In this continuation paper we will address the problem of tunneling. We will show how to settle this phenomenon within our classical interpretation. It will be shown that, rigorously speaking, there is no tunnel effect at all.
In this essay I survey recent developments in the theory of tunnelling times in quantum mechanics. The study of this concept is polarised depending on one’s interpretation of quantum mechanics, which require different approaches and yield starkly different results. I survey this topic through the lenses of the orthodox (Copenhagen) and de Broglie-Bohm (pilot wave) interpretations, presenting the requisite theory and definitions and expounding the literature of the original authors through proofs and figures. I do this in sections 2 and 3 respectively. Before embarking on tunnelling times as a topic, I survey the conceptual aspects of how time is treated in classical and quantum mechanics. This topic has many subtle aspects which have hindered progress in understanding tunnelling times in the past. In this essay I hope to demonstrate the success that has been achieved in recent years, but also that further theoretical and experimental work is required, if we are to arrive at a universally accepted definition of tunnelling times in quantum mechanics - if indeed such a definition exists.
Abstract The purpose of this book is to present an interpretation of quantum mechanics. But what are we talking about when we speak of “quantum mechanics?” Are we talking about a single theory or about many related theories? And what do we mean by “interpretation” here? In this chapter, I will address these questions in an introductory way. Of course, I do not intend to take part in the extensive discussions about what a scientific theory is, what is meant by interpreting a theory, in what situation we encounter equivalent theories, and many other questions related to or derived from these. My aim here is to present some preliminary ideas in a way that I hope will be sufficient to avoid misunderstandings in the following chapters. But, above all, I will state my position as to why, after so many years and so much literature on the subject, the interpretation of quantum mechanics deserves further discussion.
N 1923, during the infancy of the quantum theory, de Broglie [ 11 introducted a new fundamental hypothesis that matter may be endowed with a dualistic natureparticles may also have the characteristics of waves. This hypothesis, in the hands of Schrodinger [2] found expression in the definite form now known as the Schrodinger wave equation, whereby an electron or a particle is assumed to be represented by a solution to this equation. The continuous nonzero nature of such solutions, even in classically forbidden regions of negative kinetic energy, implies an ability to penetrate such forbidden regions and a probability of tunneling from one classically allowed region to another. The concept of tunneling, indeed, arises from this quantum-mechanical result. The subsequent experimental manifestations of this concept can be regarded as one of the early triumphs of the quantum theory. In 1928, theoretical physicists believed that tunneling could occur by the distortion, lowering or thinning, of a potential barrier under an externally applied high electric field. Oppenheimer [3] attributed the autoionization of excited states of atomic hydrogen to the tunnel effect: The coulombic potential well which binds an atomic electron could be distorted by a strong electric field so that the electron would see a finite potential barrier through which it could tunnel. Fowler and Nordheim [4] explained, on the basis of electron tunneling, the main features of the phenomenon of electron emission from cold metals by high external electric fields, which had been unexplained since its observation by Lilienfeld [SI in 1922. They proposed a one-dimensional model. Metal electrons are confined by a potential wall whose height is determined by the work function 9 plus the Fermi energy E/, and the wall thickness is substantially decreased with an externally applied high electric field, allowing electrons to tunnel through the potential wall, as shown in Fig. 1. They successfully derived the well-known Fowler-Nordheim formula for the current as a function of electric field F: J = AF* exp [-4(2nr)1'*t$a'*/3kF]. An application of these ideas which followed almost immediately came in the model for a decay as a tunneling process put forth by Gamow [6] and Gurney and Condon [7]. Subsequently, Rice [8] extended this theory to the description of molecular dissociation. The next important development was an attempt to invoke tunneling in order to understand transport properties of electrical contacts between two solid conductors. The problems of metal-to-metal and semiconductor-to-metal contacts are important technically, because they are directly related to electrical switches and rectifiers or detectors.
N 1923, during the infancy of the quantum theory, de Broglie [ 11 introducted a new fundamental hypothesis that matter may be endowed with a dualistic natureparticles may also have the characteristics of waves. This hypothesis, in the hands of Schrodinger [2] found expression in the definite form now known as the Schrodinger wave equation, whereby an electron or a particle is assumed to be represented by a solution to this equation. The continuous nonzero nature of such solutions, even in classically forbidden regions of negative kinetic energy, implies an ability to penetrate such forbidden regions and a probability of tunneling from one classically allowed region to another. The concept of tunneling, indeed, arises from this quantum-mechanical result. The subsequent experimental manifestations of this concept can be regarded as one of the early triumphs of the quantum theory. In 1928, theoretical physicists believed that tunneling could occur by the distortion, lowering or thinning, of a potential barrier under an externally applied high electric field. Oppenheimer [3] attributed the autoionization of excited states of atomic hydrogen to the tunnel effect: The coulombic potential well which binds an atomic electron could be distorted by a strong electric field so that the electron would see a finite potential barrier through which it could tunnel. Fowler and Nordheim [4] explained, on the basis of electron tunneling, the main features of the phenomenon of electron emission from cold metals by high external electric fields, which had been unexplained since its observation by Lilienfeld [SI in 1922. They proposed a one-dimensional model. Metal electrons are confined by a potential wall whose height is determined by the work function 9 plus the Fermi energy E/, and the wall thickness is substantially decreased with an externally applied high electric field, allowing electrons to tunnel through the potential wall, as shown in Fig. 1. They successfully derived the well-known Fowler-Nordheim formula for the current as a function of electric field F: J = AF* exp [-4(2nr)1'*t$a'*/3kF]. An application of these ideas which followed almost immediately came in the model for a decay as a tunneling process put forth by Gamow [6] and Gurney and Condon [7]. Subsequently, Rice [8] extended this theory to the description of molecular dissociation. The next important development was an attempt to invoke tunneling in order to understand transport properties of electrical contacts between two solid conductors. The problems of metal-to-metal and semiconductor-to-metal contacts are important technically, because they are directly related to electrical switches and rectifiers or detectors.
The halflife of αradioactive elements has already been measured out through experiments. But, classical theory's failure to explain the phenomenon of αDecay is found in this article according to the analysis of the mechanism of αDecay. And in this article, this problem is completely settled through introducing of the theory of quantum tunneling effect yet. Furthermore, the halflife of αDecay of238U is illustrated and figured out with this theory, and is approximately in accordance with the figure of experiments.
Parallel analyses of matter penetrating a barrier are analyzed, one using electrodynamics, the other using quantum mechanics. Mathematical operations are performed to show the identical nature of the phenomena of reflection above the barrier and of penetration of the barrier in quantum mechanics and in classical electrodynamics. It is shown that, in reality, the tunneling effect is not a “purely quantum phenomenon”. Проведено параллельное рассмотрение прохождения материи через барьер методами электродинамики и квантовой механики. Математически строго получена абсолютная идентичность надбарьерного отражения и подбарьерного прохождения, как в квантовой механике, так и в классической электродинамике. Показано, что определение туннельного эффекта как «чисто квантового явления» – не соответствует действительности. Проведено паралельне дослідження проходження матерії через бар’єр методами електродинаміки та квантової механіки. Математично виключно отримана абсолютна ідентичність надбар’єрного відбиття та підбар’єрного проходження як у квантовій механіці так і в класичній електродинаміці. Показано, що визначення тунельного ефекту як «чисто квантового явища» – не відповідає дійсності.