Tunneling probability and higher order terms in WKB method

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the WKB method for calculating tunneling probabilities through potential barriers. The tunneling probability is defined as the square modulus of the ratio of the coefficients of outgoing to incoming waves, rather than the wavefunction values at classical turning points. The approximation for the transmission probability T is valid only when T is small, expressed as T = e-2γ under those conditions. The conversation also touches on the significance of higher-order terms and momentum factors in the WKB approximation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the WKB method in quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with tunneling phenomena and potential barriers
  • Knowledge of wavefunction behavior at classical turning points
  • Basic grasp of transmission coefficients and their calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the full expression for tunneling probability T = e-2γ and its derivation
  • Explore the implications of higher-order terms in the WKB approximation
  • Learn about the role of momentum factors in quantum tunneling
  • Investigate the differences between standing waves and traveling waves in quantum mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, students of quantum mechanics, and researchers interested in tunneling phenomena and the WKB method.

FunkyDwarf
Messages
481
Reaction score
0
Hi All,

I have a question regarding the WKB method for computing tunnelling through barriers.

I understand the method and the ability to arrive at a solution as given in the first part (summary) of the first page here:

http://www.physics.udel.edu/~msafrono/425/Lecture 18.pdf

Is it correct to say that the tunneling probability is given by
\left| \frac{\psi(b)}{\psi(a)}\right|^2 where a is the classical turning point and b is the end of the barrier?

If so, and one had some arbitrary potential barrier, does one not need to take into account the \frac{1}{\sqrt{p}} factors evaluated at these end points (i.e. higher order terms in the WKB approx)? Does this give the accurate prefactor to the transmission probability T?

Cheers!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
FunkyDwarf said:
Hi All,

I have a question regarding the WKB method for computing tunnelling through barriers.

I understand the method and the ability to arrive at a solution as given in the first part (summary) of the first page here:

http://www.physics.udel.edu/~msafrono/425/Lecture 18.pdf

Is it correct to say that the tunneling probability is given by
\left| \frac{\psi(b)}{\psi(a)}\right|^2 where a is the classical turning point and b is the end of the barrier?

If so, and one had some arbitrary potential barrier, does one not need to take into account the \frac{1}{\sqrt{p}} factors evaluated at these end points (i.e. higher order terms in the WKB approx)? Does this give the accurate prefactor to the transmission probability T?

Cheers!

The tunneling probability is given by the square modulus of the ratio of the *coefficients* of the outgoing to incoming waves, not the ratio of the wavefunction evaluated at the classical turning points. Does that answer the rest of your question? Also, that equation for T is an approximation that is only valid when the tunneling probability is small. The full expression is:

T=\frac{e^{-2\gamma}}{|1+\frac{1}{4}e^{-2\gamma}|^2}

So it reduces to T=e^{-2\gamma} when T << 1.
 
Well in my case I have a standing wave so I have waves with equal magnitudes in both directions, but anyway isn't it so that the sqrt momentum pre-factor would contribute to the amplitudes in both regions? Or is it instead folded into the phase by moving it to the exponent (in which case the phase is more complicated)? In the real standing wave case the reflected wave has the same amplitude as the incoming, and so one cannot deduce the transmission coefficient from that, so all you can do is consider relative amplitudes in Region I compared to Region III right? (region II being the barrier part I guess)

Cheers for your help!

EDIT: Nm figured it out! Taking psi* psi gets rid of the radial dependence and leaves you with the amplitude, hurr! =) Cheers dude!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K