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.
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.
Abstract Tunneling time in attosecond and strong-field experiments is one of the most controversial issues in current research, because of its importance to the theory of time, the time operator and the time–energy uncertainty relation in quantum mechanics. In Kullie (2015 Phys. Rev. A 92 052118 ) we derived an estimation of the (real) tunneling time, which shows an excellent agreement with the time measured in attosecond experiments, our derivation is found by utilizing the time–energy uncertainty relation, and it represents a quantum clock. In this work, we show different aspects of the tunneling time in attosecond experiments, we discuss and compare the different views and approaches, which are used to calculate the tunneling time, i.e. Keldysh time (as a real or imaginary quantity), Mandelstam–Tamm time, the classical view of the time measurement and our tunneling time relation(s). We draw some conclusions concerning the validity and the relation between the different types of the tunneling time with the hope that they will help to answer the question put forward by Orlando et al (2014 J. Phys. B 47 204002 , 2014 Phys. Rev. A 89 014102 ): tunneling time, what does it mean? However, as we will see, the important question is a more general one: how to understand the time and the measurement of the time of a quantum system? In respect to our result, the time in quantum mechanics can be, in more general fashion, classified in two types, intrinsic dynamically connected, and external dynamically not connected to the system, and consequently (perhaps only) classical Newtonian time remains as a parametric type of time.
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.
Attosecond science, beyond its importance from application point of view, is of a fundamental interest in physics. The measurement of tunneling time in attosecond experiments offers a fruitful opportunity to understand the role of time in quantum mechanics. In the present work, we show that our real T-time relation derived in earlier works can be derived from an observable or a time operator, which obeys an ordinary commutation relation. Moreover, we show that our real T-time can also be constructed, inter alia, from the well-known Aharonov–Bohm time operator. This shows that the specific form of the time operator is not decisive, and dynamical time operators relate identically to the intrinsic time of the system. It contrasts the famous Pauli theorem, and confirms the fact that time is an observable, i.e., the existence of time operator and that the time is not a parameter in quantum mechanics. Furthermore, we discuss the relations with different types of tunneling times, such as Eisenbud–Wigner time, dwell time, and the statistically or probabilistic defined tunneling time. We conclude with the hotly debated interpretation of the attoclock measurement and the advantage of the real T-time picture versus the imaginary one.
Tunneling time in attosecond and strong field experiments is one of the most controversial issues in today's research, because of its importance to the theory of time, the time operator and the time-energy uncertainty relation in quantum mechanics. In [1] we derived an estimation of the (real) tunneling time, which shows an excellent agreement with the time measured in attosecond experiments, our derivation is found by utilizing the time-energy uncertainty relation, and it represents a quantum clock. In this work, we show different aspects of the tunneling time in attosecond experiments, we discuss and compare the different views and approaches, which are used to calculate the tunneling time, i.e. Keldysh time (as a real or imaginary quantity), Mandelstam-Tamm time and our tunneling time relation(s). We draw some conclusion concerning the validity and the relation between the different types of the tunneling time with the hope, it will help to answer the the question put forward by Orlando et al [2] tunneling time, what does it mean?. In respect to our result, the time in quantum mechanics can be, in more general fashion, classified in two types, intrinsic dynamically connected, and external dynamically not connected, to the system.
The measurement of the tunneling time in attosecond experiments, termed attoclock, triggered a hot debate about the tunneling time, the role of time in quantum mechanics, where the interaction with the laser pulse involves two regimes of a different character, the multiphoton and the tunneling (field-) ionization. In the adiabatic field calibration, one of us (O. K.) developed in earlier works a real tunneling time model and showed that the model fits well to the experimental data of Landsmann et al. (Optica {\bf 1}, 343 2014). In the present work, it is shown that the model explains the experimental result in the nonadiabatic field calibration, where one reaches a good agreement with the experimental data of Hofmann et al. (J. of Mod. Opt. {\bf 66}, 1052, 2019). Furthermore, we confirm the result with the numerical integration of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. The model is appealing because it offers a clear picture of the multiphoton and tunneling field-ionization regimes. In the nonadiabatic case (the nonadiabatic field calibration), the ionization is mainly driven by multiphoton absorption. Surprisingly, at a field strength F≤Fa (Fa is the atomic field strength) the model always predicts a time delay with respect to the quantum limit τa at F=Fa. For an adiabatic tunneling the saturation at the limit (F=Fa) explains the well-known Hartman effect or Hartman paradox.
In this work we present a theoretical model of the tunneling time and the tunneling process (in attosecond experiment for the He atom). Our model is supported with physical reasoning leading to a relation which performs an excellent estimation for the tunneling time in attosecond and strong-field experiments, where we address the important case of the He atom. Our tunneling time estimation is found by utilizing the time-energy uncertainty relation and represents a quantum clock. The tunneling time is also featured as the time of passage through the barrier similar to Einstein's photon-box Gedanken experiment. Our work tackles an important case study for the theory of time in quantum mechanics and is very promising for the search for a (general) time operator in quantum mechanics. The work can be seen as a fundamental step in dealing with the tunneling time in strong-field and ultrafast science and is appealing for more elaborate treatments using quantum wave-packet dynamics and especially for complex atoms and molecules.