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

On the status of quantum tunneling times

Grace E. Field

Published May 21, 2020• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

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.

Related papers

On the status of quantum tunnelling time

Grace E. Field

Abstract How long does a quantum particle take to traverse a classically forbidden energy barrier? In other words, what is the correct expression for quantum tunnelling time? This seemingly simple question has inspired widespread debate in the physics literature. I argue that we should not expect the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics to provide a unique correct expression for quantum tunnelling time, because to do so it would have to provide a unique correct answer to a question whose assumptions are in tension with its core interpretational commitments. 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, the prospect of constructing experimental tests to distinguish between different interpretations, and the status of weak measurement in resolving questions about the histories of subensembles.

European Journal for Philosophy of Science•Sep 27, 2022•10 citations

Tunneling times

Partha Ghose

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.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 29, 1999•0 citations

The quantum mechanical tunnelling time problem-revisited

Stephen P. Collins, David Lowe, J R Barker

A long-standing argument in elementary quantum mechanics concerns the prescription which specifies how long it takes for a particle to tunnel through a classically forbidden region. In this paper, the controversy is reviewed by analysing a selection of principal contenders and comparing with the authors' own analytic expressions and numerical simulations. Their overall conclusion is that the phase-time result originally obtained by Wigner (1955) and Hartman (1962) is the best expression to use for a wide parameter range of barriers, energies and wavepackets.

Journal of Physics C Solid State Physics•Dec 30, 1987•138 citations

Quantum tunneling time: Insights from an exactly solvable model

Seyedmohammad Yusofsani, M. Kolesík

Quantum particles interacting with potential barriers are ubiquitous in physics, and the question of how much time they spend inside classically forbidden regions has attracted interest for many decades. Recent developments of new experimental techniques revived the issue and ignited a debate with often contradictory results. This motivates the present study of an exactly solvable model for quantum tunneling induced by a strong field. We show that the tunneling dynamics can depart significantly from the scenario in which the barrier-traversal time is zero or very small. However, our findings do not support the idea of a well-defined tunneling time either. Our numerically exact results should help in finding a consensus about this fundamental problem.

arXiv:2107.01737•Physical Review A•May 27, 2020•20 citations

Barrier interaction time in tunneling

Rolf W. Landauer, Th. Martin

Over sixty years ago, it was suggested that there is a time associated with the passage of a particle under a tunneling barrier. The existence of such a time is now well accepted; in fact the time has been measured experimentally. There is no clear consensus, however, about the existence of a simple expression for this time, and the exact nature of that expression. The proposed expressions fall into three main classes. The authors argue that expressions based on following a feature of a wave packet through the barrier have little physical significance. A second class tries to identify a set of classical paths associated with the quantum-mechanical motion and then tries to average over these. This class is too diverse to permit assessment as a single entity. The third class invokes a physical clock involving degrees of freedom in addition to that involved in tunneling. This not only is a prescription for the derivation of expressions for the traversal time but also leads to a direct relationship to experiment.

Reviews of Modern Physics•Jan 1, 1994•769 citations

Model studies of tunneling time

Z.-H. Huang, Paul H. Cutler, T. E. Feuchtwang +3 more

The precise definition and physical interpretation of a tunneling time is a fundamental problem in quantum mechanics. The lack of a well-defined time operator in quantum theory precludes the calculation of time in terms of an expectation value. Consequently, model calculations and simulation studies have been proposed and used to determine the time for a particle to traverse a quantum-mechanical barrier. The results offer both qualitatively and quantitatively, disparate predictions. One of the more commonly used approaches is the phase method, which we have applied to several one-dimensional model potentials to show that the tunneling time is characterized by the ratio of the typical decay length in the barrier to the incident velocity, τ∼(1/κ)/v0. We also show that the phase and the spin precession methods are equivalent when the magnetic field is applied throughout the space containing the particle wave function and the tunneling barrier. In principle, the spin precession method can be regarded as an operational definition of the tunneling time. It also has been shown that a tunneling time can be defined operationally for a time-dependent barrier, for which the model calculations predict a tunneling time given by the mean barrier width divided by the magnitude of the imaginary velocity of the particle in the barrier, τ∼d/‖v‖. This pseudokinematic result has been inferred by magnetic field dependent tunneling through heterostructures and computer simulation of wave packet tunneling through one-dimensional square barriers. Other tunneling time theories predict one or the other of the above mentioned characteristic times; several theories predict both. We interpret these different results for τ to mean that a tunneling time is not uniquely defined as a function of particle energy and the barrier shape unless the process in which the tunneling is involved is also specified. That is, the tunneling time is a meaningful and unique concept only for particular tunneling processes or definite operational procedures.

Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A Vacuum Surfaces and Films•Jan 1, 1990•12 citations
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.
Abstract How long does a quantum particle take to traverse a classically forbidden energy barrier? In other words, what is the correct expression for quantum tunnelling time? This seemingly simple question has inspired widespread debate in the physics literature. I argue that we should not expect the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics to provide a unique correct expression for quantum tunnelling time, because to do so it would have to provide a unique correct answer to a question whose assumptions are in tension with its core interpretational commitments. 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, the prospect of constructing experimental tests to distinguish between different interpretations, and the status of weak measurement in resolving questions about the histories of subensembles.
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.
A long-standing argument in elementary quantum mechanics concerns the prescription which specifies how long it takes for a particle to tunnel through a classically forbidden region. In this paper, the controversy is reviewed by analysing a selection of principal contenders and comparing with the authors' own analytic expressions and numerical simulations. Their overall conclusion is that the phase-time result originally obtained by Wigner (1955) and Hartman (1962) is the best expression to use for a wide parameter range of barriers, energies and wavepackets.
Quantum particles interacting with potential barriers are ubiquitous in physics, and the question of how much time they spend inside classically forbidden regions has attracted interest for many decades. Recent developments of new experimental techniques revived the issue and ignited a debate with often contradictory results. This motivates the present study of an exactly solvable model for quantum tunneling induced by a strong field. We show that the tunneling dynamics can depart significantly from the scenario in which the barrier-traversal time is zero or very small. However, our findings do not support the idea of a well-defined tunneling time either. Our numerically exact results should help in finding a consensus about this fundamental problem.
Over sixty years ago, it was suggested that there is a time associated with the passage of a particle under a tunneling barrier. The existence of such a time is now well accepted; in fact the time has been measured experimentally. There is no clear consensus, however, about the existence of a simple expression for this time, and the exact nature of that expression. The proposed expressions fall into three main classes. The authors argue that expressions based on following a feature of a wave packet through the barrier have little physical significance. A second class tries to identify a set of classical paths associated with the quantum-mechanical motion and then tries to average over these. This class is too diverse to permit assessment as a single entity. The third class invokes a physical clock involving degrees of freedom in addition to that involved in tunneling. This not only is a prescription for the derivation of expressions for the traversal time but also leads to a direct relationship to experiment.
The precise definition and physical interpretation of a tunneling time is a fundamental problem in quantum mechanics. The lack of a well-defined time operator in quantum theory precludes the calculation of time in terms of an expectation value. Consequently, model calculations and simulation studies have been proposed and used to determine the time for a particle to traverse a quantum-mechanical barrier. The results offer both qualitatively and quantitatively, disparate predictions. One of the more commonly used approaches is the phase method, which we have applied to several one-dimensional model potentials to show that the tunneling time is characterized by the ratio of the typical decay length in the barrier to the incident velocity, τ∼(1/κ)/v0. We also show that the phase and the spin precession methods are equivalent when the magnetic field is applied throughout the space containing the particle wave function and the tunneling barrier. In principle, the spin precession method can be regarded as an operational definition of the tunneling time. It also has been shown that a tunneling time can be defined operationally for a time-dependent barrier, for which the model calculations predict a tunneling time given by the mean barrier width divided by the magnitude of the imaginary velocity of the particle in the barrier, τ∼d/‖v‖. This pseudokinematic result has been inferred by magnetic field dependent tunneling through heterostructures and computer simulation of wave packet tunneling through one-dimensional square barriers. Other tunneling time theories predict one or the other of the above mentioned characteristic times; several theories predict both. We interpret these different results for τ to mean that a tunneling time is not uniquely defined as a function of particle energy and the barrier shape unless the process in which the tunneling is involved is also specified. That is, the tunneling time is a meaningful and unique concept only for particular tunneling processes or definite operational procedures.