Attosecond ionization experiments have not resolved the question "What is the tunneling time?". Different definitions of tunneling time lead to different results. Second, a zero tunneling time for a material particle suggests that the nonrelativistic theory includes speeds greater than the speed of light. Chemical reactions, occurring via tunneling, should then not be considered in terms of a nonrelativistic quantum theory calling into question quantum dynamics computations on tunneling reactions. To answer these questions, we define a new experimentally measurable paradigm, the tunneling flight time, and show that it vanishes for scattering through an Eckart or a square barrier, irrespective of barrier length or height, generalizing the Hartman effect. We explain why this result does not lead to experimental measurement of speeds greater than the speed of light. We show that this tunneling is an incoherent process by comparing a classical Wigner theory with exact quantum mechanical computations.
Attosecond ionization experiments have not resolved the question "What is the tunneling time?". Different definitions of tunneling time lead to different results. Second, a zero tunneling time for a material particle suggests that the nonrelativistic theory includes speeds greater than the speed of light. Chemical reactions, occurring via tunneling, should then not be considered in terms of a nonrelativistic quantum theory calling into question quantum dynamics computations on tunneling reactions. To answer these questions, we define a new experimentally measurable paradigm, the tunneling flight time, and show that it vanishes for scattering through an Eckart or a square barrier, irrespective of barrier length or height, generalizing the Hartman effect. We explain why this result does not lead to experimental measurement of speeds greater than the speed of light. We show that this tunneling is an incoherent process by comparing a classical Wigner theory with exact quantum mechanical computations.
How much time does it take for a particle to tunnel through a barrier? This question continues to baffle up to this very day, one of the reasons being the non-existence of an energy–time commutator analogous to the position–momentum commutation relation. Instead of worrying about the definition of an operator one may consider time as a parameter in the time-dependent Schrödinger equation and study the time evolution of a wavepacket appropriately scattered on a potential barrier. Using this approach, one may formally define a tunnelling flight time that may be measured in a time-of-flight experiment. The resulting tunnelling flight time either vanishes or is very small. The implications of this observation with respect to recent hydrogen and helium atom attosecond photoionization experiments are discussed. The vanishing or small flight time does not contradict the finite time measured in Larmor clock experiments, where the tunnelling particle affects an external degree of freedom whose dynamics induced by the tunnelling may be interpreted in terms of a time scale. Flight times are also relevant to quantum reflection where coherences due to resonance scattering are not well accounted for by Wigner's phase time delay.
The time it takes a particle to tunnel through the asymmetric Eckart barrier potential is investigated using Gaussian wavepackets, where the barrier serves as a model for the potential along a chemical reaction coordinate. We have previously shown that the, in principle experimentally measurable, tunneling flight time, which determines the time taken by the transmitted particle to traverse the barrier, vanishes for symmetric potentials like the Eckart and square barrier [ Petersen , J. ; Pollak , E. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2017 , 9 , 4017 ]. Here we show that the same result is obtained for the asymmetric Eckart barrier potential, and therefore, the zero tunneling flight time seems to be a general result for one-dimensional time-independent potentials. The wavepacket dynamics is simulated using both an exact quantum mechanical method and a classical Wigner prescription. The excellent agreement between the two methods shows that quantum coherences are not important in pure one-dimensional tunneling and reinforces the conclusion that the tunneling flight time vanishes.
Attosecond science is of a fundamental interest in physics. The measurement of the tunneling time in attosecond experiments, offers a fruitful opportunity to understand the role of time in quantum mechanics (QM). We discuss in this paper our tunneling time model in relation to two time operator definitions introduced by Bauer and Aharonov–Bohm. We found that both definitions can be generalized to the same type of time operator. Moreover, we found that the introduction of a phenomenological parameter by Bauer to fit the experimental data is unnecessary. The issue is resolved with our tunneling model by considering the correct barrier width, which avoids a misleading interpretation of the experimental data. Our analysis shows that the use of the so-called classical barrier width, to be precise, is incorrect.
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 time a quantum particle spends traversing a classically forbidden region has resisted un-ambiguous definition since the earliest analyses of wave-packet tunneling, and the proliferation ofmutually incompatible “clocks”—the Wigner phase time, the Büttiker–Landauer traversal time, theLarmor time, and the path-integral complex time among them—has kept the question open fordecades. The controversy has been sharpened, not settled, by the advent of attosecond angular-streaking metrology, in which competing analyses of tunnel ionization continue to disagree over theexistence of a finite delay. Here we show that these rival definitions are not alternative answersto a single question but distinct cumulants of one traversal-time quasi-distribution, generated bythe exact rectangular-barrier transmission amplitude when the latter is promoted to a cumulantgenerating functional through a barrier-height counting field. The first cumulant unifies the Wignerphase time and the Larmor/Büttiker–Landauer time as the real and imaginary parts of a singlecomplex traversal time, recovering the celebrated Hartman saturation as the width-independentvalue ℏ/V0 of its real part. The second cumulant—which, to our knowledge, has not previouslybeen enlisted as a tunneling-time observable—yields a traversal-time variance that entirely evadesthe Hartman saturation and instead grows linearly with the barrier width d. The standard devia-tion of the tunneling time therefore scales as στ ∝ √d: rather than becoming superluminally sharpfor thick barriers, the tunneling time grows progressively more uncertain, in direct opposition tothe naive superluminal reading of the Hartman effect. This parameter-free scaling, independentof the O(1) coefficient that fixes its magnitude, constitutes a falsifiable prediction: attosecond an-gular streaking, which resolves the full arrival-time distribution of tunneled electrons rather thanmerely its centroid, should register a temporal spread broadening as √d even where the mean delaysaturates. We thereby recast a nearly century-old semantic dispute as a concrete experimentalquestion.
Tunneling and tunneling time are hot debated and very interesting issues because of their fundamental role in the quantum mechanics. The measurement of the tunneling time in today's attosecond and strong field (low-frequency) experiments, despite its controversial discussion offers a fruitful opportunity to understand the time measurement and the role of time in quantum mechanics. In previous work Kullie (2015 Phys. Rev. A 92 , 052118), we suggested a model and derived a simple relation to calculate the tunneling time, which showed a good agreement with the experimental result for He-atom. In the present work we analyze and discuss our model considering the experimental result for H-atom, which is obtained recently by Satya Sainadh et al (2017 arXiv: 1707.05445 ). In the tunneling region, we find that our model shows a good agreement with their experimental result (similar to the He-atom in our previous work), and with the accompanied time-dependent Schrödiger equation simulations. However, Sainadh et al use a different picture of the tunneling, in which tunneling time becomes an imaginary quantity. Whereas our model represents a real tunneling time picture, precisely a delay time with respect to the ionization time at the atomic field strength. Moreover, even though the above-threshold-ionization is beyond the tunneling regime, we still see that the actual ionization time is related to our model. However, crucial points arise and keep some questions open especially on the experimental side.