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

Nature

Measurement of the time spent by a tunnelling atom within the barrier region

Ramón Ramos, David Spierings, Isabelle Racicot, Aephraim M. Steinberg

Published Jul 22, 2020• 186 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1038/s41586-020-2490-7

Related papers

Measuring the time spent traversing the barrier while tunneling

John M. Martinis, Michel Devoret, Daniel Esteve +1 more

Physica B Condensed Matter•Aug 1, 1988•17 citations

Tunneling time of electrons through a potential barrier

L. M. Baskin, D. Sokolovski

Russian Physics Journal•Mar 1, 1987•4 citations

Measuring the time tunneling particles spend in the barrier

David Spierings, Aephraim M. Steinberg

The question of how long a tunneling particle spends in the forbidden region of a barrier has been a perplexing puzzle in foundational quantum mechanics for many decades. The Larmor time, one definition of tunneling time, uses an auxiliary degree of freedom of the tunneling particles to clock the time spent inside the barrier. Recently, we made our first measurement of the Larmor time for Bose-condensed 87Rb atoms tunneling through an optical barrier.1 Here, we report on follow up measurements with improved precision in the measured times and also study the time for the reflected atomic cloud. We observe significant discrepancies between our results and a simple theory based on weak measurement. We discuss our findings, hypothesize explanations for our results, and suggest future studies.

Optical and Quantum Sensing and Precision Metrology II•Feb 25, 2020•7 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

The Tunneling Time of an Electron

K.K. Thornber, T. C. McGill, Carver Mead

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Mar 1, 1991•0 citations

Effect of atomic interactions on tunneling time measurements

David Spierings, Joseph McGowan, Nick Mantella +1 more

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Jun 1, 2021•0 citations
The question of how long a tunneling particle spends in the forbidden region of a barrier has been a perplexing puzzle in foundational quantum mechanics for many decades. The Larmor time, one definition of tunneling time, uses an auxiliary degree of freedom of the tunneling particles to clock the time spent inside the barrier. Recently, we made our first measurement of the Larmor time for Bose-condensed 87Rb atoms tunneling through an optical barrier.1 Here, we report on follow up measurements with improved precision in the measured times and also study the time for the reflected atomic cloud. We observe significant discrepancies between our results and a simple theory based on weak measurement. We discuss our findings, hypothesize explanations for our results, and suggest future studies.
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.