Talk:Klein paradox

Archives: Index 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Revamp

Any problem if I rewrite the whole article? I think it needs a massive and a non massive case, a step barrier would be more illustrative and maybe it needs an experimental section (graphene).MaoGo (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article is quite bad and has been bad for some time. I will see if I can find some time to accomplish a rework. 69.136.119.169 (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, just retitle (to Klein tunneling) cut back the paradox blather, and update for recent confirmation with sources, e.g. the recent results in Nature. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Klein tunneling" is not the common name for this topic and not how it is referred to in textbooks. While the Klein "paradox" isn't actually a paradox in the same way the twin "paradox" isn't a paradox either, we should stick with the common name and not champion our own. Agreed on adding newer experimental results on the topic though. 69.136.119.169 (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original issue with the Klien paradox

Echoing some of the statements above, the article needs a new section describing how the original paradox arose, namely, in the context of "nuclear electrons" or the hypothetical electrons people believed were confined within the nucleus until the neutron was discovered (see Discovery of the neutron). There are two main missing elements - (1) a discussion of what people believed from the paradox at the time, namely the curious phrase in Gamow's 1931 monograph "the electron transforms to one of negative mass and escapes", and (2) the issue was hotly debated by Gamow, Bohr, etc. at the time. (and (3) how the paradox was eventually resolved...) The paradox was a main issue for the nuclear electrons hypothesis. The article mentions the issue in the lede (which, I think I wrote that...), but needs a better discussion in the article. As it stands, the article launches into an obscure technical analysis that would be of interest to those who are experts in relativistic quantum mechanics (i.e., few people - I know quite a bit about the topic, and even I find the present discussion obscure!). Bdushaw (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of this sounds like lovely contextual additions to the article. I approve. I also agree that the current incarnation is obscure even to a practicing quantum physicist! 69.136.119.169 (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basis for rewrite

This well cited and easy to follow reference can be the basis for a rewrite.

Holstein, Barry R. (1998-06-01). "Klein's paradox". American Journal of Physics. 66 (6): 507–512. doi:10.1119/1.18891. ISSN 0002-9505

Johnjbarton (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Figures 8 and 9 from

Cheng, T.; Su, Q.; Grobe, R. (July 2010). "Introductory review on quantum field theory with space–time resolution". Contemporary Physics. 51 (4): 315–330. doi:10.1080/00107510903450559. ISSN 0010-7514.

would help explain the issues and resolution.

Fig. 8 shows an incoming wave-packet envelop, a reflected one, and one under the barrier with a question mark. This graphically states the paradox. The caption also uses the term "supercritical potential" to emphasize the paradox is related to enormous potentials unattainable in any lab today.

Fig. 9 shows an interpretation of a resolution as interaction between the incoming electron current and current generated by vacuum disintegration at the potential. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Massless particles

The current article has entitled "Massless particles" with no sources. I plan to delete it since I cannot verify the content. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ReyHahn I think the Massless/massive split in the article is not appropriate. I have not found a secondary source that makes such a split. Rather I think we should discuss electrons and the graphene cases and perhaps the optical case. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The equations for the massless case in this article are highly probably wrong, if you wish to delete that section that is fine. However the massless case is the one that leads to Klein tunneling in graphene and the calculation is much simpler than the massive case. I can add both calculations, but it will take me some time.--ReyHahn (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]