# 1 Model description

## 1 Model description

The initial state of the particle is given by a wave function $`\psi `$ associated with a preparation procedure. In operational terms, an ensemble of noninteracting particles, represented symbolically as $`\{E_0\}`$, is sent towards the barrier -one particle at a time- from the left with identical specifications. (In our calculations the initial state at $`t=0`$ is a minimum-uncertainty-product Gaussian centered at position $`x=20`$, momentum $`p=8`$ and spatial variance $`9/4`$, all quantities in atomic units. The potential barrier is a square barrier with “height” $`V_0=50`$ from $`x=80`$ to $`x=80+d`$ and the particle has mass $`m=1`$.)

Two particle detectors $`A`$ and $`B`$ are located on both sides of a barrier potential, at $`x=a`$ and $`x=b`$. The first one is a passage detector that does not destroy the particle. The second one is an arrival detector. The translational degree of freedom of the particle, $`x`$, is the only one represented explicitly. A simplifying assumption is that only one of the two detectors is working at a time: When the particle is sent to the barrier only $`A`$ is active. Detection of the particle at $`A`$ disconects this detector and activates the second, $`B`$.

### 1.1 First detector: Probability of detection

It can be proved using multichannel scattering theory techniques that the incident channel amplitude (corresponding to translational motion of the particle and the detector $`A`$ in its lower state) can be represented by an effective Schrödinger equation with a complex potential . (In “Event Enhanced Quantum Theory” as described in  the imaginary part of the potential is deduced rigorously from the Lindblad form of the Liouville equation that describes a coupling of the quantum system with a classical detector.) Here the effective Schrödinger equation is written as

$$H\psi (x,t)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2}{x^2}\psi (x,t)+[V(x)+\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)]\psi (x,t),$$
(3)   
where $`V(x)`$ represents the potential barrier and the complex potential, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, is written as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)=\frac{i}{2}g^2(x;a),$$
(4)   
with

$$g(x,a)=se^{(xa)^2/2\sigma ^2}.$$
(5)   
The “intensity”, $`s`$, and “width”, $`\sigma `$, of the detector are adjustable parameters.

The norm of the incident channel,

$$N(t)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\psi ^{}(x,t)\psi (x,t)𝑑x,$$
(6)   
decreases, due to the detector presence, from the initial value $`N(0)=1`$. The total absorption $`1N(\mathrm{})`$ is the efficiency of the detector. It is not necessarily equal to one so the ensemble of particles detected at $`A`$, $`\{E_a\}`$, is generally smaller than $`\{E_0\}`$. The normalized probability density for triggering the detector at time $`t_a`$ is proportional to the absorption rate $`dN/dt|_{t_a}`$. Normalizing with respect to the ensemble $`\{E_a\}`$ it is given by

$$P(t_a|E_a)=\frac{dN(t_a)/dt_a}{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t𝑑N(t)/𝑑t}.$$
(7)   
### 1.2 Effect of detection on the wave functions

It will be assumed, within the spirit of a simplified phenomenological model, that after each detection (a “click”) the state of the particle can be effectively represented by a modified wavefunction. The true final states should be determined by a detailed analysis of the interaction between the system and the detector. Instead we shall later assume a physically motivated functional form. The ensemble of detected particles can be represented by a statistical mixture of such states. This is of course reminiscent of Von Neumman’s projection postulate. However an important feature of a bubble chamber track is that it does not look like a random walk. This cannot be explained with a naive projection localizing the particle position by means of position eigenstates, since a position eigenstate has equal probability to expand in any direction (erasing the memory of the state previous to the measurement) so there would be no tendency to ionize atoms in the direction of the dominant incident momentum . A modified projection postulate correcting this fact has been derived by Jadczyk and Blanchard. The wave function resulting from a click at time $`t_a`$ and consistent with track formation has a memory of the previous state and reflects also the detector properties. A simple expression satisfying these two conditions is 

$$\psi _{t_a}(x)=\frac{g(x)\psi (x,t_a)}{[_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}g^2(x)|\psi (x,t_a)|^2𝑑x]^{1/2}},$$
(8)   
where $`\psi (x,t_a)`$ is the wave function evolved with the Schrödinger equation (3).

To determine the effect of the detector we have examined the momentum average and its variance for the ensembles $`\{E_0\}`$ and $`\{E_a\}`$. Averages over $`\{E_a\}`$ require some care since they imply a a double average: The first one (represented as $`Q`$) is a quantum mechanical average using each wave packet $`\psi _{t_a}`$; the second ($`D`$) is an average over the times of detection $`t_a`$ weighted by $`P(t_a|E_a)`$,

$$p_{E_a}=DQpP(t_a|E_a)\psi _{t_a}|\widehat{p}|\psi _{t_a}𝑑t_a.$$
(9)   
Since there are two types of average different “variances” are possible . For the ensemble $`\{E_a\}`$ the important one is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{DQ}^2DQ[p^2(DQp)^2]`$. (This is a variance computed over detected particles regardless of their detection time .) The average momentum is conserved well (especially by weak detectors) except for very narrow detector widths. For all detectors used in this work $`DQpp_{E_0}`$ better than 0.2$`\%`$. However the “momentum widths” $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{DQ}`$ (square root of variance) may change drastically with respect to the momentum width $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ of the original packet. Fig. 1 shows that wider detectors tend to keep the variance of the original state while narrow detectors give very large variances. Weak detectors (small $`s`$) conserve the variance better than strong detectors (large $`s`$). In summary, in our model weak and wide detectors are the best as far as conservation of the momentum distribution of the original packet is concerned. They are however not very efficient, for $`s=1`$ the absorbed norm goes from $`0.05`$ to $`0.6`$ in the $`\sigma `$-interval of Fig. 1. In comparison the full norm is absorbed for $`s=10`$.

### 1.3 The second (arrival) detector

The second detector is assumed to be a perfect one as described in , so that the full transmitted packet is absorbed. It is located at the right edge of the barrier. Let $`\{E_b\}`$ be the ensemble of particles that produce two clicks at times $`t_a`$ and $`t_b`$ and $`P(E_b|t_a)`$ the transmittance of $`\psi _{t_a}`$, i.e., the fraction of the norm of $`\psi _{t_a}`$ that will be transmitted and therefore detected at $`B`$ . The probability for being detected at $`B`$ conditioned to having been detected at $`A`$ is

$$P(E_b|E_a)=P(E_b|t_a)P(t_a|E_a)𝑑t_a.$$
(10)   
Instead of using an expression similar to (7) the distribution of arrival times $`t_b`$ for a perfect absorber can be approximated accurately by the (normalized) flux without absorber . In particular, for a wave packet $`\psi _{t_a}(x;t_a)`$, the detection probability density at $`t_b`$ in $`B`$, conditioned to having been detected at $`t_a`$ in $`A`$ and restricted to the ensemble $`\{E_b\}`$, is given by

$$P(t_b|E_b,t_a)=\frac{J_{t_a}(b,t_b)}{J_{t_a}(b,t_b)𝑑t_b},$$
(11)   
where $`J_{t_a}`$ is the flux for the state $`\psi _{t_a}`$. Using Bayes’ rule the joint probability density for detection at $`t_a`$ in $`A`$ and $`t_b`$ at $`B`$ restricted to the ensemble $`\{E_b\}`$ is given by

$$P(t_b,t_a|E_b)=\frac{P(t_b|E_b,t_a)P(E_b|t_a)P(t_a|E_a)}{P(E_b|t_a)P(t_a|E_a)𝑑t_a}.$$
(12)   
Finally, the probability distribution of $`\tau t_bt_a`$ is computed, for the ensemble $`\{E_b\}`$, by integrating over $`t_b`$ and $`t_a`$ with the delta function $`\delta (t_bt_a\tau )`$,

$$P(\tau |E_b)=\frac{P(t_a+\tau |E_b,t_a)P(E_b|t_a)P(t_a|E_a)𝑑t_a}{P(E_b|t_a)P(t_a|E_a)𝑑t_a}.$$
(13)   
We have calculated average traversal times $`\tau _{E_b}P(\tau |E_b)\tau 𝑑\tau `$ versus the barrier width $`d`$ for two different weak detectors at $`a`$, both with $`s=1`$. One of them, $`A_1`$, is a wide one and conserves well the momentum distribution of $`\{E_0\}`$. The other one, $`A_2`$, is a narrow detector, and produces a momentum variance which is approximately ten times the initial one. The detector before the barrier is always put far from the barrier ($`a=50`$) to compare with the type of Gedanken experiment performed in ref. , so that the initial packet may pass through $`a`$ before interacting significantly with the barrier, and $`b`$ is located at the right barrier edge. Let $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$ be the averages corresponding to using the two initial detectors $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$. Figure 2 shows that the Hartman effect, i.e. the fact that the average traversal time does not grow with $`d`$ (actually it decreases slowly ) can still be seen with $`A_1`$ until a critical barrier width $`d_c`$ where the “classical passage” of momenta “above” the barrier starts to dominate . When the narrow detector $`A_2`$ is used the momentum variance is so large that the transmission is always dominated by fast momenta well above the barrier (We have independently checked this fact by calculating the ratio between transmission due to energies above and below the barrier energy.) so that the behaviour is the one expected classically, i.e., a linear growth of $`\tau _2`$ with $`d`$. Figure 2 also shows $`\tau _T`$, which is qualitatively very similar to $`\tau _1`$. The relation $`\tau _T<\tau _1`$ is due to the two different ways the average is performed in the initial detector and can be also understood on classical grounds. The right front of the incident packet is dominated by faster momenta and it contributes with more particles to the transmitted ensemble. For computing the later, no distinction is made at $`a`$ between particles to be transmitted or not. (The effect grows with $`d`$ until it saturates when the transmission is purely above the barrier.) Note that $`\tau _T`$ could be negative while the times defined in the present work are always, by construction, strictly positive. The “displacement” of the curve $`\tau _\mathrm{a}`$ with respect to $`\tau _T`$ (note the difference in the value of the critical barrier) is due to the slight difference in the momentum variances.

In summary a two detector measurement of a particle traversal time has been modelled. Passage detectors conserving the initial wave packet momentum distribution still show the Hartman effect.

Support by Gobierno Autónomo de Canarias (Spain) (Grant PI2/95) and by Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (Spain) (PB 93-0578) is acknowledged. J.P. Palao acknowledges an FPI fellowship from Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia.

References

1. L. A. McColl, Phys. Rev. 40 (1932) 621.
2. M. Buttiker and R. Landauer, Phys. Lett. 49 (1982) 1739
3. E. H. Hauge and J. A. Stovneng, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 (1989) 917; M. Büttiker in Electronic Properties of Multilayers and Low-Dimensional Semiconductor structures, ed. by Chamberlain J. M. et al (Plenum Press, New York, 1990) p. 297; R. Landauer, Ber. Bunsenges. Phys. Chem. 95 (1991) 404; C. R. Leavens and G. C. Aers, in Scanning Tunneling Microscopy and Related Techniques, ed. by R. J. Behm, N. García and H. Rohrer (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1990); V. S. Olkhovsky and E. Recami, Phys. Rep. 214 (1992) 339; R. Landauer and T. Martin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 66 (1994) 217; J. T. Cushing, Quantum Mechanics (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994).
4. D. Sokolovski and J. N. L. Connor, Physical Review A 44 (1992) 1500.
5. S. Brouard, R. Sala and J. G. Muga, Phys. Rev. A 49 (1994) 4312.
6. J. G. Muga, S. Brouard and R. Sala, Phys. Lett. A 167 (1992) 24.
7. V. Delgado, S. Brouard and J. G. Muga, Solid State Commun. 94 (1995) 979.
8. J. G. Muga, S. Brouard and D. Macías, Annals of Physics (NY) 240 (1995) 351.
9. V. Delgado and J. G. Muga, Annals of Physics (NY) 248 (1996) 122.
10. S. Brouard and J. G. Muga, Phys. Rev. A 54 (1996) 3055.
11. Ph. Balcou and L. Dutriaux, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 851.
12. C. R. Leavens, Solid State Commun. 85 (1993) 115; 89 (1993) 37.
13. A. Jadczyk, Prog. Theor. Phys. 93 (1995) 631; Ph. Blanchard and A. Jadczyk, Ann. d. Phys. 4 (1995) 583; Ph. Blanchard and A. Jadczyk, Helv. Phys. Acta 69 (1996) 613.
14. The propagation of the wave packets is performed with the discretization algorithm described by S. E. Koonin in Computational Physics (Benjamin, Menlo Park, CA, 1985).
15. J. R. Taylor, Scattering Theory (John Wiley, New York, 1972).
16. L. E. Ballentine, Found. Phys. 11 (1990) 1329; Phys. Rev. A 43 (1991) 9.
17. J. G. Muga and R. D. Levine, Mol. Phys. 67 (1989) 1209.
18. J. G. Muga and R. D. Levine, Mol. Phys. 67 (1989) 1225.
19. J. G. Muga, S. Brouard and R. F. Snider, Phys. Rev. A 46 (1992) 6075.

Figure Captions

Figure 1. Square root of the momentum variance after detection, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{DQ}`$, for $`s=1`$ (solid line) and $`s=10`$ (dashed line). The dashed-dotted line is the reference value of the momentum variance for the original ensemble $`\{E_0\}`$.

Figure 2. Average traversal times versus barrier width $`d`$ evaluated for (a) $`s=1`$, $`\sigma =4.5`$ (dashed line); (b) $`s=1`$, $`\sigma =0.2`$ (dashed-dotted line). The average time $`\tau _T`$ is also represented (solid line).