Quantum mechanical tunnelling

Mohammad Reza Abolhasani, M. Golshani

Recently, people have calculated tunneling's characteristic times within Bohmian mechanics. Contrary to some characteristic times defined within the framework of the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, these have reasonable values. Here, we introduce one of the available definitions for tunneling's characteristic times within the standard interpretation as the best definition that can be accepted for the tunneling times. We show that, due to experimental limitations, Bohmian mechanics leads to the same tunneling times.

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

DR. ZULFIQAR ALI KHAN

AbstractThe 2025 Nobel Prize for quantum tunneling in an electrical circuit andthe 1973 Prize for tunneling phenomena in solids share the same mechanism:tunneling through a thin oxide barrier described by Josephson equations.The 1973 mechanism was correctly monitored as micro. In 2025, thebarrier remains ∼ 10−9 m, the chip remains micro-fabricated, and the particleremains a Cooper pair. Only the external circuit was enlarged.The phenomenon is correct and the mechanism is correct, but the label”Macroscopic Quantum Tunneling” is incorrect. A micro-based tunnelingevent does not become macroscopic by enlarging its wires. The correct termis enlarged micro tunneling.