what is the secret of this bizarre nature of QM? tunneling instantaneous is another mystery beside entanglement.
i welcome RG scholars to discuss about this.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1028-3
https://phys.org/news/2019-03-breakthrough-quantum-tunnelling.html
Quantum tunneling is a misleading term, because the quantum particle doesn't traverse any barrier at all; the barrier is a classical artifact.
The ``secret'' is that the classical potential, that displays a barrier, doesn't have anything to do with the quantum potential, that doesn't; beyond describing the classical limit of the latter.
Hussainsha Syed I have to agree with Sydney Ernest Grimm
in this matter. QFT has more than a enough room to describe instantaneous effects in "whatever name field you want to call it". Personally I choose superfluid relationships but really it doesn't matter unless (as Sydney implies you don't want to send your professor into a stupor). You don't have to re-write physics or imply FTL or any other juju to realise that the field between two locked bodies is instant. The sooner we eradicate the horrendous 2d curved space time representation of space and present it in its true 3 spatial dimensions the better for us all IMHO. I might add that neither does a well developed QFT have to explicitly lead to classical determinism.. Determinism can and does lead to dynamic outcomes. Best Scot
@ Sydney Ernest Grimm
my dear Sydney Ernest Grimm , thank you for this explanation.
Who told you that "quantum tunneling is instantaneous"?This instantaneity is an artifact of a nonrelativistic approach based on the Scroedinger equation in a potential. The Scroedinger equation is a nonrelativistic approximation to the Dirac equation. If you replace the former by the latter, all changes to the wave function propagate with finite speeds, and definitely slower than light.
Well, potential is also a nonrelativistic concept limited to interaction of a light particle with something much heavier. It has to be abandoned in QFT. However, "tunneling" is limited to motion in a potential. It therefore looks as that the Dirac equation is the right paradigm for your question: potential still exists but signals propagate not faster than light.
@L. I. Plimak
My dear L. I. Plimak, I provided links of experiments in discussion...hope you read those links which are published in nature journal and reply with your valuable suggestions..
To the best of my recollections (Olga Smirnova's talk circa 2014), there is a number of interpretations of her theoretical approach (which by itself goes back to Ivanov and Corcum, and further to Baz'-Zel'dovich-Perelomov's book and references therein). To cut the long story short, the timing of events in the attoclock sequence may be conveniently expressed in terms of a finite tunneling time. I remember there are other attributions, but no details, sorry. (Trace Olga's papers, you'll find it.) Experiments show consistency of this interpretation, no less but no more. The rest is bullshit, pardon my French, necessary to get it through to Nature.
Furthermore, simple estimates shows that the question of signal speed cannot be even raised in attoclock experiments. Indeed, the ratio of Bohr's radius to the speed of light is 5.29E−11m/3E10m/sec < 2E-21sec = 2E-6 attosec. You can draw your own conclusions.
My view and Dr. James E. Beichler's view address this question in the introduction section of the my recent essay: https://connectioninstitute.org/PDF/Resolving_3_Mysteries.pdf