Talk:Quantum tunnelling

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Quantum tunnelling article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3: 90 days

Physics High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The tunneling problem[edit]

I'm trying to understand the section "The tunneling problem". It does not seem to be a "problem" but rather an explanation.

It features an animation, which is presumably related to some solution to a tunneling problem. But nothing is said about either.

Both the analytic and WKB one dimensional solutions for tunneling are static, time-independent models. Therefore I assume that the wave packet animation shown here is a linear combination of solutions for different energies combined with a unitary evolution phase factor carefully selected to give a localized envelop. Isn't this original research? If not, what is the reference? Johnjbarton (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The wave packet thing is altogether puzzling. It correctly shows partial transmission of the probability amplitude but, with the time dependent envelop, the partial transmission starts at zero, grows, then decays. What can that mean? What do we expect for the transmission cross section? Zero I suppose. So no tunneling right?

Are we to imagine that the wave packet represents a "particle" advancing from the left? So what then do we make of the transmitted wave? A tiny particle? The mass has split at the barrier? Is that tunneling?

Ok maybe I am beginning to understand why the section is named "the tunneling problem" ;-) Johnjbarton (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And! There are two "quantum" effects in quantum tunneling: 1) transmission at energies below the barrier height and 2) probabilistic quantum transmission. The second is just as important: a full quanta crosses at an unpredictable time. This physical behavior is completely contradicted by the deterministic partial transmission shown by the wave packet animation. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No hole?[edit]

The intro says

This tunnelling leaves the barrier unaffected (i.e. no hole is created in the barrier)

What can this possibly mean? The potential energy barrier is immaterial: it is a hole! Johnjbarton (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep[edit]

The intro has a sentence:

"It's as though a sheep on one side of a 100m tall wall suddenly appears on the other side without going round."

I get that this analogy might help get the energy barrier concept across. However, it makes quantum tunneling seems "magical", as in defying physical laws. But QM is the physical law and the fact that the wall stops the sheep is the magical part. In quantum tunneling, the barrier is entirely conceptual, an artifact of our model of the system. Envisioning the barrier as a wall leads to ridiculous questions like "is there a hole in the barrier"?

Are the sheep helpful? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to the concept[edit]

The section "Introduction to the concept" heads the entire article off in the wrong direction. The following statement is false:

In quantum mechanics, a particle can, with a small probability, tunnel to the other side, thus crossing the barrier.

It is this kind of statement that makes quantum tunneling so puzzling and description of it borderline misinformation.

In quantum mechanics there is no particle on the inside of the barrier. It is not possible to measure a particle then send it through a barrier and find it on the other side. We randomly observe particles outside of system we believe to be meta-stable. The model that predicts this result has a barrier (to provide meta-stability) and probability of observations. That's it. The randomness is what is non-classical.

Someday I will get the energy to get refs and redo this section. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]