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

Europhysics Letters (EPL)

Partial- and full-tunneling processes across potential barriers

Philip Caesar Flores, Dean Alvin L. Pablico, Eric A. Galapon

Published Feb 28, 2024• 4 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract We introduce the concept of partial-tunneling and full-tunneling processes to explain the seemingly contradictory non-zero and vanishing tunneling times often reported in the literature. Our analysis starts by considering the traversal time of a quantum particle through a potential barrier, including both above- and below-barrier traversals, using the theory of time-of-arrival operators. We then show that there are three traversal processes corresponding to non-tunneling, full tunneling, and partial tunneling. The distinction among the three depends on the support of the incident wave packet's energy distribution in relation to the shape of the barrier. Non-tunneling happens when the energy distribution of the quantum particle lies above the maximum of the potential barrier. Otherwise, full-tunneling process occurs when the energy distribution of the particle is below the minimum of the potential barrier. For this process, the obtained traversal time is interpreted as the tunneling time. Finally, the partial-tunneling process occurs when the energy distribution lies between the minimum and maximum of the potential barrier. This signifies that the quantum particle tunneled only through some portions of the potential barrier. We argue that the duration for a partial-tunneling process should not be interpreted as the tunneling time but instead as a partial traversal time to differentiate it from the full-tunneling process. We then show that a full-tunneling process is always instantaneous, while a partial-tunneling process takes a non-zero amount of time. We are then led to the hypothesis that experimentally measured non-zero and vanishing tunneling times correspond to partial- and full-tunneling processes, respectively.

DOI
10.1209/0295-5075/ad2e7a

Related papers

Partial and full tunneling processes across potential barriers

Philip Caesar Flores, Dean Alvin L. Pablico, Eric A. Galapon

We introduce the concept of partial and full tunneling processes to explain the seemingly contradictory non-zero and vanishing tunneling times often reported in the literature. Our analysis starts by considering the traversal time of a quantum particle through a potential barrier, including both above and below-barrier traversals, using the theory of time-of-arrival operators. We then show that there are three traversal processes corresponding to non-tunneling, full-tunneling, and partial tunneling. The distinction between the three depends on the support of the incident wavepackets energy distribution in relation to the shape of the barrier. Non-tunneling happens when the energy distribution of the quantum particle lies above the maximum of the potential barrier. Otherwise, full-tunneling process occurs when the energy distribution of the particle is below the minimum of the potential barrier. For this process, the obtained traversal time is interpreted as the tunneling time. Finally, the partial-tunneling process occurs when the energy distribution lies between the minimum and maximum of the potential barrier. This signifies that the quantum particle tunneled only through some portions of the potential barrier. We argue that the duration for a partial-tunneling process should not be interpreted as the tunneling time but instead as a partial traversal time to differentiate it from the full-tunneling process. We then show that a full-tunneling process is always instantaneous, while a partial-tunneling process takes a non-zero amount of time. We are then led to the hypothesis that experimentally measured non-zero and vanishing tunneling times correspond to partial and full-tunneling processes, respectively.

arXiv:2305.09260•May 16, 2023•0 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

Deciphering Quantum Tunneling Dynamics: Insights from Sub-Barrier Interactions and Complex Time Analysis

Xiwang Liu, Xiaokai Li, Yichong Lin +7 more

Quantum tunneling, a quintessential quantum phenomenon, challenges classical intuitions by allowing particles to pass through seemingly insurmountable barriers. This study delves into the intricate dynamics of electron tunneling, focusing on the critical role of sub-barrier interactions and complex time processes. Through a combination of experimental measurements and simulations based on Feynman’s path integral of complex time trajectories, we reveal that the sub-barrier potential interaction introduces an asymmetric electron wave packet probability distribution along the real time axis and a marked delay at the tunneling exit. The energy-dependent behavior of this delay in electronic tunneling agrees with that observed in the previous atomic tunneling studies, suggesting a universal mechanism underlying quantum tunneling across different scales. Our findings underscore the necessity of incorporating both the wave and particle aspects of quantum entities to fully comprehend tunneling dynamics, which holds promise for an intuitive interpretation of complex-number quantum processes.

Ultrafast Science•Oct 13, 2025•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

Time-dependent Interactions in Tunnelling Dynamics

Luca Nanni

In this paper, the tunnelling of a particle through a potential barrier is investigated in the presence of a time-dependent perturbation. The latter is attributed to the process of the energy measurement of the scattered particle. The time-dependent Schrödinger equation of the model is exactly solved. The probability density inside the barrier is calculated from the obtained wave function, proving that the tunnelling dynamics is determined not only by the transmitted and reflected waves but also by their interference. Furthermore, the interference term is time-dependent and contribute to the scattering process duration. The tunnelling time is calculated as the time needed to get the probability density inside the barrier to zero. This is the minimum duration of the measurement process before detecting the particle beyond the barrier. Based on this, a new method of estimating the tunnelling time by energy experimental measuring is proposed.

arXiv:2203.04882•Revista Mexicana de Física•Feb 9, 2022•1 citation

Quantum Tunneling Without Transit: Near-Instantaneous Barrier Traversal as Global Structural Failure of an Extended Wave Packet

An Haizhong

The question of how long a particle takes to tunnel through a potential barrier has remained unresolved for decades. Attoclock experiments report traversal times consistent with zero, while Larmor clock measurements yield small but nonzero durations---a discrepancy recently traced to the two methods measuring fundamentally different quantities. We propose a resolution based on a discrete field-quantum network model whose continuum limit is the nonlinear Klein--Gordon equation. In this framework, a particle is not a point object localized on one side of a barrier: it is an extended structure whose electromagnetic and gravitational stress fields---carrying a significant fraction of its total energy---penetrate the barrier and extend to the far side. When a detector on the far side couples resonantly to this pre-existing stress tail, the particle's global structural integrity fails instantaneously, delivering its full energy to the detection point without any transit through the barrier. The ``tunneling time'' is near-zero not because the particle moves superluminally, but because it was already present on both sides before detection. This picture naturally explains the attoclock's null result (no transit occurs), the Larmor clock's nonzero reading (spin precession accumulates in the extended field within the barrier), and the established exponential decay of tunneling probability with barrier width (the stress-field amplitude decays exponentially in classically forbidden regions). No new parameters or modifications to quantum mechanics are introduced.

•Apr 24, 2026•0 citations
Abstract We introduce the concept of partial-tunneling and full-tunneling processes to explain the seemingly contradictory non-zero and vanishing tunneling times often reported in the literature. Our analysis starts by considering the traversal time of a quantum particle through a potential barrier, including both above- and below-barrier traversals, using the theory of time-of-arrival operators. We then show that there are three traversal processes corresponding to non-tunneling, full tunneling, and partial tunneling. The distinction among the three depends on the support of the incident wave packet's energy distribution in relation to the shape of the barrier. Non-tunneling happens when the energy distribution of the quantum particle lies above the maximum of the potential barrier. Otherwise, full-tunneling process occurs when the energy distribution of the particle is below the minimum of the potential barrier. For this process, the obtained traversal time is interpreted as the tunneling time. Finally, the partial-tunneling process occurs when the energy distribution lies between the minimum and maximum of the potential barrier. This signifies that the quantum particle tunneled only through some portions of the potential barrier. We argue that the duration for a partial-tunneling process should not be interpreted as the tunneling time but instead as a partial traversal time to differentiate it from the full-tunneling process. We then show that a full-tunneling process is always instantaneous, while a partial-tunneling process takes a non-zero amount of time. We are then led to the hypothesis that experimentally measured non-zero and vanishing tunneling times correspond to partial- and full-tunneling processes, respectively.
We introduce the concept of partial and full tunneling processes to explain the seemingly contradictory non-zero and vanishing tunneling times often reported in the literature. Our analysis starts by considering the traversal time of a quantum particle through a potential barrier, including both above and below-barrier traversals, using the theory of time-of-arrival operators. We then show that there are three traversal processes corresponding to non-tunneling, full-tunneling, and partial tunneling. The distinction between the three depends on the support of the incident wavepackets energy distribution in relation to the shape of the barrier. Non-tunneling happens when the energy distribution of the quantum particle lies above the maximum of the potential barrier. Otherwise, full-tunneling process occurs when the energy distribution of the particle is below the minimum of the potential barrier. For this process, the obtained traversal time is interpreted as the tunneling time. Finally, the partial-tunneling process occurs when the energy distribution lies between the minimum and maximum of the potential barrier. This signifies that the quantum particle tunneled only through some portions of the potential barrier. We argue that the duration for a partial-tunneling process should not be interpreted as the tunneling time but instead as a partial traversal time to differentiate it from the full-tunneling process. We then show that a full-tunneling process is always instantaneous, while a partial-tunneling process takes a non-zero amount of time. We are then led to the hypothesis that experimentally measured non-zero and vanishing tunneling times correspond to partial and full-tunneling processes, respectively.
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.
Quantum tunneling, a quintessential quantum phenomenon, challenges classical intuitions by allowing particles to pass through seemingly insurmountable barriers. This study delves into the intricate dynamics of electron tunneling, focusing on the critical role of sub-barrier interactions and complex time processes. Through a combination of experimental measurements and simulations based on Feynman’s path integral of complex time trajectories, we reveal that the sub-barrier potential interaction introduces an asymmetric electron wave packet probability distribution along the real time axis and a marked delay at the tunneling exit. The energy-dependent behavior of this delay in electronic tunneling agrees with that observed in the previous atomic tunneling studies, suggesting a universal mechanism underlying quantum tunneling across different scales. Our findings underscore the necessity of incorporating both the wave and particle aspects of quantum entities to fully comprehend tunneling dynamics, which holds promise for an intuitive interpretation of complex-number quantum processes.
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.
In this paper, the tunnelling of a particle through a potential barrier is investigated in the presence of a time-dependent perturbation. The latter is attributed to the process of the energy measurement of the scattered particle. The time-dependent Schrödinger equation of the model is exactly solved. The probability density inside the barrier is calculated from the obtained wave function, proving that the tunnelling dynamics is determined not only by the transmitted and reflected waves but also by their interference. Furthermore, the interference term is time-dependent and contribute to the scattering process duration. The tunnelling time is calculated as the time needed to get the probability density inside the barrier to zero. This is the minimum duration of the measurement process before detecting the particle beyond the barrier. Based on this, a new method of estimating the tunnelling time by energy experimental measuring is proposed.
The question of how long a particle takes to tunnel through a potential barrier has remained unresolved for decades. Attoclock experiments report traversal times consistent with zero, while Larmor clock measurements yield small but nonzero durations---a discrepancy recently traced to the two methods measuring fundamentally different quantities. We propose a resolution based on a discrete field-quantum network model whose continuum limit is the nonlinear Klein--Gordon equation. In this framework, a particle is not a point object localized on one side of a barrier: it is an extended structure whose electromagnetic and gravitational stress fields---carrying a significant fraction of its total energy---penetrate the barrier and extend to the far side. When a detector on the far side couples resonantly to this pre-existing stress tail, the particle's global structural integrity fails instantaneously, delivering its full energy to the detection point without any transit through the barrier. The ``tunneling time'' is near-zero not because the particle moves superluminally, but because it was already present on both sides before detection. This picture naturally explains the attoclock's null result (no transit occurs), the Larmor clock's nonzero reading (spin precession accumulates in the extended field within the barrier), and the established exponential decay of tunneling probability with barrier width (the stress-field amplitude decays exponentially in classically forbidden regions). No new parameters or modifications to quantum mechanics are introduced.