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

Cambridge University Press eBooks

Tunneling times

Partha Ghose

Published Apr 29, 1999• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.1017/cbo9780511585784.011

Related papers

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

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

Tunneling-time problem

C. Richard Leavens, Geoff C. Aers

The desire to minimize the response time of tunneling devices has led to renewed interest in the unresolved fundamental question How much time, on average, does an incident electron that is ultimately transmitted spend inside a one-dimensional potential barrier? In addition to this transmission time ⊤t ·,there are two other times of interest: the reflection time ⊤r for electrons that are ultimately reflected and the dwell time TD, which is the average time spent inside the barrier regardless of the ultimate fate of the incident particle. An exact expression for TD and the time-modulated barrier, Feynman path, Larmor clock, and wave-packet evolution approaches for calculating ⊤t and ⊤r arc discussed. It is argued that none of these approaches is completely satisfactory because they all lead to transmission and reflection times that either are complex or, if real, do not satisfy: all of a few reasonable (but not universally accepted) criteria, such as consistency with the exact expression for the dwell time.

Quantum Electronics and Laser Science Conference•May 12, 1991•2 citations

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

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

Universal tunneling time for all fields

G. Nimtz, A.A. Stahlhofen

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.

arXiv:0709.0921•Annalen der Physik•Apr 16, 2008•21 citations
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 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.
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.
The desire to minimize the response time of tunneling devices has led to renewed interest in the unresolved fundamental question How much time, on average, does an incident electron that is ultimately transmitted spend inside a one-dimensional potential barrier? In addition to this transmission time ⊤t ·,there are two other times of interest: the reflection time ⊤r for electrons that are ultimately reflected and the dwell time TD, which is the average time spent inside the barrier regardless of the ultimate fate of the incident particle. An exact expression for TD and the time-modulated barrier, Feynman path, Larmor clock, and wave-packet evolution approaches for calculating ⊤t and ⊤r arc discussed. It is argued that none of these approaches is completely satisfactory because they all lead to transmission and reflection times that either are complex or, if real, do not satisfy: all of a few reasonable (but not universally accepted) criteria, such as consistency with the exact expression for the dwell time.
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.
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.
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.