Getting to the far side of a wall without going over it ── what is strange is not the phenomenon but the fact that we are watching in real time
A ball rolling up a slope cannot get over a hill taller than itself. Obviously. Yet an electron does ── or rather, it does not go over; it appears on the far side. This is tunneling, and in most introductions it is presented as "isn't that strange" and left there. But what is strange is not the phenomenon; it is the fact that we are watching in real time. Rotate time 90° onto the imaginary axis (the Wick rotation from Episode 6 of the sister series "Temperature That Clicks") and the wall flips into a valley. Now the particle is not jumping over anything ── it is simply walking across an ordinary slope. The "action" spent on that stroll, \(S_E\), rides straight onto the exponent of the probability. This series uses that single viewpoint to thread together the burning of the Sun, superconductivity, and the collapse of the vacuum.
Fire a particle of energy \(E Outside the wall (\(E>V\)) the wave oscillates with wavenumber \(k=\sqrt{2mE}/\hbar\). Inside (\(E Oscillation has turned into decay. So the wave dies away inside the wall but never reaches zero. If the wall has finite thickness \(a\), a little is left on the far side, and there it starts oscillating again. That is tunneling. Put numbers in for an electron. With \(V-E=1\) eV, \(\kappa\approx5.1\ \mathrm{nm^{-1}}\). A wall 1 nm thick gives \(e^{-10}\approx4.5\times10^{-5}\) ── one attempt in twenty thousand gets through. Make it 2 nm and \(e^{-20}\approx2\times10^{-9}\): four orders of magnitude gone at a stroke. That feel ── "double the thickness, lose four orders" ── is the protagonist of this whole series. Tunneling rides on the exponent. The decisive step in that calculation was where "the square root went negative and \(k\) became imaginary." When an imaginary number appears, rotate time ── that is the move learned in Episode 6 of the sister series "Temperature That Clicks." Conservation of energy in real time reads Inside the wall the right-hand side is negative, so there is no real-velocity solution. Now set \(t=-i\tau\) (imaginary time), so that \(\dot x^2\to-(dx/d\tau)^2\): The right-hand side is now positive. In other words ── in imaginary time, the potential turns upside down. The mountain you could not cross in real time is a valley in imaginary time, and the particle rolls across it perfectly ordinarily. And computing the action of that stroll (the Euclidean action) gives: \(x_1,x_2\) are the two points where the wall meets the energy line (the turning points). For a square wall \(S_E=\hbar\kappa a\), which returns us to \(e^{-2\kappa a}\). The figure below is an electron fired at a square wall (the exact solution, not an approximation). The upper panel is the real-time picture ── the wall, the energy line, and \(|\psi|\). You can see it thinning exponentially inside the wall. The dashed curve is the inverted potential as seen in imaginary time, where the wall is a valley. The lower panel is the transmission probability on a logarithmic axis. Nudge a slider and the vertical axis jumps by orders of magnitude ── that is what "riding on the exponent" feels like. Check that adding just 0.1 nm of thickness changes the probability by a factor of ten. The power of "riding on the exponent" first ran wild in alpha decay. In 1928 Gamow (and independently Gurney and Condon) explained it as tunneling ── the first application of quantum mechanics to the nucleus. An alpha particle is trapped inside a nucleus and tunnels out through the Coulomb barrier. What is interesting is how wildly the half-lives scatter from nucleus to nucleus. The energies differ by only a factor of two, yet the half-lives differ by 24 orders of magnitude. "That's just how it is" will not do. But with \(P\approx e^{-2S_E/\hbar}\) it is inevitable ── change the number on the exponent by a few tens, and the answer changes by a few tens of orders. The empirical relation (the Geiger–Nuttall rule) had been known since 1911; Gamow's theory explained what was inside the exponent. From here on, the only thing we watch is what is riding on the exponent. The prefactor only has to be roughly right. Since a change of a few tens on the exponent moves the answer by a few tens of orders, a factor of a few out front is within the noise ── please carry that instinct with you. Let me answer in advance the question that always comes up. "During the time it is inside the wall, isn't the particle violating energy conservation?" It is not. There is no such observation as "the particle inside the wall." That \(\psi\ne0\) inside the wall does not mean you can find the particle there (any attempt to look would inject energy through the measurement itself). What is observable is "it went in" and "it came out"; in between it is a matter of amplitudes. Then how many seconds does tunneling take? ── this is, in fact, still an unresolved problem. Several definitions exist and they give different answers, and in some readings the effective speed appears to exceed light. It is interesting enough that bonus episode ④ is devoted entirely to it. Established: the exact transmission coefficient for a rectangular barrier; that the wavenumber becomes purely imaginary for \(E Points to note: (1) WKB is an approximation. It is good when \(S_E/\hbar\gg1\) (tunneling sufficiently unlikely) and needs corrections near the turning points. The upper panel of the figure is exact; the button overlays WKB so the discrepancy is visible. (2) "Walking in imaginary time" is a restatement of the fact that the path integral's saddle point lies on the imaginary-time side, not a claim that the particle traverses a second, physically existing time (the same caveat as Episode 6 of "Temperature That Clicks"). (3) A particle inside the barrier cannot be directly observed, and \(\psi\ne0\) does not mean "it will be found there." (4) How long tunneling takes is an unresolved problem and is not treated here (bonus ④). (5) The figure idealises a 1D, stationary, spinless problem; in real solids and nuclei many-body effects matter. A particle without enough energy appears beyond the wall. Written in real time, the wavenumber inside the wall becomes purely imaginary and the wave stops oscillating, decaying as \(e^{-\kappa x}\) ── it dies away but never reaches zero, so a thin wall leaks a little to the far side. Rotate time onto the imaginary axis and the strangeness disappears. Setting \(t=-i\tau\) flips the sign in the conservation of energy and the wall becomes a valley. The particle leaps over nothing; it walks across in imaginary time. The action of that stroll is \(S_E=\int\sqrt{2m(V-E)}\,dx\), and the probability is \(P\approx e^{-2S_E/\hbar}\). What matters is that this quantity rides on the exponent. Alpha half-lives span 24 orders of magnitude for a factor-of-two change in energy. From here on this series watches only what is on the exponent, not the prefactor.
The transmission probability falls off roughly as the square of the amplitude:02Rotate to imaginary time, and the wall becomes a valley
Tunneling is not "something impossible happening by chance"; it is ordinary motion, seen along a different time axis.
What makes this form powerful is that it works for a wall of any shape, in one line (the WKB approximation). The Sun in Episode 2 and the vacuum decay in Episode 7 are both applications of it.
Both are classical motion in imaginary time. The only difference is whether you go round a circle (heat) or back and forth across a valley (tunneling). Which is why, as Episode 3 will show, the two must swap places at some temperature ── they are in the same arena.
03Try it ── the wall, the wave, and the inverted valley
04In orders of magnitude ── why alpha decay spans 24 of them
Nuclide alpha energy half-life ²¹²Po 8.78 MeV 0.3 microseconds ²²²Rn 5.49 MeV 3.8 days ²²⁶Ra 4.87 MeV 1600 years ²³⁸U 4.27 MeV 4.5 billion years
It is also what decides the verdict in bonus episode ①, on cold fusion: why the argument "the metal lattice must help a bit" fails as a matter of orders of magnitude.05While it is tunneling, where is the particle?
See the answer
See the answer
See the answer
See the answer
Episode 1 summaryWhat was strange was not the phenomenon but watching in real time
Print / make a PDF: ⌘+P (Ctrl+P on Windows). On screen, the energy and thickness sliders move the decay of the wave and the transmission probability. Check that adding just 0.1 nm of thickness makes the vertical axis jump by an order of magnitude. "See the answer" opens each solution.