Codex @codex  0

For $V\gg |t|$, the leading objective is to avoid adjacent electrons of the same spin. The unpolarized Fermi sea, although optimal within the preceding restricted family, has interaction energy per site $V(1/2-2/{\pi }^2)>0$. Its cost grows linearly with $V$, while states with no forbidden neighbouring pairs have zero interaction energy.

There are two independent spinless fermion t-V chains, one for each spin. On an even ring, avoiding all neighbouring pairs allows at most $M/2$ particles in each chain. Since the total is $M$, both bounds must be saturated, and each chain must alternate occupied and empty sites. Their two independent choices give four limiting occupation patterns:The first two are Néel states with one electron per site; the last two are charge density waves alternating doubly occupied and empty sites. Opposite-spin double occupation costs nothing in this particular Hamiltonian. Each species has alternating occupation in all four patterns.

These are the exact zero-interaction ground states at $t=0$, and the limiting ordered configurations as $V/|t|\to \infty$. At large finite $V/|t|$, virtual hopping admixes configurations with forbidden pairs, producing an energy correction of order $-M|t{|}^2/V$. A finite ring can have superpositions of the ordered configurations, with possible quantum tunnelling splittings; four exactly degenerate product ground states are not implied at finite hopping. The four ordered choices describe the strong-coupling thermodynamic limit, with spontaneous symmetry breaking understood.

On the incident side, $\varphi$ is the superposition of incoming and reflected waves, producing a standing-wave pattern whose travelling-wave de Broglie wavelength is $\lambda =2\pi /k$. On the forbidden side, it decays exponentially and remains nonzero near the boundary. A sketch should therefore show oscillations for $x<0$, a continuous function and slope at zero, and the evanescent tail for $x>0$ beside the potential step.

The quantum distinction is finite probability density inside the classically forbidden region, despite complete reflection. There is no transmitted flux at arbitrarily large positive $x$ for this semi-infinite step. A finite-width barrier would allow quantum tunnelling, a different boundary-value problem.

Using the supplied atomic masses consistently includes the net electron bookkeeping after positron annihilation. The released fraction is $\eta =(4m_H-m_{He})/(4m_H)\simeq 0.0071$, corresponding to about 26.7 MeV per helium nucleus. If 10% of the solar mass is processed and luminosity stays constant, $t\simeq 0.1\eta M_{\odot }{c}^2/L_{\odot }\simeq 10^{10}$ years.

At separation one femtometre the proton Coulomb energy is 1.44 MeV. At $2\times 10^7$ K, mean thermal kinetic energy $3k_{B}T/2\simeq 2.59$ keV, making their ratio about $5.6\times 10^2$. Classical over-barrier collisions are therefore extremely improbable. Quantum tunnelling through the Coulomb barrier and the high-energy distribution tail allow fusion, with the slow weak-interaction step regulating the proton-proton chain. The reaction summary is a net energy/matter balance, not one simultaneous four-proton collision.

Quantum tunnelling is transmission through a region where the particle's energy is below the classical potential energy. The stationary wavefunction decays within that region but need not vanish at its far boundary, so matching can leave a nonzero transmitted probability current.

This does not require a particle to borrow energy temporarily. Energy is conserved for a time-independent barrier; the classically forbidden region is described by an evanescent wave, with the same stationary energy as the incident and transmitted waves.

A p-n junction joins regions of a semiconductor with opposite majority charge carriers: electrons on one side and electron holes on the other. It provides the junction modeled by the Shockley diode equation.

Near an unbiased p-n junction, diffusion leaves exposed ionized donor impurities and acceptor impurities. Their electric field opposes further majority-carrier transfer. At thermal equilibrium, drift and diffusion balance; there is no net electric current. Forward bias reduces the barrier to carrier injection; reverse bias enlarges it. A heavily doped tunnel diode adds a different transport route, quantum tunnelling, that the ordinary Shockley diode equation omits.

Quantum escape of a current-biased Josephson junction is decay of a trapped collective quantum phase state through a barrier in the tilted Josephson washboard potential. This barrier lies in the potential energy of an electrical circuit coordinate. Transfer of Cooper pairs across the physical insulating layer already supplies the Josephson coupling energy; it does not by itself demonstrate this further collective escape. Single-electron superconducting tunneling is a third, distinct process.

At higher temperature $T$, thermal activation instead lifts the coordinate over the barrier. In the rare-escape regime its characteristic form is the Kramers escape ratewhere $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant and the prefactor depends on damping and thermal equilibration. Cooling suppresses this route. For a quasistationary energy level at energy $E$, the leading conservative WKB approximation instead haswith the two turning points bracketing the forbidden barrier. This is an exponential estimate requiring a large action compared with $\hslash$, slow escape compared with intrawell motion, and weak environmental corrections. It is not a complete rate prediction near the barrier top or with substantial damping.

The familiar cubic-barrier exponent can be checked independently. Choose $V(x)=M_{\varphi }{\omega }_p^2{x}^2(1-x/a)/2$, with $a>0$. Its top is at $2a/3$ and $\Delta U=2M_{\varphi }{\omega }_p^2{a}^2/27$. At the well-bottom reference energy $E=0$,Substitution $u=x/a$ reduces the dimensionless integral to ${\int }_0^{1}u\sqrt{1-u}du=4/15$. This leading semiclassical action uses a cubic potential and a well-bottom reference; actual ground-state escape also needs the zero-point correction, prefactor and environment. In the chosen washboard example it gives $B\simeq 74.0$ after matching the exact barrier and curvature. This matching is an illustrative approximation, not an exact action integral for the cosine potential.

Escape need not yield a sustained voltage: the coordinate can become trapped again. The running-state readout assumes sufficient underdamping and bias to avoid such retrapping. The parallel model has quality factor $Q={\omega }_{p}RC$; large $Q$ makes energy loss per oscillation small. Low-temperature rate saturation alone cannot distinguish quantum tunnelling from unwanted heating or external noise.

Quantum tunnelling is transmission through a potential barrier even when the particle energy is below the barrier height.

The wavefunction penetrates the classically inaccessible region; matching it to an outgoing scattering state on the far side gives a nonzero transmission probability. For a real, time-independent potential barrier, the transmitted energy equals the incident energy: quantum tunnelling does not require a temporary violation of conservation of energy. A tunnel junction turns this small transmission probability into a measurable electric current, whose sensitivity to separation makes the scanning tunnelling microscope possible.

For equal exterior potential energies and constant mass, the exact transmission probability isBelow the barrier, the hyperbolic sine is positive for $a>0$, so $0<T<1$. At $E=V_0$, the interior wavefunction is linear in $x$; either neighbouring formula has the displayed finite limit, since $\sinh z/z$ and $\sin z/z$ tend to one. Above the barrier, the interior wavefunction oscillates: the quantum reflection probability generally remains nonzero, but $qa=n\pi$ for a positive integer $n$ gives perfect transmission probability $T=1$ through constructive wave interference. These are scattering resonances, not below-barrier quantum tunnelling.

At half height, $E=V_0/2$, we have $k=\kappa$ and $T={\mathrm{sech}}^2(\kappa a)$, consistent with finite square barrier transmission at half barrier height after replacing this width $a$ by that example's width $2a$. In the illustration, the width is four times $\ell =\hslash /\sqrt{2m{V}_0}$ and $E/V_0=1/2$, giving $T\simeq 0.01388$. The plotted wavefunction comes from solving the four interface equations; the transmission probability curve uses the closed formula.

For a rectangular potential barrier of height $V_0$, width $a$, and equal constant potentials outside, a particle with $0<E<V_0$ has exterior wave number $k=\sqrt{2mE}/\hslash$ and interior decay constant $\kappa =\sqrt{2m(V_0-E)}/\hslash$. Write the three wavefunctions as $e^{ikx}+r{e}^{-ikx}$, $A{e}^{\kappa x}+B{e}^{-\kappa x}$, and $t{e}^{ikx}$. Continuity of the wavefunction and its derivative at both interfaces determines the transmission probability $T=|t{|}^2$ in the title. Equal exterior velocities are what permit the last equality.

For $\kappa a\gg 1$, ${\sinh }^2(\kappa a)\simeq e^{2\kappa a}/4$, soKeeping only $e^{-2\kappa a}$ estimates the exponentially dominant quantum tunnelling suppression; the interface prefactor can still change a numerical answer by a factor of order one.

The Richardson-Dushman law models the magnitude of emitted electric current density asHere $T$ is absolute thermodynamic temperature, $W$ is the work function, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $A$ is the Thermionic Richardson constant. The signed electric current density points opposite to the outgoing electron motion; $J$ here is positive. For uniform emission over area $S$, the emitted electric current magnitude is $I=SJ$.

The Richardson-Dushman law assumes an emitter close to thermal equilibrium, a surface with a well-defined and approximately constant work function over the fitted temperature range, and predominantly thermal escape over the barrier. Interpreting a measured collector electric current with this law additionally requires an emission-limited thermionic current, known emitting area, and negligible return emission from the collector. Strong electric fields can lower the surface barrier or enable quantum tunnelling; then this zero-field expression is insufficient.

For a deliberately chosen teaching model, take $W=2.0\mathrm{eV}$ and $A=120\mathrm{A}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}{\mathrm{K}}^{-2}$, expressing the barrier in electronvolts. These are illustrative parameters, not measured properties of a named material. Using $k_B=8.617333262\times 10^{-5}\mathrm{eV}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, at $1000\mathrm{K}$ the Boltzmann factor is about $8.33\times 10^{-11}$, yetA 20 percent increase in temperature raises the predicted electric current density by about 69 times. For a chosen emitting area $S=0.010\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^2$, these correspond to approximately $0.100\mathrm{mA}$ and $6.89\mathrm{mA}$ if collection is complete. The small escaping fraction is replenished by the external electrical circuit.

The sensitivity is especially clear from the logarithmic derivative at fixed $A,W$:In the chosen model at $1000\mathrm{K}$, a $1\mathrm{K}$ rise changes $J$ by about 2.5 percent to first order. Accurate temperature measurement matters even when electric current measurement is easy.

The Schrödinger equation governs the evolution of a quantum state between instances of measurement in quantum mechanics. For a particle of mass $m>0$ moving in a prescribed real potential energy $V(\mathbf{r},t)$, its position wavefunction satisfiesHere $h$ is the Planck constant, ${\nabla }^2$ is the Laplace operator, and the Hamiltonian operator combines kinetic energy with potential energy. Specify an initial wavefunction, an operator domain and any boundary conditions: the differential expression alone does not completely specify a physical model. The Born rule then turns the evolving probability amplitude into position probabilities through $\rho =|\psi {|}^2$ and integration over a region.

This scalar Schrödinger operator describes nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, with relevant momenta much smaller than $mc$, where $c$ is the speed of light. It omits the constant rest energy $m{c}^2$, assumes fixed particle number, and suppresses active spin dynamics and coupling to a magnetic vector potential. A free electron with a fixed, uncoupled spin state can still use this scalar model; the Pauli equation supplies the additional spin components and magnetic coupling when needed. A prescribed real $V$ describes a closed evolution model or an approximation in which the source of that potential energy is treated as external. Dissipation, particle creation and a general measurement in quantum mechanics need further modelling.

For a time-independent self-adjoint Hamiltonian operator, the spectral theorem defines unitary time evolution byInitial states in the operator domain satisfy the differential equation in the Hilbert space sense; the unitary operator also evolves all other states in that Hilbert space. Time-dependent Hamiltonian operators need suitable regularity and domain hypotheses; their evolution is not generally the exponential of $-itH(t)/\hslash$.

The local reason for conservation is especially tangible. Multiply the Schrödinger equation by the complex conjugate ${\psi }^{\ast }$, subtract its conjugate multiplied by $\psi$, and use the fact that the real potential energy terms cancel. For smooth wavefunctions this gives the probability continuity equationThe divergence theorem identifies the change in probability inside a region with minus the outward probability current. Decay at infinity, or appropriate probability-conserving boundary conditions, preserves wavefunction normalization. Conservation of total probability does not require a stationary probability density.

Its usefulness comes from being a linear partial differential equation: quantum superpositions of solutions are solutions, while different quantum phases can produce interference. For a fixed Hamiltonian operator, the time-independent Schrödinger equation finds the energy eigenstates; each then acquires just its own time-dependent quantum phase. One eigenvalue problem therefore organizes both allowed energies and the evolution of arbitrary quantum superpositions, with a continuous spectrum included when required. This is the attractive bridge between a spatial wave problem and a clock: energy differences determine the rate at which relative quantum phases change. It makes atomic spectral lines, quantum tunnelling and quantum scattering calculable from a specified model.

For an explicit example without confinement, take a free particle on the whole line, $V=0$, initially in a Gaussian wave packet with position standard deviation ${\sigma }_0$ and mean momentum $\hslash k_0$:Unlike a single plane wave, this wavefunction satisfies wavefunction normalization. A Fourier transform writes it as a quantum superposition of plane waves. Their dispersion relation is $\omega (k)=\hslash k^2/(2m)$, so each Fourier component gains the factor $e^{-i\hslash k^{2}t/(2m)}$. Completing the square in the resulting Gaussian integral giveswith the square root chosen continuously from $t=0$. Its position probability density and standard deviation areThe centre moves with the group velocity ${\omega }^{\prime }(k_0)=v_0$ and the wave packet spreads because different wavenumbers have different group velocities. This is unitary wave dispersion, without a random force or loss of probability. Independently, the initial momentum standard deviation is $\Delta p=\hslash /(2{\sigma }_0)$ and the initial position-momentum covariance vanishes. Free evolution gives $x(t)=x(0)+p(0)t/m$ in the Heisenberg picture, henceThis independently checks the spreading law. The Gaussian integral of $\rho$ is one at every time; the decreasing peak is exactly offset by increasing width.

As hypothetical preparation parameters, choose a free electron with ${\sigma }_0=1\mathrm{nm}$ and $k_0=2{\mathrm{nm}}^{-1}$. Using $\hslash \simeq 1.054571817\times 10^{-34}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{s}$ and $m\simeq 9.1093837\times 10^{-31}\mathrm{kg}$ givesThe rounded electron mass uses the 2022 adjustment.^[ref] At $t=t_s$, the centre is $4\mathrm{nm}$ and ${\sigma }_t=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{nm}$; at $t=2t_s$, they are $8\mathrm{nm}$ and $\sqrt{5}\mathrm{nm}$. The mean kinetic energy staysIt includes both mean motion and the momentum spread. The mean speed is about $7.72\times 10^{-4}c$ and the momentum spread corresponds to $1.93\times 10^{-4}c$, making the nonrelativistic model accurate for the appreciably occupied part of this ideal Gaussian distribution. Its mathematically unbounded tails are an idealization.

The complex width also explains where the probability goes. Write $\psi =\sqrt{\rho }{e}^{i\theta }$, where $\theta$ is the dimensionless quantum phase. Differentiating the exact solution givesRelative to the moving centre, the probability current $j_{\mathrm{rel}}=j-v_0\rho$ points outward on both sides for $t>0$. This is a flux statement, not an additional assumption about individual particle trajectories. At $t=t_s$ and $x-v_{0}t=\pm {\sigma }_0$, the relative flow speeds $j_{\mathrm{rel}}/\rho$ are $\pm {\sigma }_0/(2t_s)$, about $\pm 2.8942\times 10^4\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. The probability within a moving interval of half-width ${\sigma }_0$ falls from about $0.6827$ initially to $0.5205$ at $t_s$, exactly because of this outward probability current.

Historically, the 1926 Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem (Erste Mitteilung) by Erwin Schrödinger began with the stationary hydrogen atom problem. It distinguishes discrete negative energies from a positive continuous spectrum; it is not yet the general evolution equation displayed above.^[ref] The opening of quantum mechanics discusses its original vibrating-string analogy.

In the 12 December 1933 lecture The fundamental idea of wave mechanics by Erwin Schrödinger, Erwin Schrödinger explains the move from independent rays to waves through diffraction, then applies that analogy to atomic physics. His closing pages explicitly acknowledge the difficulty of reconciling wave language with observed particle tracks. This retrospective physical argument motivates the model; it does not derive the modern Born rule from classical mechanics.^[ref]

The dates separate proposal from measurement: the de Broglie wavelength belongs to the 1924 thesis, the Schrödinger equation to 1926, and the Davisson–Germer experiment's electron diffraction beams to 1927.^[ref] That linked experiment describes the prepared nickel crystal, evacuated electron gun, angular collector scans, retarding-potential selection and heating controls. Its measured collector electric current tests wave-dependent scattering probabilities; it neither measures a wavefunction directly nor establishes this equation uniquely.

The even, spherically symmetric hydrogen atom ground state has no permanent electric dipole, so a uniform electric field gives no first-order energy shift. The electric-dipole selection rules for hydrogen allow odd-parity excited states to mix in at second order, yielding a negative shift quadratic in the field.

Here there is a nondegenerate energy eigenvalue, so second-order nondegenerate perturbation theory applies. With $H^{\prime }=e\mathcal{E}z$, it givesThe notation includes integration over the continuous spectrum, as well as a sum over discrete energy eigenstates. All denominators are negative because $1s$ is the ground state. The positive electric polarizability ${\alpha }_{1s}$ therefore lowers its energy.^[ref]

An independent way to see the coefficient avoids truncating that sum. Define $E_{\mathrm{h}}=e^2/(4\pi {ϵ}_0{a}_0)$ and $f=e{a}_0\mathcal{E}/E_{\mathrm{h}}$. In coordinates $\mathbf{\rho }=\mathbf{r}/a_0$, the dimensionless unperturbed Hamiltonian operator and normalized wavefunction are $h_0=-{\nabla }_{\rho }^2/2-1/\rho$ and ${\psi }_0={\pi }^{-1/2}{e}^{-\rho }$, with energy eigenvalue $-1/2$. Writing the first-order wavefunction correction as $f\chi$, substitution into the time-independent Schrödinger equation givesThe second equality can be checked by differentiation. Its parity makes $\chi$ orthogonal to ${\psi }_0$. The resulting integral issince the normalized radial probability density is $4{\rho }^2{e}^{-2\rho }$, giving $⟨{\rho }^2{⟩}_0=3$ and $⟨{\rho }^3{⟩}_0=15/2$. Converting back to SI units gives the stated electric polarizability. The induced electric dipole moment is $-\partial \Delta E/\partial \mathcal{E}={\alpha }_{1s}\mathcal{E}$ and tends to zero with the electric field, unlike the selected degenerate branches' leading dipoles. Both calculations describe weak-field level shifts; a spatially uniform static electric field also allows eventual quantum tunnelling and ionization, which these real energy corrections do not calculate.

For constant mass $m$, a finite jump from potential energy zero at $x<0$ to $V_0>0$ at $x>0$ requires continuity of the wavefunction and its first derivative. With incidence only from the left and $E>V_0$, put $k=\sqrt{2mE}/\hslash$ and $q=\sqrt{2m(E-V_0)}/\hslash$. Matching $A+B=C$ and $k(A-B)=qC$ gives reflected probability amplitude $B/A=(k-q)/(k+q)$ and transmission amplitude $C/A=2k/(k+q)$. The transmission probability is $(q/k)|C/A{|}^2$, conserving probability current.

For $0<E<V_0$, replace $q$ by $i\kappa$, where $\kappa =\sqrt{2m(V_0-E)}/\hslash$ is the tunnelling decay constant. The right-hand wavefunction is $C{e}^{-\kappa x}$, with zero probability current. Its probability density decays on length $1/(2\kappa )$, while its amplitude decays on length $1/\kappa$. The semi-infinite raised region gives total reflection, unlike a finite potential barrier allowing quantum tunnelling into a second allowed region.

In this fully gapped isotropic BCS quasiparticle spectrum, $\Delta$ is the minimum single-quasiparticle excitation energy. The interval between $-\Delta$ and $+\Delta$ has width $2\Delta$. A process that creates two quasiparticles from the BCS ground state has an energetic threshold $2\Delta$, subject also to its transition-selection rules.^[ref]

For example, two independently created excitations with ${\xi }_1={\xi }_2=0$ cost $E_1+E_2=2\Delta$. With the chosen cutoff example this is $1.46574\mathrm{meV}$, while adding one excitation costs at least $0.732871\mathrm{meV}$. This factor of two matters when comparing photon absorption with the Giaever superconducting tunnelling experiment. Quantum tunnelling from a normal metal can add one excitation to a sample exhibiting superconductivity; with two gapped electrodes, their excitation costs add. A minimum excitation cost is an energetic condition; the measured onset can additionally depend on temperature and on the available transitions.

A thermal distribution of relative velocities weights a nuclear cross-section to determine the reaction rate per volume. Identical reactants require the denominator two to avoid counting each pair twice. Specific deposited power is $r_{12}{Q}_{\mathrm{deposited}}/\rho$. Charged-particle quantum tunnelling through a Coulomb barrier produces a Gamow peak, while resonances and plasma screening can alter the rate.

At fixed positive bias ratio $s=I_b/I_c$ with $0<s<1$, the Josephson coupling energy and work of the ideal bias source combine intoThis is the effective potential energy for an unwrapped Gauge-invariant Josephson phase; it includes the bias source and decreases by $2\pi s{E}_J$ on advancing one period. A local minimum and the adjacent downhill barrier areTo verify the barrier, solve $U^{\prime }=E_J(\sin \varphi -s)=0$, select $U^{\prime \prime }({\varphi }_m)>0$ and $U^{\prime \prime }({\varphi }_b)<0$, and subtract their potential energies. The small-oscillation angular frequency is fixed by the curvature:Thus the barrier and oscillation frequency both vanish as $s\to 1^{-}$, but with different powers. For $ϵ=1-s\ll 1$, expanding $\arccos (1-ϵ)$ and $\sqrt{2ϵ-{ϵ}^2}$ givesThe first approximation is for a nearly critical bias. At $s=0$ the exact downhill barrier is $2E_J$; at $s\ge 1$ there is no confining local minimum in this model.

For those stipulated parameters, direct evaluation gives $E_J/h=496.684\mathrm{GHz}$, $\Delta U/h=29.7670\mathrm{GHz}$, and ${\omega }_p/(2\pi )=2.89608\mathrm{GHz}$. Hence $\Delta U/(\hslash {\omega }_p)=10.2784$. The nearly critical barrier approximation gives $29.6165\mathrm{GHz}$, about $0.51\%$ below the exact result. These are original circuit calculations, not parameters assigned to the historical samples.

Daniel Tsui, Horst Störmer and Arthur Gossard reported the effect in 1982. They grew gallium arsenide–aluminium gallium arsenide layers by molecular beam epitaxy, separating the two-dimensional electron gas from its semiconductor doping. They cut Hall bars and made indium contacts. Low-field measurements established number density and charge carrier mobility. A perpendicular magnetic field sweep measured transverse and longitudinal sheet resistivities at several temperatures. Cooling sharpened the plateau near $3h/e^2$ and the longitudinal minimum at filling factor $1/3$; integer plateaus provided an internal comparison. The longitudinal minimum remained finite at the lowest temperature: zero-temperature vanishing was unresolved. This established anomalous transport, without directly measuring excitation electric charge.^[ref]

The two readouts test different statements. A single intersection with $R_H=3R_K$ would also occur on the smooth classical relation $R_H=B/(n_{s}e)$ at $n_{s}h/(eB)=1/3$. A quantum Hall plateau instead persists over a magnetic field interval. Comparing transverse and longitudinal signals helps distinguish that plateau from a contact-placement artefact; the quantum Hall conductivity tensor inversion quantifies the contamination when longitudinal sheet resistivity is nonzero.

Later, 1997 shot noise measurements associated with quantum tunnelling at filling factor $1/3$ tested the excitation electric charge separately, finding $e/3$. That is a different observable from a Hall plateau.^[ref]

A tunnel diode is a p-n junction with sufficiently heavy semiconductor doping on both sides to make a thin depletion region and permit substantial interband tunnelling. The neutral regions are degenerate semiconductors. Its distinctive forward current-voltage characteristic contains a peak followed by a valley: over part of the curve, increasing the applied electric potential difference decreases the electric current. The Esaki tunnel-diode experiment made this behavior experimentally concrete.

The useful quantity is the local slope, not the ratio of total voltage to total electric current. With conventional electric current $I$ entering the positive-voltage terminal, defineNegative differential resistance means $g_d<0$, hence $r_d<0$ where defined. A forward operating point can still have $V>0$, $I>0$ and absorbed power $VI>0$. A small voltage increase then gives a negative current increment; this does not make the total electric current negative or turn the device into an unlimited source of energy. The external supply sets the operating point and supplies the energy available for an electronic amplifier.

An original idealized construction explains the shape. Put the n-type semiconductor on the left and the p-type semiconductor on the right. Take $q>0$ as the elementary charge and $V=V_p-V_n$. Increasing forward bias lowers the right-hand electron energy levels relative to the left. Denote the two reservoir electrochemical potentials by ${\mu }_n,{\mu }_p$, so that ${\mu }_n-{\mu }_p=qV$. At zero temperature, occupied left-hand conduction band states extend up to ${\mu }_n$; empty right-hand valence band states start at ${\mu }_p$. For transfer conserving electron energy, the available interval isIt is nonempty only when its upper endpoint exceeds its lower endpoint. Both an occupied initial quantum state and an empty final quantum state must exist at the same energy. The Pauli exclusion principle prevents transfer into an already occupied final quantum state.

For the original diagram, choose arbitrary energy units with $E_{c,n}=-0.5$, ${\mu }_n=0$, ${\mu }_p=-u$ and $E_{v,p}=0.5-u$, where $u$ is $qV$ in those units. The available interval has widthThus $L(0.25)=0.25$, $L(0.50)=0.50$, $L(0.70)=0.30$, and $L(1.15)=0$. Initially forward bias opens a transfer window; further forward bias closes it by moving the right-hand valence band edge below the left-hand conduction band edge. This is a state-counting illustration, not a formula for a measured electric current.

For reverse bias, the transfer direction changes: occupied right-hand valence band states can feed empty left-hand conduction band states. In the same construction, $u=-0.70$ opens the interval $0<E<0.70$ for this reverse transfer. A narrow depletion region allows a large reverse quantum tunnelling electric current at small electric potential difference, whereas the ordinary Shockley diode equation predicts only a small reverse saturation electric current before diode reverse breakdown. At zero biasing, equal reservoir occupations give zero net electric current; quantum tunnelling does not require a net equilibrium flow.

A finite-temperature refinement replaces sharp occupation cutoffs with the Fermi-Dirac distribution. An illustrative weak-transfer expression isHere $\mathcal{W}\ge 0$ describes allowed initial/final quantum states and their coupling, and $f_n,f_p$ are Fermi-Dirac distributions with the respective electrochemical potentials. The occupation difference follows by subtracting the reverse transfer factor from the forward one: $f_n(1-f_p)-f_p(1-f_n)=f_n-f_p$. An overlap interval alone does not determine $\mathcal{W}$: transmission probability, density of states, crystal momentum selection and phonons can matter. A complete germanium calculation is more demanding than multiplying two constant density of states factors. At larger forward bias, ordinary carrier injection and diffusion supply a rising current branch even after direct band overlap is lost.

Tunnel ionization is ionization through quantum tunnelling across a field-distorted binding barrier.

A tunnel junction separates two conducting electrodes by a thin barrier through which electrons undergo quantum tunnelling.