Skip to main content
Log in

Quantum tunneling times: A crucial test for the causal program?

  • Published:
Foundations of Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is generally believed that Bohm's version of quantum mechanics is observationally equivalent to standard quantum mechanics. A more careful statement is that the two theories will always make the same predictions for any question or problem that is well posed in both interpretations. The transit time of a “particle” between two points in space is not necessarily well defined in standard quantum mechanics, whereas it is in Bohm's theory since there is always a particle following a definite trajectory. For this reason tunneling times (in a scattering configuration through a potential barrier may be a situation in which Bohm's theory can make a definite prediction when standard quantum mechanics can make none at all. I summarize some of the theoretical and experimental prospects for an unambiguous comparison in the hope that this question will engage the attention of more physicists, especially those experimentalists who now routinely actually do gedanken experiments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. N. Delruelle and A. Kypriadinis, eds.,Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré/Phys. Théor. 49 (3) (1988).

  2. D. Bohm,Phys. Rev. 85, 166, 180 (1952).

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. For recent presentations of this program, see D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley,The Undivided Universe (Routledge, Chapman & Hall, London. 1993); P. R. Holland.The Quantum Theory of Motion (Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 1993); J. T. Cushing,Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  4. D. Bohm and J.-P. Vigier,Phys. Rev. 96, 208 (1954).

    MATH  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. D. Bohm,Causality and Chance in Modern Physics (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1957);Wholeness and the Implicate Order (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1980); D. Bohm, B. J. Hiley, and P. N. Kaloyerou,Phys. Rep. 144, 321 (1987); J.-P. Vigier,Astron. Nachr. 303, 55 (1982), and in E. I. Bitsakis and C. A. Nicolaides, eds.,The Concept of Probability (Kluwer, Dordrecht. 1989). pp. 133–140.

    Google Scholar 

  6. D. Home,Science Today 20 (11), 25 (1986), p. 49. I thank Dr. Home for bringing this interview to my attention.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. J. S. Bell,Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980). p. III.

    Google Scholar 

  8. W. Pauli, inHandbuch der Physik 24, Pt. 1. 2nd edn. (Springer, Berlin, 1933). p. 140, gave an argument that time cannot be an operatorT conjugate to the HamiltonianH (energy operator) satisfying the commutation relation [T, H]=ih. A standard argument shows that the existence of such a time operator would imply that the energy spectrum ofH would always be continuous and could never be bounded from below. But that is contrary to observation.

    Google Scholar 

  9. For further discussion of the theoretical issues involved, see, for instance, E. H. Hauge and J. A. Støvneng,Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 917 (1989), and C. R. Leavens and G. C. Aers. inScanning Tunneling Microscopy III, R. Wiesendanger and H.-J. Güntherodt. eds. (Springer Berlin, 1993). pp. 105–140.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Specifically, a consistent set of dwell, transmission, and reflection times must be real (as opposed to complex), positive quantities and satisfy the constraint of Eq. (4). The question of the ability or inability of standard quantum mechanics to define an acceptable set ofτs is a controversial one and I do not pretend to resolve it here. See, for example, Hauge and Støvneng, Ref. 9; Leavens and Aers, Ref. 9; V. S. Olkhovsky and E. Recami,Phys. Rep. 214, 339 (1992); D. Sokolovski and J. N. L. Connor,Phys. Rev. A 47, 4677 (1993); S. Gull, A. Lasenby, and C. Doran,Found. Phys. 23, 1329 (1993); R. Landauer and Th. Martin,Rev. Mod. Phys. 66, 217 (1994); S. Brouard, R. Sala, and J. G. Muga.Phys. Rev. A 49, 4312 (1994); C. R. Leavens, “Bohm trajectory and Feynman path approaches to the “tunneling time problem,”Found. Phys., to be published.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hauge and Støvneng, Ref. 9, p. 917. They discuss this question of various tunneling times only within the framework of the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics and do not consider Bohm's interpretation.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. See, for example, Leavens and Aers, Ref. 9, and references therein.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hauge and Støvneng. Ref. 9. pp. 934–935.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hauge and Støvneng. Ref. 9. See also M. Daumer, D. Dürr, S. Goldstein, and N. Zanghi, “Scattering and the role of operators in Bohmian mechanics,” to be published.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. R. C. Leavens,Solid State Commun. 74, 923 (1990), has shown that Bohm's theory leads directly to Eqs. (5) and that the corresponding expressions forτ T andτ R satisfy Eq. (4). Leavens and Aers, Ref. 9 [Eqs. (6.14)−(6.21)], give explicit expressions for calculating theseτs without actually having to compute the trajectories themselves.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. C. Dewdney, G. Horton, M. M. Lam, Z. Malik, and M. Schmidt,Found. Phys. 22, 1217 (1992), show graphically the time evolution ofx(t) for a collection of incident particles. (Their calculations correspond to values of the parameters for whichT=0.5.) Leavens, Ref. 16 andSolid State Commun. 76, 253 (1990),85, 115 (1993), has done numerical calculations for the variousτs. A more direct and efficient way to calculate these times is given in W. R. McKinnon and C. R. Leavens, “Distributions of delay times and transmission times in Bohm's causal interpretation of quantum mechanics” (Phys. Rev. A. to be published), who calculate not only the mean transmission timeτ T, but also thedistribution of these transmission times (cf. Leavens and Aers. Ref. 9, pp. 120–123).

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. There is indication of extreme sensitivity to the overallsize of the wave packet [Leavens (1990), Ref. 17, p. 261]. However, theτs themselves are given asweighted averages over the ¦ϕ(k2 (cf. Leavens and Aers, Ref. 9, pp. 112 and 114) so that they depend upon the integrated value of this distribution, rather than directly upon its local variations ink-space.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See, for example, P. Guéret, E. Marclay, and H. Meier,Appl. Phys. Lett. 53, 1617 (1988); J. M. Martiniset al., Physica B 152, 159 (188); H. Q. Nguyenet ai, IEEE Trans. Electron. Devices 36, 2671 (1989); P. Guéret, in J. M. Chamberlain, L. Eaves, and J.-C. Portal (eds.),Electronic Properties of Multilayers and Low-Dimensional Semiconductor Structures (Plenum Press. New York. 1990), pp. 317–329. M. Baublitz,Phys. Rev. A 47, 2423 (1993), has recently suggested using the mean energy of tunneling electrons from similar experiments to compare the predictions of various versions of stochastic (not Bohmian) quantum mechanics with standard quantum mechanics.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hauge and Støvneng, Ref. 9. pp. 921–923; M. Bütttiker, in J. M. Chamberlainet al., Ref. 19. pp. 297–315, especially pp. 298–299.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. For example. C. R. Leavens, and G. C. Aers,Sold State Commun. 78, 1015 (1991), have shown that the mean transmission time extracted from the cutoff frequency of the transmission coefficient for a time-modulated barrier isnot a reliable indicator of the actual barrier transmission time for a static barrier.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. D. Esteveet al., Phys. Ser. T29, 121 (1989).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  22. R. Landauer,Nature (London) 341, 567 (1989); Landauer and Martin, Ref. 11.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  23. Esteveet al., Ref. 22, p. 121.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. Landauer, Ref. 23, p. 568.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  25. A. M. Steinberg, P. G. Kwiat, and R. Y. Chaio,Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 7087 (1993);

    Google Scholar 

  26. R. Y. Chiao, P. G. Kwiat, and A. M. Steinberg,Sci. Am. 269 (2). 52 (1993) and references therein.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. A. Enders and G. Nimtz,Phys. Rev. E 48, 632 (1993).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  28. D. Böhm, Ref. 2. pp. 189–193.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  29. See, for example, D. Heitmann. pp. 151–173, and M. van Rossumet al., pp. 229–242, in Chamberlainel ai, Ref. 19; J. B. Barner and S. T. Ruggiero.Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 807 (1987).

  30. It is in principle possible to prepare any specified initial wave function we want, as shown by W. E. Lamb,Phys. Today 22 (4) 23 (1969).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. An exact treatment of the rectangular barrier [e.g., A. Messiah,Quantum Mechanics, Vol. I (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1965, p. 97] leads to (2m/h 2)V 0 d 2≈1 for appreciable barrier penetration forE ⩽ V 0.

  32. Leavens and Aers, Ref. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Leavens and Aers, Ref. 9, pp. 118–119; Gullet al., Ref. 11, especially pp. 1341–1343.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cushing, J.T. Quantum tunneling times: A crucial test for the causal program?. Found Phys 25, 269–280 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02055207

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02055207

Keywords

Navigation