Probability current proportional to density

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between current and density in the context of quantum tunneling, specifically regarding the rectangular barrier penetration problem from Bohm's quantum theory. It highlights that the current density, J, is proportional to the probability density, ρ, with a velocity-like factor, p/m, derived from energy considerations. However, this proportionality does not hold in the barrier region due to the absence of interference effects, leading to a constant probability density. The participants note that J remains constant across all regions, aligning with the continuity equation. The conversation concludes with a call to revisit the problem for deeper insights.
Peeter
Messages
303
Reaction score
3
Working the rectangular barrier penetration problem (am working through chapter 11 of the Dover QT book by Bohm) one finds that the current past the barrier is proportional to the current where the proportionality is velocity like:

<br /> J = \frac{ p \rho }{m}<br />

where, the p/m factor has dimensions of velocity:

<br /> p/m = \sqrt{2E/m}<br />

This was under with a steady "stream" of incident wave functions (not a square integrable wave packet).

I find that this proportionality doesn't hold in the barrier region, and was wondering under what circumstances would one generally find the current and the density linearly related like this?

EDIT: I have a guess about this after doing a bit more of the math. J is constant in all three regions (which makes sense given the continuity equation since there is no time dependence in the probability density). Past the barrier we have no interference with flows only coming from the "left". Because of the lack of interference we've also got a constant probability density, so only in this region do we have the velocity-like J and rho linear dependence.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
@Greg Bernhardt -- It's been so long since I'd attempted that problem, that I'd probably have to attempt it anew to gain any additional insight.
 
Peeter said:
I'd probably have to attempt it anew to gain any additional insight.
let's do it! :)
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
First, I need to check that I have the 3 notations correct for an inner product in finite vector spaces over a complex field; v* means: given the isomorphism V to V* then: (a) physicists and others: (u,v)=v*u ; linear in the second argument (b) some mathematicians: (u,v)=u*v; linear in the first argument. (c) bra-ket: <v|u>= (u,v) from (a), so v*u . <v|u> is linear in the second argument. If these are correct, then it would seem that <v|u> being linear in the second...