quantum_tunneling

Why You Can’t Quantum Tunnel Through a Wall

Estimated Read Time: 6 minute(s)
Common Topics: quantum, tunneling, particles, probability, electrons

What is quantum tunneling

Quantum tunneling is a phenomenon in quantum mechanics where particles exhibit the ability to pass through energy barriers that would be insurmountable in classical physics. It occurs when particles, such as electrons, exhibit wave-like behavior and are described by the principles of quantum mechanics. Quantum tunneling challenges our classical intuition and plays a significant role in various areas of physics and technology. Here are some key aspects of quantum tunneling:

  1. Wave-Particle Duality: In quantum mechanics, particles such as electrons exhibit both particle-like and wave-like properties. This duality means that particles are not confined to classical trajectories but can spread out as waves.
  2. Energy Barriers: In classical physics, particles cannot penetrate energy barriers higher than their kinetic energy. However, in quantum mechanics, particles have a probability of tunneling through such barriers, even if their energy is lower than the barrier height.
  3. Tunneling Probability: The probability of tunneling depends on the thickness and height of the barrier, as well as the energy of the particle. Particles have a higher probability of tunneling through thinner and lower barriers.
  4. Applications: Quantum tunneling has important applications in various fields. It is essential in the operation of semiconductor devices, such as transistors and tunnel diodes. It is also a fundamental concept in understanding nuclear fusion processes in stars and the behavior of particles in quantum dots.
  5. Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM): STM is a powerful tool in nanoscience and allows scientists to image surfaces at the atomic scale. It relies on the tunneling of electrons between a sharp metal tip and a surface.
  6. Quantum Mechanical Effects: Quantum tunneling is a quantum mechanical effect that challenges classical physics. It can explain phenomena such as alpha decay in nuclear physics and the behavior of particles in quantum confinement.
  7. Uncertainty Principle: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is related to quantum tunneling. It states that one cannot precisely know both the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously. This uncertainty leads to the probability of tunneling.

Quantum tunneling is a remarkable and counterintuitive phenomenon that arises due to the wave-like behavior of particles at the quantum level. It has wide-ranging implications in the behavior of particles and the operation of various technologies, particularly in the realm of nanotechnology and quantum electronics.

Can You Quantum Tunnel Through a Wall?

The short and sweet answer if a tennis ball, a bowling ball, or any other kind of ordinary macroscopic object can tunnel through a wall is NO. You can’t quantum tunnel through a wall.

We periodically get questions on PF about people wanting to know if a tennis ball, a ping pong ball, a person, a cow, etc. can tunnel through a wall, or fall through the ground. This is due to an aspect or a consequence of quantum mechanics in which quantum particles have the probability of tunneling through a potential barrier and come out on the other side of it.

This is a very good time for a lot of people, especially those who did not learn physics (or have not learned physics) formally, to make the realization that physics isn’t just “What goes up, must come down”. Physics is also “Where and when it comes down”. This means that physics isn’t just a qualitative description of something, it also contains a quantitative description of that something. There must be calculational numbers that come out that we can compare and verify with experiments.

To apply to this case. It isn’t just sufficient to indicate that there’s a possibility that tunneling of something is “possible”. One must also calculate the probability of that occurring. This is where the magnitude of it happening makes a huge difference. If the probability is extremely small, so much so that the chances of it occurring are negligible within the age of the earth or the universe, then call me crazy, but I’d say that it doesn’t occur! So when dealing with something like this, one has to consider both parts: the phenomenon is valid, and the quantitative aspect of it.

I did my Ph.D. work in tunneling spectroscopy in High-Tc superconductors. All I can say is that, throughout the 3 years of my experimental work, I WISHED it would occur as easily as people seem to make it! And I was doing tunneling by electrons, which is not a composite particle. In considering the tunneling of composite objects (objects made of more than one fundamental particle), there are extra complications that are not present when dealing with the tunneling of fundamental particles. Let me explain.

In electron tunneling, for example, the electron itself can already be described via the straight-forward wave function. And all we care about is the probability of that single electron tunneling across the potential barrier. However, when you have a composite particle, say an H2 molecule, for that to tunneling across, the whole molecule must tunnel across together! Think about it for a second. The molecule consists of 2 protons and 2 electrons. Already, due to their different charges, they see different potential barriers. If you set up a potential barrier to the electrons, the protons see this as being a potential well! It is almost impossible to set up one barrier that is uniform and identical to both the electrons and protons. What this results in is that the probability of tunneling for the protons and electrons will be very different from each other! Different parts of the molecule have different tunneling probability and different chances of coming out on the other side of the barrier. Essentially, this makes it very difficult to imagine the whole entity making it through together! This extra factor is not present in the tunneling of a fundamental particle.

Not only that, there is another issue at hand. When we try to detect quantum effects of larger objects, such as buckyball, etc., the most important characteristic that the system must have is that the entire entity (buckyball, 10^11 electrons, etc.) must be in a coherent state with each other. Having such phase coherence is one of the most fundamental aspects of a quantum property. This is why in experiments done on buckyball interference, the molecule had to be cooled down and isolated until all parts of the buckyball are in coherence with each other. It wasn’t easy to detect quantum state at this scale, and one had to go through a lot of crazy gymnastics for that to occur. And this is to do something “simpler”, i.e. 2-slit interference. Think of how much more difficult it is to make that buckyball tunnel through a potential barrier, consider the extra difficulty factor that I mentioned above.

Conclusion

This is why many of us in physics shake our heads when someone outside of physics only understands a phenomenon or a principle superficially, and then decides to extrapolate it into other areas. The Deepak Chopras of the world often likes to justify and validate many of their pseudo-scientific beliefs by invoking the “mystical” consequences of quantum mechanics. They do this without any kind of a quantitative understanding of quantum mechanics, and thus, are completely clueless to the scale of such events, and whether such things are well-defined and likely to occur.


64 replies
« Older Comments
  1. Jeff Rosenbury says:
    ZapperZ

    You are forgetting that in the SIS tunneling example that I had given, the electrons in the Cooper pair are entangled with each other. So they make up the Josephson current.

    Zz.I'm not forgetting; I'm ignorant. Shouldn't there be a separate entanglement for tunneling on top of any entanglement for normal pair formation?

    As I understand it, the probability of an unentangled pair of electrons tunneling should be the probability of one tunneling times the probability of the other tunneling? (Of course there will be conundrums such as changing potentials and the like.)

    But if the particles tunnel together more frequently than the product of their individual probabilities they would be partially entangled for tunneling purposes in addition to being entangled for spin purposes.

    Or is there a difference between the shifting probabilities due to changing potentials and entanglement? Perhaps just having the changing probabilities counts as some form of entanglement? (That is a semantic argument, BTW. It depends on how we define entanglement.)

  2. Gary Feierbach says:

    I got an answer from the oil and gas industry. In gas pipelines there is moisture and H[SUB]2[/SUB]S that reacts with the iron in the metal to make FeS. The Hydrogen from the reaction in the form of ions can penetrate the metal and also accumulate in striations in the metal, combine into H2 and actually form blisters from the pressure buildup. For this reason these pipes are injected with corrosion inhibitors along with the product.

  3. ZapperZ says:
    Gary Feierbach

    What is the process by which hydrogen gas H2 escapes from a metal container by going through the metal matrix? Is that a type of tunneling? There is a negative charge barrier from the metal electrons tor the electrons circling the H2 gas molecules but they are treated as a package with a negative charge. Hydrogen gas is too small and can sneak through metal joints, etc. it is not tunneling.

    When I do a RGA reading on an ultra-vacuum system, I usually see hydrogen gas, even when we are at low 10^-10 Torr.

    Zz.

  4. Gary Feierbach says:

    What is the process by which hydrogen gas H2 escapes from a metal container by going through the metal matrix? Is that a type of tunneling? There is a negative charge barrier from the metal electrons tor the electrons circling the H2 gas molecules but they are treated as a package with a negative charge.

  5. DavidLloydJones says:
    Jeff Rosenbury

    The difference between 1 in 10^82 and 1 in 10^164 may be huge numerically, but it seems of little practical significance.I think you're being a little cavalier about that factor of two in there.

    Never forget the businessman who made his millions in Popsicles, or whatever it was: "I make them for a nickel and I sell them for a dime, and from that one percent difference I have become rich."

    -dlj.

  6. ZapperZ says:
    Jeff Rosenbury

    Does entanglement extend to tunneling?

    My understanding of entanglement is that it causes some dependence (usual examples are full dependence) of one random variable with another.

    So is it possible to entangle particles so if one tunnels, the other one must, or at least be more likely to tunnel?

    Not that it really affects the answer. The difference between 1 in 10^82 and 1 in 10^164 may be huge numerically, but it seems of little practical significance.

    Still, it's an interesting question about the nature of the universe.You are forgetting that in the SIS tunneling example that I had given, the electrons in the Cooper pair are entangled with each other. So they make up the Josephson current.

    Zz.

  7. Jeff Rosenbury says:

    Does entanglement extend to tunneling?My understanding of entanglement is that it causes some dependence (usual examples are full dependence) of one random variable with another. So is it possible to entangle particles so if one tunnels, the other one must, or at least be more likely to tunnel? Not that it really affects the answer. The difference between 1 in 10^82 and 1 in 10^164 may be huge numerically, but it seems of little practical significance. Still, it's an interesting question about the nature of the universe.

  8. DavidLloydJones says:

    I.I. Rabi did a thesis  in school on the proposition "How likely is it that a brick will spontaneously leap one foot into the air?"  I think he did his undergrad at Buffalo, which would account for that archaic "one foot" thing. I remember the answer as being "It'll happen about once in every 64 times the age of this universe."  On the other hand my memory may be fooling me; it may have been once in every 10^64 times the age of the universe.In speeches he also took to givin gout the quantim likelihood of a Mack truck making it through a gap a foot too narrow.  This is rather less likely than the jumping brick.I think, however,  there may be a solution for people who need a lot of bricks lifted or trucks driven into narrow places.  An electric hoist works for bricks, and there are some surprisingly skillful drivers of Mack trucks — though they do need spaces an inch or so wider than the truck.Where hoists and skilled rivers are not available, or for spaces actually narrower than the truck, I would recommend that you get Deepak Chopra teamed up with Russell Targ, he of the Advanced Studies  Institute at Texas U, and very knowledgeable about quantum mind-bending of spoons.  They have access to more powerful quantum methodology than people like I.I. Rabi, a mere Nobel laureate, recognized in 1944 for his discovery of nuclear magnetic resonance.  Bricks in seconds, trucks in inches. Ommmm.-dlj.

  9. Dr_Zinj says:

    So.
    Probability of a100 kg mass of liquid H2O (100 cm x 100 cm x 10 cm) at 4 deg C tunneling through a 10 cm barrier of an infinite size sheet of copper is greater than zero; but probably much less than 1/10^82. (10^82 is on of the approximations of the number of particles in the universe.) For comparison, your odds of winning the Powerball with any one ticket are about 1/10^7.
    Don't plan on having any "Harry Potter" or "Men Who Stare At Goats" moments during your lifetime.

  10. Derek Potter says:
    DrChinese

    Just to be clear… my reference to Lloyd was not intended as a favorable one.I think everyone understood that.

    DrChinese

    As ZapperZ says, the answer should be: it doesn't happen. He has shown why an H2 molecule will not ever tunnel through a wall in any universe.Hmm. I can see where he says it is much more complicated, and fragile, and unlikely than a simplistic model would suggest but I can't see anywhere that he claims the probability is precisely zero.

« Older Comments

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply