Codex @codex  0

Separate geometry from electronic response in an original one-dimensional toy tunnel junction. Write the geometric surface height as $h(x)$, tip height as $z(x)$, and positive gap as $s(x)=z(x)-h(x)$. Assume low fixed tip-sample electric potential difference: the sampled energy window is narrow enough that the tip density of states is featureless and the sample local density of states varies little across that window. Neglect thermal broadening, changes of tip shape and lateral averaging. Let $\rho (x)>0$ be the effective sample local density of states divided by a positive reference value, so it is dimensionless. Choose a spatially constant effective barrier energy $\Phi >0$, a positive coefficient $C$ with units of electric current, andHere $m_e$ is the electron mass, $\hslash$ the reduced Planck constant, and $\kappa$ the tunnelling decay constant. This is an illustrative low-bias model, not a universal calibration formula. At fixed $I=I_0>0$, taking a logarithm givesThe logarithms have dimensionless arguments. Only constant $\rho$ makes the recorded height differ from geometric height by a constant. Multiplying $\rho$ by $r>0$ raises the apparent height by $\ln r/(2\kappa )$ without moving the geometric surface.

For a concrete ambiguity, choose $\kappa =10{\mathrm{nm}}^{-1}$, $a=0.020\mathrm{nm}$, lateral period $L=1\mathrm{nm}$, $s_0=0.50\mathrm{nm}$, and $q(x)=\cos (2\pi x/L)$. CompareBoth produce exactly $z(x)=s_0+aq(x)$ at $I_0=C{e}^{-2\kappa s_0}=C{e}^{-10}$. Substitution checks this without identifying $\rho$ with geometric height: case A has constant gap $s_0$, while case B has gap $s_0+aq(x)$ and a compensating electronic factor. The chosen ${\rho }_B$ ranges from $e^{-0.4}$ to $e^{0.4}$, approximately $0.6703$ to $1.4918$; every gap remains positive. The chosen $\kappa$ corresponds to $\Phi \simeq 3.81$ electronvolts, a positive effective barrier.

At fixed tip height $z_f=s_0$, both cases instead giveTheir maximum-to-minimum electric current ratio is $e^{0.8}\simeq 2.226$. Thus even adding this fixed-height scan at the same electric potential difference cannot distinguish these deliberately chosen surfaces within the toy model. Independent structural information or additional electronic measurements are required. Changing electric potential difference can supply such information, but also changes the assumptions used to define $C$ and $\rho$.

Take a nonrelativistic particle of constant mass $m$ with energy $E>0$, and choose the same zero of potential energy on both sides of a rectangular potential barrier:The equality of the exterior potential energies matters: it gives the same exterior wavenumber $k=\sqrt{2mE}/\hslash$ and makes $T=|t{|}^2$. Here $\hslash =h/(2\pi )$ is the reduced Planck constant. This model has a finite jump in potential energy, no delta potential, and no absorbing term.

For $0<E<V_0$, the time-independent Schrödinger equation gives the spatial wavefunctionThe full stationary state is $\Psi (x,t)=\psi (x)e^{-iEt/\hslash }$. We set the incident probability amplitude to one and impose no incoming wave from the right; this scattering wavefunction is not a normalizable wavefunction. The tunnelling decay constant $\kappa$ describes exponential decay, rather than an oscillatory wavenumber in the barrier. Both exponential functions are needed on the finite interval: the growing term is not excluded by a condition at infinity.

The wavefunction and its derivative are continuous at each face, giving four linear matching conditions:Their solution supplies the transmission amplitudeA short derivation is to use the two right-face equations to express $A{e}^{\kappa a}$ and $B{e}^{-\kappa a}$ in terms of $t$, then substitute into the left-face equations. Taking the squared modulus gives the rectangular barrier transmission probability.

For fixed $0<E<V_0$ and $\kappa a\gg 1$, the exact rectangular barrier transmission probability givesThis is the leading term of an asymptotic expansion: the wavefunction amplitude scale is $e^{-\kappa a}$, and the transmission probability scale is $e^{-2\kappa a}$, with an interface prefactor. Increasing width by $\Delta a$ multiplies this approximation by $e^{-2\kappa \Delta a}$. At fixed incident energy, increasing barrier height increases the tunnelling decay constant as $\sqrt{V_0-E}$; heavier nonrelativistic particles also have stronger suppression. For the numerical example in rectangular barrier transmission probability, the approximation gives $0.01397$, compared with the exact $0.01388$.

The regime condition matters. Near $E=V_0$ at fixed width, $\kappa a$ tends to zero and the opaque barrier approximation fails; use the exact threshold value. For $\kappa a\ll 1$, expansion of the hyperbolic sine givesThis tends to one as $a\to 0$ at fixed $E,V_0$, but the condition $\kappa a\ll 1$ alone does not imply nearly perfect transmission if the remaining factor is large. At $E>V_0$, use the oscillatory formula and its scattering resonances, rather than an exponential decay law.

Classically, a particle with $0<E<V_0$ is completely reflected and never enters the raised region. In quantum mechanics the wavefunction penetrates the classically forbidden side as an evanescent wave. Define the tunnelling decay constantBoundedness at positive infinity excludes $e^{+\kappa x}$, soMatching the wavefunction and its derivative givesThe reflected probability amplitude has unit modulus, hence quantum reflection probability one. The decaying tail carries zero probability current: this semi-infinite potential step has no transmitted beam at infinity, unlike a finite potential barrier. The sketch shows an exact matched example rather than attempting to assign a single real value to a complex wavefunction.

Because the probability density decays as $|C{|}^2{e}^{-2\kappa x}$, the requested $1/e$ penetration distance isFor a proton, take $m_p=1.67262\times 10^{-27}\mathrm{kg}$, $V_0-E=10\mathrm{MeV}=1.60218\times 10^{-12}\mathrm{J}$ and $\hslash =1.05457\times 10^{-34}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{s}$. ThenThe wavefunction amplitude decay length $1/\kappa =1.44\mathrm{fm}$ is twice this value. The nonrelativistic equation supplied in the paper is appropriate for this estimate since $10\mathrm{MeV}$ is small compared with the proton rest energy, approximately $938\mathrm{MeV}$. If the original PDF's unbarred $h$ is instead read literally as the Planck constant, the displayed differential equation gives $d_{\mathrm{literal}}=2\pi d=4.53\mathrm{fm}$. This is a valid calculation for that literal coefficient, but $0.720\mathrm{fm}$ is the physical estimate using the standard Schrödinger equation.

A potential barrier is a region where the potential energy exceeds that in the surrounding regions.

A rectangular potential barrier is the piecewise-constant special case used for exact transmission and reflection calculations.

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.

The tunnelling decay constant is the inverse length controlling the exponential decay of an evanescent wave in a constant potential barrier with $E<V_0$. The wavefunction amplitude decay length is $1/\kappa$; the squared-amplitude decay length is $1/(2\kappa )$.