Probability of quantum tunneling?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the probability of quantum tunneling for electrons through an insulator, particularly in the context of metal-insulator-metal (MIM) and metal-insulator-insulator-metal (MIIM) diodes. Participants explore theoretical frameworks, practical observations, and the conditions under which tunneling can be observed.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests a simple explanation and example for calculating the probability of quantum tunneling through an insulator, including the size of the insulator and the necessary current/voltage for practical observation.
  • Another participant suggests that the probability can be calculated using the Schrödinger equation and provides a formula for the tunneling amplitude involving energy and potential barrier width.
  • Concerns are raised about the commonality of knowledge regarding tunneling probabilities and whether estimates vary significantly among experts.
  • Discussion includes the idea that exposed wires develop an insulating oxide layer, which may necessitate tunneling for electron transfer between wires.
  • Participants question the conditions under which oxidation occurs and whether oxidized states can still conduct electricity, leading to further exploration of the implications for tunneling.
  • There is a debate about the likelihood of all surface atoms oxidizing and the necessity of rogue oxidizers for oxidation to occur, with differing views on the probability of oxidation affecting conductivity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty about the specifics of tunneling probabilities and oxidation processes. There is no consensus on the exact conditions or calculations involved, and multiple competing views are presented regarding the oxidation of conductors and its implications for tunneling.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of detailed examples for calculating tunneling probabilities and the varying assumptions about oxidation processes and their effects on conductivity. The discussion also touches on the intersection of physics and chemistry, indicating a potential overlap in topics.

Dembara
Messages
24
Reaction score
1
As simply as possible, could someone try to explain how one would go about calculating the probability of a electron/(electric voltage) quantum tunneling through an insulator (preferably using an example please)?
And how small would the insulator, and how large would the current/voltage have to be for it to be a practical to observe that tunneling took place, and how much would you expect to observe?

Also, as a bit of a side not, how small is the insulator generally in a MIM diode? and what about in a MIIM diode? and how much electricity goes through each of them, and how quickly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Anyone know?
 
Dembara said:
Anyone know?
Please be patient. You can't expect a reply 25 mins after posting.
 
StevieTNZ said:
Please be patient. You can't expect a reply 25 mins after posting.
I meant it as is it common knowledge, estimates, incredibly variant or something else? (also I wanted to get my post to the top of the forum :P, which I now realize is not allowed, sorry for that)
Though I think (after looking through some other stuff) you can calculate the probability with the Schrödinger equation, it would still be nice if someone could present a brief example please.
 
Not sure exactly what you want to know, but for a free electron of energy E, hitting a rectangular potential barrier ## V_0 ## of width a, the tunneling amplitude is,
## \frac{1}{T} = 1+\frac{k^2+q^2}{2kq} \sinh^2(qa)##
where ## q=\sqrt{\frac{2m}{\hbar^2} (E-V_0)} ##
and ## k =\sqrt{\frac{2m}{\hbar^2} \ E} ##

You can just plug in numbers yourself to see various situations if you want.
As an side note: I was told by a professor that since all exposed wires quickly have an insulating oxide layer forming around them, that the only way electrons go between touching wires is via tunneling.
 
DelcrossA said:
Not sure exactly what you want to know, but for a free electron of energy E, hitting a rectangular potential barrier ## V_0 ## of width a, the tunneling amplitude is,
## \frac{1}{T} = 1+\frac{k^2+q^2}{2kq} \sinh^2(qa)##
where ## q=\sqrt{\frac{2m}{\hbar^2} (E-V_0)} ##
and ## k =\sqrt{\frac{2m}{\hbar^2} \ E} ##

You can just plug in numbers yourself to see various situations if you want.
As an side note: I was told by a professor that since all exposed wires quickly have an insulating oxide layer forming around them, that the only way electrons go between touching wires is via tunneling.

Okay, thank you, I'll try it out.
Also, I may be completely wrong here but anyway, doesn't oxidation require rogue oxidizer molecule/atom, so wouldn't it be highly improbably every atom/molecule of the conductor immediately oxidized (though it would attract any rouge oxidizers)? And couldn't the oxidized state still be (at least somewhat) conductive (though obviously not as conductive, not necessarily an insulator right)?
Though due to the way things interact in general, referring to how things don't touch due to virtual photons, could you consider that to always cause things to need to quantum tunnel?And do you have any idea about MIM (metal-insulator-metal) diodes?
 
Last edited:
Dembara said:
Okay, thank you, I'll try it out.
Also, I may be completely wrong here but anyway, doesn't oxidation require rogue oxidizer molecule/atom, so wouldn't it be highly improbably ever atom/molecule of the conductor immediately oxidized? And couldn't the oxidized state still be (at least somewhat) conductive?

Not every copper atom, just those exposed on the surface to oxygen ("the only way" is really just figurative if your being technical). And, most oxides are pretty poor conductors at normal temperatures. Though I do know that some oxides are being incorporated into alloys to make superconductors - but that's only for temperatures around the boiling point of liquid nitrogen.
 
DelcrossA said:
Not every copper atom, just those exposed on the surface to oxygen ("the only way" is really just figurative if your being technical). And, most oxides are pretty poor conductors at normal temperatures. Though I do know that some oxides are being incorporated into alloys to make superconductors - but that's only for temperatures around the boiling point of liquid nitrogen.
By every atom, I was referring to every atom at the surface, I just worded it poorly. but don't you still need the rouge oxidizers? Oxygen won't always oxidize a substance, isn't it like 1/1000 or something like that?
 
Dembara said:
By every atom, I was referring to every atom at the surface, I just worded it poorly. but don't you still need the rouge oxidizers? Oxygen won't always oxidize a substance, isn't it like 1/1000 or something like that?

I really don't know. But, I wouldn't think 1/1000 is really that improbable considering how many atoms were talking about. Moreover, only the point of contact needs to have a small layer of oxide for what we're discussing.
 
  • #10
DelcrossA said:
I really don't know. But, I wouldn't think 1/1000 is really that improbable considering how many atoms were talking about. Moreover, only the point of contact needs to have a small layer of oxide for what we're discussing.
That is completely correct, as the source that told my that number (I can't remember were it was, but it gave a number that was in the 1/1000 range) but I would still think that some of the atoms wouldn't immediately oxidize (its not as though they are touching 5000 more times more atoms, since oxygen makes up approximately 1/5 of the troposphere), and all you would need it one atom not to be oxidized (that touches another none oxidized atom) to get a current able to pass through without quantum tunneling.

Also, I would like to point out this is getting a weee bit off topic, and is starting to be more relevant to chemistry.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
604
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K