- #1
SameerTahir
- 3
- 1
If a micro-particle tunnel through a barrier which has higher potential energy than the energy of the particle, then from where does the particle get the energy to cross that barrier?
One interpretation, which is more-or-less standard, is that the particle does not "cross" the barrier, but simply appears on the other side without ever being in the barrier itself. In the Bohmian interpretation of QM, the particle travels across the barrier and needed energy comes from the quantum potential. If you want an answer that does not depend on interpretation, then see the answer by @jtbell above.SameerTahir said:If a micro-particle tunnel through a barrier which has higher potential energy than the energy of the particle, then from where does the particle get the energy to cross that barrier?
Now occurred to me that wave function does not vanish in the barrier, so there is a finite probability for the particle to be found in the barrier. How is it consistent with energy conservation? The answer is that, in this case, it is the measurement apparatus (that measures position in the barrier) that gives the particle extra energy. This is one more demonstration of quantum contextuality, that is the fact that measurement does not merely reveal the preexisting values of observables, but changes the properties of the measured system itself. Measuring position in a state which is initially an energy eigenstate is very much analogous to measuring spin in x-direction in a state which is initially an eigenstate of spin in z-direction.jtbell said:At some point in time, we observe the particle on one side of the barrier. At some later point in time, we observe the particle on the other side of the barrier.
QM is silent about what the particle "really" does between observations; in particular, about whether the particle was "really" inside the barrier itself.
jtbell said:At some point in time, we observe the particle on one side of the barrier. At some later point in time, we observe the particle on the other side of the barrier.
QM is silent about what the particle "really" does between observations; in particular, about whether the particle was "really" inside the barrier itself.
vanhees71 said:Could you refer to original papers about this experimental findings. I don't understand what you mean.
Demystifier said:Now occurred to me that wave function does not vanish in the barrier, so there is a finite probability for the particle to be found in the barrier. How is it consistent with energy conservation? The answer is that, in this case, it is the measurement apparatus (that measures position in the barrier) that gives the particle extra energy. This is one more demonstration of quantum contextuality, that is the fact that measurement does not merely reveal the preexisting values of observables, but changes the properties of the measured system itself. Measuring position in a state which is initially an energy eigenstate is very much analogous to measuring spin in x-direction in a state which is initially an eigenstate of spin in z-direction.
SameerTahir said:If a micro-particle tunnel through a barrier which has higher potential energy than the energy of the particle, then from where does the particle get the energy to cross that barrier?
ZapperZ said:If the particle's energy is larger than the potential barrier's energy, then this might as well be a classical event.
The particle has its own kinetic energy, and in a ballistic tunneling, this energy is conserved. It doesn't need any extra energy to go through the barrier, because this is not directly an event that consumes energy. When it exits on the other side, it has the same energy as before.
This is why this is a quantum mechanical phenomenon.
Zz.
PhilQ said:So are you saying a free electron, happily migrating through a metal and near a MIM structure, and with kinetic energy of 0.01234eV, has some probability of tunnelling through the MIM (which has say, a 2nm thick insulator with measured barrier heights (total) of say 1eV), and emerge with a kinetic energy of 0.01234eV in the other metal, where it is free to continue its unbound journey?
bhobba said:Please explain what you mean by migrating through the metal? The tunneling effect speaks of nothing like that. It simply predicts the probability of where you will find the particle. It's just a weird quantum effect - no more than that - if you try and read more into it you will go down the gurgler. Simply accept QM as a theory about probabilities as described in the following and you never run into problems:
https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html
Applying classical intuition to QM is fraught with danger.
Thanks
Bill
PhilQ said:Bill, let me be more direct and clear, there is too much wishy washy talk of electrons tunnelling when their energy is less than a MIM barrier(s) of say 0.2eV. Are people seriously believing that there are tunnelling electrons with kinetic energy of say 0.1eV? or as I asked 0.01234eV?
bhobba said:I am saying QM is a theory about probabilities - specifically probabilities of observations. Talking about what's going on such as tunneling through without specifying the observational context of such a statement is not what QM is about. You must understand what the theory says and use language appropriate to what it says. What do you mean by tunneling particles - describe exactly the observational context you are considering. The observational context of the quantum well where it 'tunnels' through the well is it gives the probability of finding the particle - some of the probability is outside the well. There is no 'tunneling' involved such as say a termite tunneling through some wood. Its just a name for a weird effect.
Thanks
Bill
PhilQ said:all I asked for was a number followed by eV.
PeterDonis said:And what @bhobba is trying to tell you is that there is no such number. The electrons do not have a kinetic energy during tunnelling, because you are not measuring their kinetic energy during tunnelling. If you don't explicitly measure a particular property of a quantum object, you cannot treat it as having that property. That's just how QM works.
If you want to get more specific than that, then, as @bhobba said, you need to get more specific about exactly what you are going to measure and how you are going to measure it. Just saying "the electron tunnels through the barrier" won't cut it. If you're not familiar enough with actual experiments and results to be able to get that specific, then the response should be obvious: fix that.
PhilQ said:Take almost any text or explanation tritely offered, people will talk about a barrier, an electron approaching said barrier, and the probability that it will pass through that barrier even if the barrier is "higher" than the electrons kinetic energy.
PhilQ said:People talk
PhilQ said:These examples are what I am calling out
PhilQ said:These examples are what I am calling out, but people here seem to want to give me a lecture on QM rather than saying the teaching is bad.
PhilQ said:People talk about the energy of an electron approaching a barrier, what do they mean by an electron's energy, if not its kinetic energy.
PeterDonis said:Please give a specific reference--textbook or peer-reviewed paper. We can't discuss vague allusions.
bhobba said:The energy it has in the situation you are considering. Say you have an electron created with known energy approaching the barrier - that energy is the energy it was created with in the setup you are considering. Now between point in time you knew its energy - by some form of measurement, hypothesis, or whatever, and it interacting with the barrier we have no idea of its energy. QM say nothing about unobserved things - its a theory about observations - when not observed it says nothing. It has a complex interaction with the barrier - more detail is explained in the reference I gave - Ballentine - and from that interaction it has a certain probability of being in the barrier or on the other side - even though the energy is not enough, when it was measured or somehow inferred, to jump the barrier.
Thanks
Bill
PhilQ said:as the virtual velocity of the tunnelling electron is going to be a million m/s, agree, or not?
bhobba said:you have done nothing here I would ban you for.
Quantum tunneling is a phenomenon in which a particle can pass through a potential barrier that it does not have enough energy to cross according to classical mechanics. This is possible due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics.
The source of energy for quantum tunneling is the particle's inherent quantum mechanical wave function. This wave function describes the probability of finding the particle at a given position and time, and it allows the particle to tunnel through the potential barrier.
Yes, any particle that exhibits wave-like properties can potentially undergo quantum tunneling. This includes particles such as electrons, protons, and even larger molecules.
The energy of the particle affects quantum tunneling in two ways. First, a higher energy particle will have a larger amplitude of its quantum mechanical wave function, making it more likely to tunnel through a potential barrier. Second, the energy of the particle can also affect the width and shape of the potential barrier, which can impact the probability of tunneling.
No, quantum tunneling is not a significant source of energy in everyday life. It is a phenomenon that occurs at the microscopic level and is only relevant for tiny particles. However, it plays a crucial role in various technological applications, such as scanning tunneling microscopy and quantum computing.