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

Physica Scripta

Traversal Time for Tunneling

Μ. Büttiker, Rolf W. Landauer

Published Oct 1, 1985• 215 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The time required for decay of a metastable state, through tunneling, is a well settled subject. During this lifetime of the initial state, the particle oscillates within its initial well. By contrast, questions about the duration of the actual tunneling process, when it finally occurs, have led to widely divergent answers. In recent years, Jonson, Stevens, and we, have, through independent approaches, pointed out that there is an effective barrier traversal velocity obtained by dividing the magnitude of the imaginary momentum, under the barrier, by the particle mass. Here we present a fourth approach to this earlier answer, by considering a time modulated stream incident on the barrier. At low modulation frequencies the transmitted beam reproduces the incident modulation without lag, and without change in modulation depth. As the modulation frequency is increased we eventually depart from this simple behavior, and that is taken as a measure of the transversal time. We also provide some of the details omitted in our earlier analysis.

DOI
10.1088/0031-8949/32/4/031

Related papers

Modulated barrier approach to the interaction time in tunneling for arbitrary potentials

Th. Martin, Rolf W. Landauer

The time that a transmitted particle interacts with a tunneling barrier is evaluated in one of the principal existing approaches by considering a small oscillatory perturbation added to the static barrier. The modulation frequency, at which a serious deviation from quasistatic behavior appears, is indicative of the traversal time. This approach is extended here, to a long region including the barrier, and utilizing a modulation potential which is spatially uniform throughout this region, except in the incident region ahead of the actual barrier, where it is made sufficiently smooth to avoid reflections. The resulting traversal time is \ensuremath{\Elzxh}\ensuremath{\partial} ln[\ensuremath{\partial}t/\ensuremath{\partial}E]/\ensuremath{\partial}E, where the complex transmission coefficient t(E) is defined as the ratio of the wave function at the far end to that at the point of incidence. This answer applies to arbitrary potentials and to all energies, including both propagation and tunneling in a single framework. This result is closely related to, but not identical to, that obtained by another earlier approach in which the potential is fixed, but the incident amplitude is modulated.

Physical Review A•Mar 1, 1993•33 citations

Traversal Time for Tunneling

Μ. Büttiker, Rolf W. Landauer

One of several contradictory existing results for the time a tunneling particle interacts with its barrier is confirmed, by considering tunneling through a time-modulated barrier. At low modulation frequencies the traversing particle sees a static barrier. At high frequencies the particle tunnels through the time-averaged potential, but can do it inelastically, losing or gaining modulation quanta. The transition between the two regimes yields $\ensuremath{\int}\mathrm{dx}{[\frac{m}{2(V\ensuremath{-}E)}]}^{\frac{1}{2}}$ for the traversal time.

Physical Review Letters•Dec 6, 1982•1,117 citations

Tunneling times: a critical review

E. H. Hauge, Jon Andreas Støvneng

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.

Reviews of Modern Physics•Oct 1, 1989•1,074 citations

Larmor precession and the traversal time for tunneling

Μ. Büttiker

Baz' and Rybachenko have proposed the use of the Larmor precession as a clock to measure the time it takes a particle to traverse a barrier. An applied magnetic field is confined to the barrier. The spin of the incident particles is polarized perpendicular to this field. The extent of the Larmor precession occurring during transmission is used as a measurement of the time spent traversing the barrier. However, the particles tunneling through an opaque barrier also acquire a spin component parallel to the field since particles with spin parallel to the field have a higher transmission probability than particles with spin antiparallel to the field. Similar effects are actually used to polarize electrons and neutrons. An interpretation of this experiment compares the results with an approach which determines the traversal time by studying transmission of particles through a time-modulated barrier. This leads to three characteristic times describing the interaction of particles with a barrier. A dwell time measures the average time interval during which a particle interacts with the barrier whether it is reflected or transmitted at the end of its stay, a traversal time measures the time interval during which a particle interacts with the barrier if it is finally transmitted, and a reflection time measures the interaction time of a reflected particle.

Physical review. B, Condensed matter•May 15, 1983•699 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

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
The time required for decay of a metastable state, through tunneling, is a well settled subject. During this lifetime of the initial state, the particle oscillates within its initial well. By contrast, questions about the duration of the actual tunneling process, when it finally occurs, have led to widely divergent answers. In recent years, Jonson, Stevens, and we, have, through independent approaches, pointed out that there is an effective barrier traversal velocity obtained by dividing the magnitude of the imaginary momentum, under the barrier, by the particle mass. Here we present a fourth approach to this earlier answer, by considering a time modulated stream incident on the barrier. At low modulation frequencies the transmitted beam reproduces the incident modulation without lag, and without change in modulation depth. As the modulation frequency is increased we eventually depart from this simple behavior, and that is taken as a measure of the transversal time. We also provide some of the details omitted in our earlier analysis.
The time that a transmitted particle interacts with a tunneling barrier is evaluated in one of the principal existing approaches by considering a small oscillatory perturbation added to the static barrier. The modulation frequency, at which a serious deviation from quasistatic behavior appears, is indicative of the traversal time. This approach is extended here, to a long region including the barrier, and utilizing a modulation potential which is spatially uniform throughout this region, except in the incident region ahead of the actual barrier, where it is made sufficiently smooth to avoid reflections. The resulting traversal time is \ensuremath{\Elzxh}\ensuremath{\partial} ln[\ensuremath{\partial}t/\ensuremath{\partial}E]/\ensuremath{\partial}E, where the complex transmission coefficient t(E) is defined as the ratio of the wave function at the far end to that at the point of incidence. This answer applies to arbitrary potentials and to all energies, including both propagation and tunneling in a single framework. This result is closely related to, but not identical to, that obtained by another earlier approach in which the potential is fixed, but the incident amplitude is modulated.
One of several contradictory existing results for the time a tunneling particle interacts with its barrier is confirmed, by considering tunneling through a time-modulated barrier. At low modulation frequencies the traversing particle sees a static barrier. At high frequencies the particle tunnels through the time-averaged potential, but can do it inelastically, losing or gaining modulation quanta. The transition between the two regimes yields $\ensuremath{\int}\mathrm{dx}{[\frac{m}{2(V\ensuremath{-}E)}]}^{\frac{1}{2}}$ for the traversal time.
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 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 ${\ensuremath{\tau}}_{T}$ 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.
Baz' and Rybachenko have proposed the use of the Larmor precession as a clock to measure the time it takes a particle to traverse a barrier. An applied magnetic field is confined to the barrier. The spin of the incident particles is polarized perpendicular to this field. The extent of the Larmor precession occurring during transmission is used as a measurement of the time spent traversing the barrier. However, the particles tunneling through an opaque barrier also acquire a spin component parallel to the field since particles with spin parallel to the field have a higher transmission probability than particles with spin antiparallel to the field. Similar effects are actually used to polarize electrons and neutrons. An interpretation of this experiment compares the results with an approach which determines the traversal time by studying transmission of particles through a time-modulated barrier. This leads to three characteristic times describing the interaction of particles with a barrier. A dwell time measures the average time interval during which a particle interacts with the barrier whether it is reflected or transmitted at the end of its stay, a traversal time measures the time interval during which a particle interacts with the barrier if it is finally transmitted, and a reflection time measures the interaction time of a reflected particle.
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.
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.