Negative kinetic energy in tunneling

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of negative kinetic energy in the context of quantum tunneling, particularly when a particle encounters a potential barrier. Participants explore the implications of energy conservation and the behavior of wavefunctions in regions where the particle's energy is less than the potential energy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the interpretation of kinetic energy being negative when a particle with a kinetic energy of 5 encounters a potential barrier of 10, suggesting that this leads to a contradiction in energy conservation.
  • Another participant challenges the assumption that the wavefunction inside the barrier is an eigenfunction of the kinetic energy operator, proposing that the wavefunction should be solved to confirm this.
  • A different participant clarifies that they are conserving total energy, not kinetic energy, and asserts that the wavefunction should still be an eigenfunction of the kinetic energy operator under the Hamiltonian framework.
  • One participant notes that in regions where the particle's energy is less than the potential, the solutions are exponential rather than oscillatory, leading to a negative expectation value for the kinetic energy operator.
  • Another participant connects the concept of negative kinetic energy to evanescent waves and tunneling, emphasizing that the focus should be on the implications of symmetries and conservation laws rather than the sign of kinetic energy itself.
  • A later reply raises a concern that if kinetic energy becomes negative, it could lead to imaginary eigenvalues for momentum, which presents a potential issue.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of negative kinetic energy and the interpretation of wavefunctions in potential barriers. There is no consensus on whether this presents a problem or how to reconcile the concept with established quantum mechanics principles.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for careful consideration of mathematical rigor versus physical reasoning, indicating that assumptions about the behavior of wavefunctions and energy conservation may not be universally accepted.

gulsen
Messages
215
Reaction score
0
Say I have a particle with a kinetic energy of 5 (in some units). And I have a potential barrier of 10 between 0<x<1 (again, in ome unit system), and 0 elsewhere. According to quantum theory, the partcile may be found between 0 and 1. And in this region, if the energy is conserved (5 = T + 10), shouldn't the kinetic energy be -5?!? So that [tex]\hat T \psi_2 = -5 \psi_2[/tex].

What's going on here??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gulsen said:
Say I have a particle with a kinetic energy of 5 (in some units). And I have a potential barrier of 10 between 0<x<1 (again, in ome unit system), and 0 elsewhere. According to quantum theory, the partcile may be found between 0 and 1. And in this region, if the energy is conserved (5 = T + 10), shouldn't the kinetic energy be -5?!? So that [tex]\hat T \psi_2 = -5 \psi_2[/tex].

What's going on here??

How do you know that your [itex]\psi[/itex] inside the barrier is an eigenfunction of your T operator in the first place? Go ahead and solve for the wavefunction inside the barrier, and see if it is an eigenfuntion of your operator.

Furthermore, why should KE be conserved? Shouldn't you be more concerned with H?

Zz.
 
I didn't say kinetic energy should be conserved. Note that I'm conserving energy and not kinetic energy, by saying: 5 = T + 10 (initial energy = energy inside bump)
[tex]\psi_2[/tex] should be eigenfunction of T because [tex]H = T + V_0[/tex] in this case. Also, the solution for 2nd region is
[tex](T + V_0)\psi_2 = E\psi_2[/tex]
[tex]T\psi_2 = -5\psi_2[/tex]

But can you please forget about mathematical rigor, I'm rather hoping to see physical reasoning instead.
 
There's indeed such a problem. In regions where energy of particle is smaller than the minumum of particle, the solutions are exponential rather than oscialating, and kinetic energy operator becomes negative. For instance, (in nuclear physics) in a spherical potential well, the solution in the sphere (r<R) is [tex]F \sinh(qr)[/tex] where [tex]q^2 > 0[/tex].

[tex]<T> = <\psi | T | \psi> = <F \sinh(qr) | -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial ^2}{\partial r^2} | F \sinh(qr)>[/tex]

[tex]<T> = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} q^2 <F \sinh(qr) | F \sinh(qr)>[/tex]
Which is a negative number since [tex]<F \sinh(qr) | F \sinh(qr)>[/tex] is the probability of finding the particle within the sphere. I don't know whether such a problem arises in the field theory, so I expect some educated ones shed light on the topic.
 
Last edited:
This all goes together:

- evanescent wave
- imaginary wavevector
- negative "kinetic energy"

why would that be a problem ?

The important thing is not the "kinetic energy" would be positive.
The important thing is the Noether theorem: a symmetry implies a conserved quantity, time invariance implies energy conservation.

Dealing with (quantum) waves brings the possibility of evanescent wave and tunelling and this translates in negative kinetic energy "during tunneling".
 
lalbatros said:
why would that be a problem ?

Because eigenvalues of an observable, namely momentum, becomes imaginary then.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K