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.

Problems with the history[edit]

The history section claims that "Quantum tunneling was developed from the study of radioactivity", citing Razavy's book. Although Razavy does begin his historical survey from the experimental discovery of radioactivity and uses it as a background to introduce Gamow's theory of alpha decay, he never makes the above claim, but instead acknowledges that electron emission came first. A good historical survey on the early period can be found in Merzbacher's article.

The self-published article by Thomas Cuff which attempts to correct some of the history does not strike to me as a reliable source. The information about Robert Francis Earhart's contributions should be verified from another source.

The part about electron tunneling in solids is also problematic. The statement about Esaki's, Giaever's and Josephson's contributions is false, as Esaki's breakthrough had nothing to do with superconductivity. The water tunneling experiment is also only supported by a primary source, which cannot establish its historical notability. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concept: uncertainty or wave tail penetration?[edit]

The concept section ends with a puzzling discussion of the uncertainty principle and tunneling. I can't make out what it is trying to say.

It was my understanding that the qualitative model of tunneling was continuity of the wavefunction. The wave can't end abruptly at the barrier and thus it tails off with finite amplitude into and through the barrier. That is certainly the implication of TunnelEffektKling1.png later in the article.

I'm sure there is away to say this with the uncertainty principle, but I don't see why that would be advantageous. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's very confusing. I intend to rewrite this section, and am currently looking for sources. Wolf's Principles of Electron Tunneling Spectroscopy does introduce tunneling by explicitly referring to the continuity of the probability amplitude (and Born rule) but its not really an introductory text. The approach of J.R. Taylor's Modern physics might be useful. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]