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

Communications Physics

No time at the end of the tunnel

D. Sokolovski, Elena V. Akhmatskaya

Published Aug 15, 2018• 51 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract Modern atto-second experiments seek to provide an insight into a long standing question: “how much time does a tunnelling particle spend in the barrier?” Traditionally, quantum theory relates this duration to the delay with which the particle emerges from the barrier. The link between these two times is self-evident in classical mechanics, but may or may not exist in the quantum case. Here we show that it does not, and give a detailed explanation why. The tunnelling process does not lend itself to classical analogies, and its duration cannot, in general, be guessed by observing the behaviour of the transmitted particle.

DOI
10.1038/s42005-018-0049-9

Related papers

Imaginary past of a quantum particle moving on imaginary time

Anton Uranga, Elena V. Akhmatskaya, D. Sokolovski

The analytical continuation of classical equations of motion to complex times suggests that a tunneling particle spends in the barrier an imaginary duration i|T| . Does this mean that it takes a finite time to tunnel, or should tunneling be seen as an instantaneous process? It is well known that examination of the adiabatic limit in a small additional AC field points towards |T| being the time it takes to traverse the barrier. However, this is only half the story. We probe the transmitted particle's history, and find that it very little of the field's past behavior, as if the transit time were close to zero. The ensuing contradiction suggests that the question is ill posed, and we explain why. Published by the American Physical Society 2024

arXiv:2405.16967•Physical Review Research•May 21, 2024•1 citation

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

Chapter 12. The Tunnelling Flight Time

Eli Pollak

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.

RSC theoretical and computational chemistry series•Jan 1, 2020•1 citation

On the status of quantum tunneling times

Grace E. Field

How long does a quantum particle take to traverse a classically forbidden energy barrier? In other words, what is the correct expression for quantum tunneling time? This seemingly simple question has inspired widespread debate in the physics literature. By drawing an analogy with the double-slit experiment, I argue that we should not even expect the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics to provide an expression for quantum tunneling time. I explain how this conclusion connects to time’s special status in quantum mechanics, the meaningfulness of classically inspired concepts in different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and the prospect of constructing experimental tests to distinguish between different interpretations.

•May 21, 2020•0 citations

Measuring the time a tunnelling atom spends in the barrier

Ramos, Ramón, David Spierings, Isabelle Racicot +1 more

Tunnelling is one of the most paradigmatic and evocative phenomena of quantum physics, underlying processes such as photosynthesis and nuclear fusion, as well as devices ranging from SQUID magnetometers to superconducting qubits for quantum computers. The question of how long a particle takes to tunnel, however, has remained controversial since the first attempts to calculate it, which relied on the group delay. It is now well understood that this delay (the arrival time of the transmitted wave packet peak at the far side of the barrier) can be smaller than the barrier thickness divided by the speed of light, without violating causality. There have been a number of experiments confirming this, and even a recent one claiming that tunnelling may take no time at all. There have also been efforts to identify another timescale, which would better describe how long a given particle spends in the barrier region. Here we present a direct measurement of such a time, studying Bose-condensed $^{87}$Rb atoms tunnelling through a 1.3-$μ$m thick optical barrier. By localizing a pseudo-magnetic field inside the barrier, we use the spin precession of the atoms as a clock to measure the time it takes them to cross the classically forbidden region. We find a traversal time of 0.62(7) ms and study its dependence on incident energy. In addition to finally shedding light on the fundamental question of the tunnelling time, this experiment lays the groundwork for addressing deep foundational questions about history in quantum mechanics: for instance, what can we learn about where a particle was at earlier times by observing where it is now?

arXiv:1907.13523•Jul 31, 2019•4 citations

Universal tunneling time for all fields

G. Nimtz, A. A. Stahlhofen

Abstract Tunneling is an outstanding physical process. The observation that particles surmount a high barrier in spite of the fact that they don't have the necessary energy can not be explained by classical physics. However, this so called tunneling became allowed by quantum mechanics. Experimental tunneling studies with different photonic barriers from microwave frequencies up to ultraviolet frequencies point towards a universal tunneling time [1, 2]. Tunneling can be described by virtual, that is, by unobservable particles [3]. In the case of tunneling there is a virtual particle between the real incident and the real transmitted particles. Tunneling modes are solutions of the Schrödinger and of the Helmholtz equations. The most prominent example of the occurrence of tunneling modes in optics is frustrated total internal reflection (FTIR) at double prisms. In 1949 Sommerfeld [4] pointed out that this optical phenomenon represents the analogy of quantum mechanical particle tunneling. Recent experimental and theoretical data confirmed the conjecture that the tunneling process is characterized by a universal tunneling time presumably independent of the kind of field. The observed tunneling processes proceeded at a time of the order of magnitude of the reciprocal frequency of the wave packets.

Annalen der Physik•Jun 5, 2008•8 citations
Abstract Modern atto-second experiments seek to provide an insight into a long standing question: “how much time does a tunnelling particle spend in the barrier?” Traditionally, quantum theory relates this duration to the delay with which the particle emerges from the barrier. The link between these two times is self-evident in classical mechanics, but may or may not exist in the quantum case. Here we show that it does not, and give a detailed explanation why. The tunnelling process does not lend itself to classical analogies, and its duration cannot, in general, be guessed by observing the behaviour of the transmitted particle.
The analytical continuation of classical equations of motion to complex times suggests that a tunneling particle spends in the barrier an imaginary duration i|T| . Does this mean that it takes a finite time to tunnel, or should tunneling be seen as an instantaneous process? It is well known that examination of the adiabatic limit in a small additional AC field points towards |T| being the time it takes to traverse the barrier. However, this is only half the story. We probe the transmitted particle's history, and find that it very little of the field's past behavior, as if the transit time were close to zero. The ensuing contradiction suggests that the question is ill posed, and we explain why. Published by the American Physical Society 2024
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.
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.
How long does a quantum particle take to traverse a classically forbidden energy barrier? In other words, what is the correct expression for quantum tunneling time? This seemingly simple question has inspired widespread debate in the physics literature. By drawing an analogy with the double-slit experiment, I argue that we should not even expect the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics to provide an expression for quantum tunneling time. I explain how this conclusion connects to time’s special status in quantum mechanics, the meaningfulness of classically inspired concepts in different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and the prospect of constructing experimental tests to distinguish between different interpretations.
Tunnelling is one of the most paradigmatic and evocative phenomena of quantum physics, underlying processes such as photosynthesis and nuclear fusion, as well as devices ranging from SQUID magnetometers to superconducting qubits for quantum computers. The question of how long a particle takes to tunnel, however, has remained controversial since the first attempts to calculate it, which relied on the group delay. It is now well understood that this delay (the arrival time of the transmitted wave packet peak at the far side of the barrier) can be smaller than the barrier thickness divided by the speed of light, without violating causality. There have been a number of experiments confirming this, and even a recent one claiming that tunnelling may take no time at all. There have also been efforts to identify another timescale, which would better describe how long a given particle spends in the barrier region. Here we present a direct measurement of such a time, studying Bose-condensed 87^{87}87Rb atoms tunnelling through a 1.3-μμμm thick optical barrier. By localizing a pseudo-magnetic field inside the barrier, we use the spin precession of the atoms as a clock to measure the time it takes them to cross the classically forbidden region. We find a traversal time of 0.62(7) ms and study its dependence on incident energy. In addition to finally shedding light on the fundamental question of the tunnelling time, this experiment lays the groundwork for addressing deep foundational questions about history in quantum mechanics: for instance, what can we learn about where a particle was at earlier times by observing where it is now?
Abstract Tunneling is an outstanding physical process. The observation that particles surmount a high barrier in spite of the fact that they don't have the necessary energy can not be explained by classical physics. However, this so called tunneling became allowed by quantum mechanics. Experimental tunneling studies with different photonic barriers from microwave frequencies up to ultraviolet frequencies point towards a universal tunneling time [1, 2]. Tunneling can be described by virtual, that is, by unobservable particles [3]. In the case of tunneling there is a virtual particle between the real incident and the real transmitted particles. Tunneling modes are solutions of the Schrödinger and of the Helmholtz equations. The most prominent example of the occurrence of tunneling modes in optics is frustrated total internal reflection (FTIR) at double prisms. In 1949 Sommerfeld [4] pointed out that this optical phenomenon represents the analogy of quantum mechanical particle tunneling. Recent experimental and theoretical data confirmed the conjecture that the tunneling process is characterized by a universal tunneling time presumably independent of the kind of field. The observed tunneling processes proceeded at a time of the order of magnitude of the reciprocal frequency of the wave packets.