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

Reviews of Modern Physics

Tunneling times: a critical review

E. H. Hauge, Jon Andreas Støvneng

Published Oct 1, 1989• 1,074 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The old question of "How long does it take to tunnel through a barrier?" has acquired new urgency with the advent of techniques for the fabrication of semiconductor structures in the nanometer range. For the restricted problem of tunneling in a scattering configuration, a coherent picture is now emerging. The dwell time ${\ensuremath{\tau}}_{D}$ has the status of an exact statement of the time spent in a region of space, averaged over all incoming particles. The phase times ${\ensuremath{\tau}}_{T}^{\ensuremath{\phi}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\tau}}_{R}^{\ensuremath{\phi}}$ are defined separately for transmitted and reflected particles. They are asymptotic statements on completed scattering events and include self-interference delays as well as the time spent in the barrier. Consequently, neither the dwell time nor the phase times can answer the question of how much time a transmitted (alternatively, reflected) particle spent in the barrier region. Our discussion of this question relies on a few simple criteria: (1) The average duration of a physical process must be real. (2) Since transmission and reflection are mutually exclusive events, the times ${\ensuremath{\tau}}_{T}$ and ${\ensuremath{\tau}}_{R}$ spent in the barrier region are, if they exist, conditional averages. Consequently, they must obey the identity ${\ensuremath{\tau}}_{D}=T{\ensuremath{\tau}}_{T}+R{\ensuremath{\tau}}_{R}$, where $T$ and $R$ are the transmission and reflection probabilities, respectively. The existence of this identity distinguishes tunneling in a scattering configuration from tunneling out of a metastable state. (3) Any proposed ${\ensuremath{\tau}}_{T}$ and ${\ensuremath{\tau}}_{R}$ must meet every requirement that can be constructed from ${\ensuremath{\tau}}_{D}$. On the basis of (2), the naively extrapolated phase times, as well as the B\"uttiker-Landauer time, must be rejected. The local Larmor times, as introduced by Baz', satisfy (2), but not every criterion of type (3). The local Larmor clock is therefore unreliable. The asymptotic Larmor clock shows the phase times, as it should. Finally, the inverse characteristic frequency of an oscillating barrier cannot always be defined. It is shown not to represent the duration of the tunneling process. This leaves the dwell time and the phase times as the only well-established times in this context. It also leaves open the question of the length of time a transmitted particle spends in the barrier region. It is not clear that a generally valid answer to this question exists.

DOI
10.1103/revmodphys.61.917

Related papers

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

Tunneling-time problem

C. Richard Leavens, Geoff C. Aers

The desire to minimize the response time of tunneling devices has led to renewed interest in the unresolved fundamental question How much time, on average, does an incident electron that is ultimately transmitted spend inside a one-dimensional potential barrier? In addition to this transmission time ⊤t ·,there are two other times of interest: the reflection time ⊤r for electrons that are ultimately reflected and the dwell time TD, which is the average time spent inside the barrier regardless of the ultimate fate of the incident particle. An exact expression for TD and the time-modulated barrier, Feynman path, Larmor clock, and wave-packet evolution approaches for calculating ⊤t and ⊤r arc discussed. It is argued that none of these approaches is completely satisfactory because they all lead to transmission and reflection times that either are complex or, if real, do not satisfy: all of a few reasonable (but not universally accepted) criteria, such as consistency with the exact expression for the dwell time.

Quantum Electronics and Laser Science Conference•May 12, 1991•2 citations

Temporal aspects of one-dimensional completed scattering: An alternative view

Nikolay Leonidovich Chuprikov

A {\it completed} scattering of a particle on a static one-dimensional (1D) potential barrier is a combined quantum process to consist from two elementary sub-processes (transmission and reflection) evolved coherently at all stages of scattering and macroscopically distinct at the final stage. The existing model of the process is clearly inadequate to its nature: all one-particle "observables" and "tunneling times", introduced as quantities to be common for the sub-processes, cannot be experimentally measured and, consequently, have no physical meaning; on the contrary, quantities introduced for either sub-process have no basis, for the time evolution of either sub-process is unknown in this model. We show that the wave function to describe a completed scattering can be uniquely presented as the sum of two solutions to the Schrödinger equation, which describe separately the sub-processes at all stages of scattering. For symmetric potential barriers such solutions are found explicitly. For either sub-process we define the time spent, on the average, by a particle in the barrier region. We define it as the Larmor time. As it turned out, this time is just Buttiker's dwell time averaged over the corresponding localized state. Thus, firstly, we justify the known definition of the local dwell time introduced by Hauge and co-workers as well by Leavens and Aers, for now this time can be measured; secondly, we confirm that namely Buttiker's dwell time gives the energy-distribution for the tunneling time; thirdly, we state that all the definitions are valid only if they are based on the wave functions for transmission and reflection found in our paper. Besides, we define the exact and asymptotic group times to be auxiliary in timing the scattering process.

arXiv:quant-ph/0511024•Nov 3, 2005•1 citation

Some important aspects of the tunneling phenomenon through quantum structures

E. Polatdemir

Tunneling phenomenon is one of the wondrous events that take place particularly in quantum mechanics and it has no counterpart in classical physics. We focus on its two important implications : tunneling time and tunneling probability. There has been no consensus on tunneling times among the tunneling time community for last seven decades. So far, most of the attempts to calculate tunneling times have apparently been centered on a simple rectangular barrier example. We implement the tunneling times with the most widely accepted approach, which is using physical Larmor clock, into a nonsymmetrical barrier and a double barrier. It results in different and unique insights into the usual understanding of tunneling time. Three characteristics tunneling time expressions are thoroughly studied in these quantum structures. The difference between dwell time and phase-delay time is once again approved. The unique characteristics of the phase-delay time, which was thought to be exactly similar to dwell time when we assign higher energies to the particles, is also revealed in the nonsymmetrical barrier that it should actually be regarded as a distinct feature from the dwell time. The singularity of reflection time in rectangular barrier is no longer valid in nonsymmetrical barrier. The finiteness of reflection time fairly shows that different quantum structures might bear some taboo breaking results. Since a double barrier involves much more complicated features and calculations, the calculation of tunneling times under this barrier is praiseworthy. The dwell time is the most crucial, troublesome and distinctive tunneling time element to look into for a double barrier. Besides the dwell and phase-delay time, we also calculate the three characteristic times as well as the reflection time for a double barrier. Another area that we study within the context of tunneling phenomenon is the tunneling probability. Recently, there has been ground shaking attempts in modifying the conventional WKB formulae. We follow one of the modified versions of WKB formulae in order to be able to calculate the tunneling probability through different quantum structures where conventional WKB formulae fail. These generalized WKB connection formulae are applied to some complex quantum potentials by seeking aid from the Green's function and the path integral approach. One of the biggest problems in quantum mechanics (visualization) is partially overcome through implementing the method of diagrammatic representations that make the life easier in understanding the events happening in the quantum world when we attempt to calculate the transmission and reflection probabilities. This part therefore has a pedagogical sense too in terms of interpreting the results in a diagrammatic way with the help of the path integral approach.

•Jan 1, 2002•0 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

Tunnelling times and the Hartman effect

V. S. Olkhovsky, Erasmo Recami, Aleksandr K. Zaichenko

In a recent review paper [Phys. Rpeorts 214 (1992) 339] we proposed, within conventional quantum mechanics, new definitions fot the subarrier tunnelling and reflection times. Aims of the present paper are: (i) presenting and analysing the results of various numerical calculations (based on our equations) on the penetration and return times $\\left \\langle tau_P_e_n \\right \\rangle $ , $\\left \\langle tau_R_e_t\\right \\rangle $ during tunnelling inside a rectangular potential barrier, for various penetration depths $x_f$ ; (ii) putting forth and discussing suitable definitions. Besides of the mean values, also of the variances (or dispersions)$D\\tau_T\\ $ and $ D\\tau_R\\ $ for the tima durations of trasmission and reflection processes; (iii) mentioning that our definition $\\left \\langle tau_T \\right \\rangle $ for the average transmission time results to constituite an improvemente of the ordinary dwell-time $ \\bar tau^D^W\\ $ formula: (iv) commenting upon some recent criticism by C.R. Leavens, on the basis of our new numerical results. We stress that our numerical evaluations confirm that our approach implied, and implies, the existence of the Hartman effect: an effect that in these days (due to the theoretical connections between tunnelling and evanescent-wave propagation) is receiving - at Cologne, Berkeley, Florence and Wien - indirect, but quite interesting, experimental verifications. At last we briefly analyze some other definitions of tunnelling times.

•Jan 1, 1995•0 citations
The old question of "How long does it take to tunnel through a barrier?" has acquired new urgency with the advent of techniques for the fabrication of semiconductor structures in the nanometer range. For the restricted problem of tunneling in a scattering configuration, a coherent picture is now emerging. The dwell time \ensuremathτD{\ensuremath{\tau}}_{D}\ensuremathτD​ has the status of an exact statement of the time spent in a region of space, averaged over all incoming particles. The phase times \ensuremathτT\ensuremathϕ{\ensuremath{\tau}}_{T}^{\ensuremath{\phi}}\ensuremathτT\ensuremathϕ​ and \ensuremathτR\ensuremathϕ{\ensuremath{\tau}}_{R}^{\ensuremath{\phi}}\ensuremathτR\ensuremathϕ​ are defined separately for transmitted and reflected particles. They are asymptotic statements on completed scattering events and include self-interference delays as well as the time spent in the barrier. Consequently, neither the dwell time nor the phase times can answer the question of how much time a transmitted (alternatively, reflected) particle spent in the barrier region. Our discussion of this question relies on a few simple criteria: (1) The average duration of a physical process must be real. (2) Since transmission and reflection are mutually exclusive events, the times \ensuremathτT{\ensuremath{\tau}}_{T}\ensuremathτT​ and \ensuremathτR{\ensuremath{\tau}}_{R}\ensuremathτR​ spent in the barrier region are, if they exist, conditional averages. Consequently, they must obey the identity \ensuremathτD=T\ensuremathτT+R\ensuremathτR{\ensuremath{\tau}}_{D}=T{\ensuremath{\tau}}_{T}+R{\ensuremath{\tau}}_{R}\ensuremathτD​=T\ensuremathτT​+R\ensuremathτR​, where TTT and RRR are the transmission and reflection probabilities, respectively. The existence of this identity distinguishes tunneling in a scattering configuration from tunneling out of a metastable state. (3) Any proposed \ensuremathτT{\ensuremath{\tau}}_{T}\ensuremathτT​ and \ensuremathτR{\ensuremath{\tau}}_{R}\ensuremathτR​ must meet every requirement that can be constructed from \ensuremathτD{\ensuremath{\tau}}_{D}\ensuremathτD​. On the basis of (2), the naively extrapolated phase times, as well as the B"uttiker-Landauer time, must be rejected. The local Larmor times, as introduced by Baz', satisfy (2), but not every criterion of type (3). The local Larmor clock is therefore unreliable. The asymptotic Larmor clock shows the phase times, as it should. Finally, the inverse characteristic frequency of an oscillating barrier cannot always be defined. It is shown not to represent the duration of the tunneling process. This leaves the dwell time and the phase times as the only well-established times in this context. It also leaves open the question of the length of time a transmitted particle spends in the barrier region. It is not clear that a generally valid answer to this question exists.
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 desire to minimize the response time of tunneling devices has led to renewed interest in the unresolved fundamental question How much time, on average, does an incident electron that is ultimately transmitted spend inside a one-dimensional potential barrier? In addition to this transmission time ⊤t ·,there are two other times of interest: the reflection time ⊤r for electrons that are ultimately reflected and the dwell time TD, which is the average time spent inside the barrier regardless of the ultimate fate of the incident particle. An exact expression for TD and the time-modulated barrier, Feynman path, Larmor clock, and wave-packet evolution approaches for calculating ⊤t and ⊤r arc discussed. It is argued that none of these approaches is completely satisfactory because they all lead to transmission and reflection times that either are complex or, if real, do not satisfy: all of a few reasonable (but not universally accepted) criteria, such as consistency with the exact expression for the dwell time.
A {\it completed} scattering of a particle on a static one-dimensional (1D) potential barrier is a combined quantum process to consist from two elementary sub-processes (transmission and reflection) evolved coherently at all stages of scattering and macroscopically distinct at the final stage. The existing model of the process is clearly inadequate to its nature: all one-particle "observables" and "tunneling times", introduced as quantities to be common for the sub-processes, cannot be experimentally measured and, consequently, have no physical meaning; on the contrary, quantities introduced for either sub-process have no basis, for the time evolution of either sub-process is unknown in this model. We show that the wave function to describe a completed scattering can be uniquely presented as the sum of two solutions to the Schrödinger equation, which describe separately the sub-processes at all stages of scattering. For symmetric potential barriers such solutions are found explicitly. For either sub-process we define the time spent, on the average, by a particle in the barrier region. We define it as the Larmor time. As it turned out, this time is just Buttiker's dwell time averaged over the corresponding localized state. Thus, firstly, we justify the known definition of the local dwell time introduced by Hauge and co-workers as well by Leavens and Aers, for now this time can be measured; secondly, we confirm that namely Buttiker's dwell time gives the energy-distribution for the tunneling time; thirdly, we state that all the definitions are valid only if they are based on the wave functions for transmission and reflection found in our paper. Besides, we define the exact and asymptotic group times to be auxiliary in timing the scattering process.
Tunneling phenomenon is one of the wondrous events that take place particularly in quantum mechanics and it has no counterpart in classical physics. We focus on its two important implications : tunneling time and tunneling probability. There has been no consensus on tunneling times among the tunneling time community for last seven decades. So far, most of the attempts to calculate tunneling times have apparently been centered on a simple rectangular barrier example. We implement the tunneling times with the most widely accepted approach, which is using physical Larmor clock, into a nonsymmetrical barrier and a double barrier. It results in different and unique insights into the usual understanding of tunneling time. Three characteristics tunneling time expressions are thoroughly studied in these quantum structures. The difference between dwell time and phase-delay time is once again approved. The unique characteristics of the phase-delay time, which was thought to be exactly similar to dwell time when we assign higher energies to the particles, is also revealed in the nonsymmetrical barrier that it should actually be regarded as a distinct feature from the dwell time. The singularity of reflection time in rectangular barrier is no longer valid in nonsymmetrical barrier. The finiteness of reflection time fairly shows that different quantum structures might bear some taboo breaking results. Since a double barrier involves much more complicated features and calculations, the calculation of tunneling times under this barrier is praiseworthy. The dwell time is the most crucial, troublesome and distinctive tunneling time element to look into for a double barrier. Besides the dwell and phase-delay time, we also calculate the three characteristic times as well as the reflection time for a double barrier. Another area that we study within the context of tunneling phenomenon is the tunneling probability. Recently, there has been ground shaking attempts in modifying the conventional WKB formulae. We follow one of the modified versions of WKB formulae in order to be able to calculate the tunneling probability through different quantum structures where conventional WKB formulae fail. These generalized WKB connection formulae are applied to some complex quantum potentials by seeking aid from the Green's function and the path integral approach. One of the biggest problems in quantum mechanics (visualization) is partially overcome through implementing the method of diagrammatic representations that make the life easier in understanding the events happening in the quantum world when we attempt to calculate the transmission and reflection probabilities. This part therefore has a pedagogical sense too in terms of interpreting the results in a diagrammatic way with the help of the path integral approach.
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.
In a recent review paper [Phys. Rpeorts 214 (1992) 339] we proposed, within conventional quantum mechanics, new definitions fot the subarrier tunnelling and reflection times. Aims of the present paper are: (i) presenting and analysing the results of various numerical calculations (based on our equations) on the penetration and return times $\\left \\langle tau_P_e_n \\right \\rangle $ , $\\left \\langle tau_R_e_t\\right \\rangle $ during tunnelling inside a rectangular potential barrier, for various penetration depths xfx_fxf​ ; (ii) putting forth and discussing suitable definitions. Besides of the mean values, also of the variances (or dispersions)$D\\tau_T\\ $ and $ D\\tau_R\\ $ for the tima durations of trasmission and reflection processes; (iii) mentioning that our definition $\\left \\langle tau_T \\right \\rangle $ for the average transmission time results to constituite an improvemente of the ordinary dwell-time $ \\bar tau^D^W\\ $ formula: (iv) commenting upon some recent criticism by C.R. Leavens, on the basis of our new numerical results. We stress that our numerical evaluations confirm that our approach implied, and implies, the existence of the Hartman effect: an effect that in these days (due to the theoretical connections between tunnelling and evanescent-wave propagation) is receiving - at Cologne, Berkeley, Florence and Wien - indirect, but quite interesting, experimental verifications. At last we briefly analyze some other definitions of tunnelling times.