials, such as quantum pumping.
The precise definition and physical interpretation of a tunneling time is a fundamental problem in quantum mechanics. The lack of a well-defined time operator in quantum theory precludes the calculation of time in terms of an expectation value. Consequently, model calculations and simulation studies have been proposed and used to determine the time for a particle to traverse a quantum-mechanical barrier. The results offer both qualitatively and quantitatively, disparate predictions. One of the more commonly used approaches is the phase method, which we have applied to several one-dimensional model potentials to show that the tunneling time is characterized by the ratio of the typical decay length in the barrier to the incident velocity, τ∼(1/κ)/v0. We also show that the phase and the spin precession methods are equivalent when the magnetic field is applied throughout the space containing the particle wave function and the tunneling barrier. In principle, the spin precession method can be regarded as an operational definition of the tunneling time. It also has been shown that a tunneling time can be defined operationally for a time-dependent barrier, for which the model calculations predict a tunneling time given by the mean barrier width divided by the magnitude of the imaginary velocity of the particle in the barrier, τ∼d/‖v‖. This pseudokinematic result has been inferred by magnetic field dependent tunneling through heterostructures and computer simulation of wave packet tunneling through one-dimensional square barriers. Other tunneling time theories predict one or the other of the above mentioned characteristic times; several theories predict both. We interpret these different results for τ to mean that a tunneling time is not uniquely defined as a function of particle energy and the barrier shape unless the process in which the tunneling is involved is also specified. That is, the tunneling time is a meaningful and unique concept only for particular tunneling processes or definite operational procedures.