Tunnel-effect possible for massless particles?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of the tunnel effect for massless particles, specifically photons, and the implications of potential barriers in this context. Participants explore the mathematical relationships governing tunneling, the nature of potential barriers for light, and the differences between massless and massive particles in quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the equation for the transmission coefficient T in relation to the tunneling effect, questioning how it applies to massless particles like photons, given that mass m=0 leads to K=0 and T=1.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of understanding the nature of the potential barrier for light, suggesting that the barriers for charged particles differ fundamentally from those applicable to photons.
  • A participant describes a specific experimental setup involving two prisms and attempts to relate the reflection coefficient to the energy of the barrier, seeking clarification on how the potential differs for massless particles.
  • There is a discussion about the meaning of U0 in the context of photons, with one participant asserting that it represents the energy of the barrier that photons must overcome, while another questions the applicability of traditional potential energy concepts to photons.
  • Concerns are raised about the interpretation of potential energy for photons, with references to gravitational effects and the nature of barriers that photons can interact with.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of potential barriers for photons and whether traditional tunneling equations apply to massless particles. There is no consensus on how to interpret the potential energy in this context, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in applying standard quantum mechanical tunneling concepts to massless particles, particularly regarding the definitions and implications of potential energy for photons. The discussion reveals a lack of clarity on what constitutes a potential barrier for light.

Max cohen
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
For the tunnel-effect, the relation between the transmissioncoefficent T and length of the barriere L is:

[itex]T=e^{-2KL}[/itex]

in which:

[itex]K=\sqrt{\frac{2m(U_0-E)}{\frac{h}{2\pi}^2}}[/itex]

Now, the tunnel-effect is possible for light right? But light means m=0, meaning K=0, meaningT=1!

I must be missing the point somewhere but I can't figure out where :confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Max cohen said:
For the tunnel-effect, the relation between the transmissioncoefficent T and length of the barriere L is:

[itex]T=e^{-2KL}[/itex]

in which:

[itex]K=\sqrt{\frac{2m(U_0-E)}{\frac{h}{2\pi}^2}}[/itex]

Now, the tunnel-effect is possible for light right? But light means m=0, meaning K=0, meaningT=1!

I must be missing the point somewhere but I can't figure out where :confused:

The major problem here is that you ignored is the nature of the "potential" that is providing the potential barrier for light to tunnel through. We know the nature of such barriers for charged particles, but what is this as far as light is concerned? It isn't the same barrier that charged particles are seeing.

You need to go back a bit and figure out if you're applying something that isn't valid to your situation.

Zz.
 
ZapperZ said:
The major problem here is that you ignored is the nature of the "potential" that is providing the potential barrier for light to tunnel through. We know the nature of such barriers for charged particles, but what is this as far as light is concerned? It isn't the same barrier that charged particles are seeing.

You need to go back a bit and figure out if you're applying something that isn't valid to your situation.

Zz.
I'm not sure I understand.

As for me, this situation is with two 45 degrees prisma closely located next to each other so that some of the light goes thru and some is reflected. You can measure the reflecioncoefficient from the formula in my post so I thought it would be nice to calculate the energy of the barrier with this data, but as I it doens't work out. So then how exactly is this barrier different for a charged particle then for massless particles? How could I figure this out?
 
Max cohen said:
I'm not sure I understand.

As for me, this situation is with two 45 degrees prisma closely located next to each other so that some of the light goes thru and some is reflected. You can measure the reflecioncoefficient from the formula in my post so I thought it would be nice to calculate the energy of the barrier with this data, but as I it doens't work out. So then how exactly is this barrier different for a charged particle then for massless particles? How could I figure this out?

What is U0 is in your equation? What is it supposed to be?

It is the Potential Energy that the particle is in. If it is a charge particle, this can be the electrostatic potential. If U0 is zero or constant throughout, you have a FREE particle. Thus, my question is, what is the potential field here for your photon? It can't be gravity because the warping of space-time manifold that causes gravity is naively the "geodesic" for the photon path. Thus, this is not the "potential" that is meant in a non-relativistic QM/Schrödinger equation.

So what is U0 in your equation as far as a photon is concerned?

Zz.
 
ZapperZ said:
What is U0 is in your equation? What is it supposed to be?

It is the Potential Energy that the particle is in. If it is a charge particle, this can be the electrostatic potential. If U0 is zero or constant throughout, you have a FREE particle. Thus, my question is, what is the potential field here for your photon? It can't be gravity because the warping of space-time manifold that causes gravity is naively the "geodesic" for the photon path. Thus, this is not the "potential" that is meant in a non-relativistic QM/Schrödinger equation.

So what is U0 in your equation as far as a photon is concerned?

Zz.
Still not sure I'm getting this right. In the formula U0 is supposed to be the energy of the barrier and E is the potential energy of the photon (since if otherwise, K would be a complex number). Before the photon reaches the barrier, it's energy is E=hf (if the particle would be charged things would be different indeed). Since I know the frequency of the photon, this can be calculated. Now U0 is supposed to be the energy that it will take to get the photon thru this barrier, knowing that U0>E. In my situation, U0 would be the energy that it takes for a photon to get out of the prisma, get thru the air and make it into the other prisma though it's classicly seen really not supposed to.

I don't understand what this has to do with warping of spacetime :rolleyes:
 
Max cohen said:
Still not sure I'm getting this right. In the formula U0 is supposed to be the energy of the barrier and E is the potential energy of the photon (since if otherwise, K would be a complex number). Before the photon reaches the barrier, it's energy is E=hf (if the particle would be charged things would be different indeed). Since I know the frequency of the photon, this can be calculated. Now U0 is supposed to be the energy that it will take to get the photon thru this barrier, knowing that U0>E. In my situation, U0 would be the energy that it takes for a photon to get out of the prisma, get thru the air and make it into the other prisma though it's classicly seen really not supposed to.

I don't understand what this has to do with warping of spacetime :rolleyes:

You need to double check what all those symbols you are using really mean.

E is the kinetic energy of the system (usually the total energy since the rest mass energy is ignored in typical cases such as this). U0 is the potential energy. But what is the potential energy OF A PHOTON? If this is a charged particle, the potential energy is the ELECTROSTATIC potential barrier! The particle could be in an electrostatic potential well, and it is trying to tunnel out of that well. In other words, it is the TYPE of potential that it can INTERACT with in the first place.

What you have studied is the GENERIC potential barrier of ANY kind. When you start applying it to a particle, then it DOES matter what kind of a barrier you are giving it. A particle with a mass will have a gravitational potential barrier. A charged particle will have an electrostatic potential barrier, etc.

So now you have to consider, what kind of a potential barrier is there for a photon? it doesn't interact with electrostatic and magnetic field (at least not for straightforward QM tunneling), and it doesn't interact with gravitational field (for non-relativistic case and that's why I mentioned the spacetime warping to make sure we don't include that). What possible barrier could you put in there? A dielectric material such as a glass? But is this really a tunneling phenomenon? It isn't!

Zz.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Wavefunction properties tunneling effect
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Massless fermions Klein tunneling
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Graduate Question about coefficients of massless quantum fields
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Deriving the time-dependent wave equation from Energy eigenfunctions
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Writing the wave function solutions for a particle in a 2-D box
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad What happens when a particle observes itself during quantum tunneling?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad Some notes on stochastic physics
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad I want to understand how the transmission coefficient is obtained
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Undergrad What Is the Tunnel Effect in Time-Independent Quantum Mechanics?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Is the superposition of mesons (such as pion) a new particle?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K