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

Physical review. B, Condensed matter

Dwell time and asymptotic behavior of the probability density

Juan Gonzalo Muga, V. Delgado, Robert F. Snider

Published Dec 15, 1995• 33 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The asymptotic long-time behavior of the probability density in a collision of a particle with several model potentials is analyzed. In all cases the observed dependence is an inverse cubic power of time. This assures the existence of the dwell time as a meaningful finite quantity.
DOI
10.1103/physrevb.52.16381

Related papers

Asymptotic behavior of the probability density in one dimension

J. A. Damborenea, I. L. Egusquiza, Juan Gonzalo Muga

We demonstrate that the probability density of a quantum state moving freely in one dimension may decay faster than t−1. The t−2 and t−3 dependencies are illustrated with analytically solvable examples. Decays faster than t−1 allow the existence of dwell times and delay times.

arXiv:quant-ph/0109151•American Journal of Physics•Jun 13, 2002•12 citations

Comment on "Anomalous Spreading of Power-Law Quantum Wave Packets"

R. S. Mendes, Celia Anteneodo

A family of wave packets with power law tails are employed to analyze the long time dependence of the corresponding probability density. The densities, associated to packets for free particles in the one-dimensional space, with sufficiently long tails decay asymptotically in time following a $t^{-β}$ law (with $β<1$), slower than the usual $t^{-1}$ one, including the particular case $(ln t)^2/t$ not correctly discussed in F. Lillo and R. N. Mantegna (Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1061 (2000)).

arXiv:cond-mat/0003366•Mar 22, 2000•0 citations

Relationship between dwell, transmission and reflection tunnelling times

Mário Goto, Hiromi Iwamoto, Verissimo Manoel de Aquino +2 more

The transmission tunnelling time through a barrier is often defined as the probability that the particle is in the barrier divided by the transmission probability current density. The dwell time, the time the particle stays in the barrier, is commonly defined as the probability that the particle is in the barrier divided by the incident probability current density. We define the reflection tunnelling time in a similar way by dividing the probability that the particle is in the barrier by the reflection current density. By conservation of probability, the reciprocal of the dwell time is equal to the sum of the reciprocals of the transmission and reflection times. This relation is illustrated by calculating the different tunnelling times for a rectangular barrier.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Mar 2, 2004•23 citations

Quantum arrival and dwell times via idealized clocks

James M. Yearsley, D. A. Downs, J. J. Halliwell +1 more

A number of approaches to the problem of defining arrival- and dwell-time probabilities in quantum theory makes use of idealized models of clocks. An interesting question is the extent to which the probabilities obtained in this way are related to standard semiclassical results. In this paper, we explore this question using a reasonably general clock model, solved using path-integral methods. We find that, in the weak-coupling regime, where the energy of the clock is much less than the energy of the particle it is measuring, the probability for the clock pointer can be expressed in terms of the probability current in the case of arrival times, and the dwell-time operator in the case of dwell times, the expected semiclassical results. In the regime of strong system-clock coupling, we find that the arrival-time probability is proportional to the kinetic-energy density, consistent with an earlier model involving a complex potential. We argue that, properly normalized, this may be the generically expected result in this regime. We show that these conclusions are largely independent of the form of the clock Hamiltonian.

arXiv:1106.4767•Physical Review A•Aug 16, 2011•26 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

Spatial Decay of the Single-Particle Density Matrix in Insulators: Analytic Results in Two and Three Dimensions

Sergei N. Taraskin, David Alan Drabold, Stephen R. Elliott

Analytic results for the asymptotic decay of the electron density matrix in insulators have been obtained in all three dimensions (D = 1,2,3) for a tight-binding model defined on a simple cubic lattice. The anisotropic decay length is shown to be dependent on the energy parameters of the model. The existence of the power-law prefactor, proportional, variant r(-D/2), is demonstrated.

arXiv:cond-mat/0110473•Physical Review Letters•Apr 30, 2002•27 citations
A family of wave packets with power law tails are employed to analyze the long time dependence of the corresponding probability density. The densities, associated to packets for free particles in the one-dimensional space, with sufficiently long tails decay asymptotically in time following a t−βt^{-β}t−β law (with β<1β<1β<1), slower than the usual t−1t^{-1}t−1 one, including the particular case (lnt)2/t(ln t)^2/t(lnt)2/t not correctly discussed in F. Lillo and R. N. Mantegna (Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1061 (2000)).
The transmission tunnelling time through a barrier is often defined as the probability that the particle is in the barrier divided by the transmission probability current density. The dwell time, the time the particle stays in the barrier, is commonly defined as the probability that the particle is in the barrier divided by the incident probability current density. We define the reflection tunnelling time in a similar way by dividing the probability that the particle is in the barrier by the reflection current density. By conservation of probability, the reciprocal of the dwell time is equal to the sum of the reciprocals of the transmission and reflection times. This relation is illustrated by calculating the different tunnelling times for a rectangular barrier.
A number of approaches to the problem of defining arrival- and dwell-time probabilities in quantum theory makes use of idealized models of clocks. An interesting question is the extent to which the probabilities obtained in this way are related to standard semiclassical results. In this paper, we explore this question using a reasonably general clock model, solved using path-integral methods. We find that, in the weak-coupling regime, where the energy of the clock is much less than the energy of the particle it is measuring, the probability for the clock pointer can be expressed in terms of the probability current in the case of arrival times, and the dwell-time operator in the case of dwell times, the expected semiclassical results. In the regime of strong system-clock coupling, we find that the arrival-time probability is proportional to the kinetic-energy density, consistent with an earlier model involving a complex potential. We argue that, properly normalized, this may be the generically expected result in this regime. We show that these conclusions are largely independent of the form of the clock Hamiltonian.
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.